Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only info we have thats for sure is the ACX Crystal path and speed.
We know they suddenly made a 90 deg turn to starboard then a few mins later a 90 deg turn to port and resumed the previous track they were on at speed for 10 or 15 mins (i forget which).
Now...If its like this Capt says and he warned the Fitz and that maneuver was to dodge...then its really stupid of them to power through a collision and carry on at full speed. It would be inconceivable.
Whats much more likely is that the first turn was a course correction to get back on track by the auto-pilot because the ACX had hit the Fitz. Then the ACX turned back on course and resumed its previous track at speed. Someone on the crew, that probably should have been awake already, got up and finally figured out what happened and killed the auto-pilot and turned the ship around.
To be clear..I think this is squarely on the shoulders of the Fitz. Its everyones responsibility to avoid collisions at sea but that container ship had the right of way. I am still baffled at how the Fitz's crew on deck screwed this up so bad. Its not like there was a one person fault. Someone should have had eyes on that container ship, someone else should have had it on radar and the OOD should have had eyes on both of them.
I dunno how these surface ships in the Navy operate but don't they have a guy or 2 at a large Nav board that has the current charts projected on it with the ship in the middle and all other contacts marked and classified by radar and visual?
In trying to understand this collision and explain it, the only somewhat reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that the Bay was full of all kinds of vessels of all sizes. In that case, had you drawn a 2,000 yard circle around the USS Fitzgerald, there would have been numerous contacts on the bridge radar screen(s) inside and outside that circle. All of the lookouts on the bridge wings, the bow and the stern, as well as bridge would have become overloaded with information, some of it conflicting. Avoiding small fishing vessels, close in and dead ahead, that might not have appeared on the radar or the human eye, could have pre-occupied all these people. Remember it was night-time. It would have become an OOD nightmare. In that kind of situation, anything can happen.
But why was the CO asleep in his day-time stateroom at night in busy waters and not awake, in control of the deck and the con? That is unthinkable to me. Every CO I worked under in my time gave us clear orders to call him to the bridge, under these circumstances; and, in similar situations we countered in WestPac, would have already been there, knowing in advance that things might get tricky. That would not necessarily have saved the day, either.
As it stands, now, with reports that the merchant ship gave signal warnings to the Fitzgerald before the collision and then radically (if that's possible for a container ship of its size) maneuvered to avoid the collision, the OOD must have screwed up mentally multiple times.
What's your guess: an internal casualty that occupied his mind, hangover,.....?
Ships can and often stay and operate in those heavy traffic lanes for days and even weeks at a time; the CO cannot stay awake that long. Speaking for the SSBN only, the CO often (and basically every time I can remember) does not take the conn except in a battle stations type situation
The only info we have thats for sure is the ACX Crystal path and speed.
We know they suddenly made a 90 deg turn to starboard then a few mins later a 90 deg turn to port and resumed the previous track they were on at speed for 10 or 15 mins (i forget which).
Now...If its like this Capt says and he warned the Fitz and that maneuver was to dodge...then its really stupid of them to power through a collision and carry on at full speed. It would be inconceivable.
Whats much more likely is that the first turn was a course correction to get back on track by the auto-pilot because the ACX had hit the Fitz. Then the ACX turned back on course and resumed its previous track at speed. Someone on the crew, that probably should have been awake already, got up and finally figured out what happened and killed the auto-pilot and turned the ship around.
To be clear..I think this is squarely on the shoulders of the Fitz. Its everyones responsibility to avoid collisions at sea but that container ship had the right of way. I am still baffled at how the Fitz's crew on deck screwed this up so bad. Its not like there was a one person fault. Someone should have had eyes on that container ship, someone else should have had it on radar and the OOD should have had eyes on both of them.
I dunno how these surface ships in the Navy operate but don't they have a guy or 2 at a large Nav board that has the current charts projected on it with the ship in the middle and all other contacts marked and classified by radar and visual?
This is what an early assessment by some expert or another concluded by observing the GPS tracking data; the auto-pilot was driving the Crystal with no one on the bridge, or at least no one with the training of how to overcome it.
That resulted in me suggesting taking the Captain's assertion he was warning via aimed spotlights with a grain of salt. If you were actively warning of a collision prior to it happening but then resume your course and regain speed AFTER said collision occurs to then take 6 miles and a half hour to turn back .........kinda says either simultaneously chewing gum and walking is above his pay grade or he's lying though his teeth not wanting the owners to know he frequently transitions busy waterways without a trained bridge watch.
The navy will rightly focus on the Fitz and her crew's actions prior to the event, as it should to prevent another terrible tragedy of lives lost through a combination of negligence and unfortunate coincidence.
......... to then take 6 miles and a half hour to turn back .........kinda says either simultaneously chewing gum and walking is above his pay grade or he's lying though his teeth not wanting the owners to know he frequently transitions busy waterways without a trained bridge watch.......
Well, two things......and then one more.
Something I learned, long ago, when I was involved with boarding operations for merchant ships. Some of those ships have one screw with an extremely long wind up time to speed. That's where their operating efficiency is in a slow climb to their cruising speed which they can then maintain for a very long while. We came across one ship, decades ago in the heave to affair, where that was the story in that it would take him about an hour to slow down to boarding speed.
Now, that was not an emergency situation and I don't know if a merchant could slow down faster.
Secondly, if you have two ships going in opposite directions, 6 miles might come very fast. Was the Fitzgerald still moving in the other direction? How soon was it dead in the water? Just something to keep in mind.
Finally, something else I learned very early when I was in the merchant pipeline. The Captain of a merchant is not a member of the crew........he's an agent for the company.
Something I learned, long ago, when I was involved with boarding operations for merchant ships. Some of those ships have one screw with an extremely long wind up time to speed. That's where their operating efficiency is in a slow climb to their cruising speed which they can then maintain for a very long while. We came across one ship, decades ago in the heave to affair, where that was the story in that it would take him about an hour to slow down to boarding speed.
Now, that was not an emergency situation and I don't know if a merchant could slow down faster.
Secondly, if you have two ships going in opposite directions, 6 miles might come very fast. Was the Fitzgerald still moving in the other direction? How soon was it dead in the water? Just something to keep in mind.
Finally, something else I learned very early when I was in the merchant pipeline. The Captain of a merchant is not a member of the crew........he's an agent for the company.
Good info.
You've added another consideration though, as it has been stated that the Crystal made a sharp almost right angle turn, either as a result of hitting the Fitz or in a futile effort to evade just before hitting the destroyer before resuming course and speed. In that respect the Crystal was already slowed and simply ringing engines stop would be easy enough to do.
I believe they were travelling roughly parallel on a converging course.
Careful engineering crew don't just pile on the RPM letting the ship come up to speed while props are cavitating but rather bring RPM's up slowly to avoid unnecessary stress on gear reduction boxes and on shaft thrust bearing assemblies. I'm also sure a computer's software would have current speed vs higher RPM demands programmed as well.
Another poster hypothesized merely hitting the Fitz at cruise speed would not have resulted in a heavy freighter performing such a sharp turn so once again it was either already slowed and could have simply stopped engines to remain in the area IF someone was one the bridge.
Now I'm left wondering if the freighter had slowed down prior to the collision which would lend credence to it's captain being on the bridge frantically trying to warn the Fitzgerald of a pending close encounter of the "bump" kind. Why, if that was the case would he allow resumption of course and speed when shutting it down would have been the far more relevant decision.
Wouldn't a captain have had to attain numerous certifications and 'time in categories' working up to that rank, regardless of employee's job description?
I'm still confused as all get out with what seems to be contradictory information as it applies to the Crystal's GPS course/speed tracking info and her Captain's stated behaviour.
..........Wouldn't a captain have had to attain numerous certifications and 'time in categories' working up to that rank, regardless of employee's job description?
........
Depends on what country licenses him or her.
"Flags of Convenience" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience can leave a lot, A LOT, to be desired. 40ish years ago, the joke was (but it was probably not far from true) in such countries as getting one's license in the mail ..... or in a cereal box.
Further, one must keep in mind that when it comes to a merchant vessel, one isn't talking about a US warship where one goes through division officer, department head, XO, then CO positions. One isn't talking about Surface Warfare Officer where they have to know everything about the ship.
The commander of the destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the executive officer have been permanently detached from the ship and face non-judicial punishment over the deadly collision in June with a container ship, the Navy announced Thursday.
Cmdr. Bryce Benson, commander of the Fitzgerald, and Cmdr. Sean Babbitt, the executive officer, are "being detached for cause," meaning that the Navy "has lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead," Adm. Bill Moran, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, said during a press conference.
Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of the 7th Fleet, has also decided that the top enlisted sailor aboard the Fitzgerald and several other sailors on the watch crew at the time of the collision on June 17 will also face non-judicial punishment, Moran said.
Sounds like discipline/order problem on the ship, lots of watch crew not doing their job.
Quote:
Aucoin ruled that "serious mistakes were made by the crew," Moran said.
Without a doubt.
from another source
Quote:
In addition to relieving the warship’s top leadership, “several junior officers were relieved of their duties due to poor seamanship and flawed teamwork as bridge and combat information center watch standers,”
looks like they are gonna nail any leader in the chain of command as well as the enlisted who screwed up.
Coincidence, 2 ships both hit mid section, both by Asian controlled boats, many rumors spreading about planned deliberate attacks approved by Chinese leaders.
Coincidence, 2 ships both hit mid section, both by Asian controlled boats, many rumors spreading about planned deliberate attacks approved by Chinese leaders.
From the point of view of the US Navy, the problem is destroyers shouldn't let tankers "sneak" up on them even deliberately. Especially deliberately.
The US Navy confirmed Wednesday it had sacked the commander of its Seventh Fleet after a deadly collision between a destroyer and a tanker off Singapore, the latest of several accidents involving an American warship in Asian waters.
Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin was relieved “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command”, a navy statement said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
