US Navy destroyer collision

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by sailpower

I am following this on another site mostly comprised of retired USN Surface Warfare Officers many of whom have commanded these vessels. They pretty quickly shut down the Wild Ass Guesses that we are seeing here.

I would be interested to hear what these retired USN guys have to say. Could you post a link or cut and paste some of their wisdom here.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I would be interested to hear what these retired USN guys have to say. Could you post a link or cut and paste some of their wisdom here.

None of them are blaming Trump.

Not your kind of place.

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by sailpower

None of them are blaming Trump.

Not your kind of place.

Uncalled for. Shame.

Jim

[Randy]

Originally Posted by sailpower

None of them are blaming Trump.

Not your kind of place.

Funny guy

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

The longer the Navy can put off giving out info, the more people will forget. Since time is on their side, don"t expect to hear anything from the Navy soon.

As far as AIS, well call me old fashioned. When a vessel is within a mile or two, you need to watch it like a hawk. If she changes course, you may have very little time to start your own maneuvering to avoid a collision. By far the worse situation is where one vessel is sloooowwwly overtaking another, which I bet is the case here. A few degrees of convergence and nobody thinks anything is wrong because nothing is obviously changing - until - bang!

This happened to me outbound at night in the Houston Ship channel on the mid watch as Captain on a smaller vessel with a pilot on board. We were in a long straight stretch near Texas City. The pilot arranged for us to overtake a tug pushing a barge on it's starboard side a couple miles ahead. As we got close, I noticed the lights on the tug were staying in line with the distant lights on shore - steady bearing and decreasing range! I mentioned to the pilot that I was not comfortable with the situation - twice - with no response from the pilot. Then, taking my career into my own hands, I altered course to starboard a few degrees and suddenly realized we were almost on top of him and closing much quicker than I imagined! Put the rudder over right full (in a narrow ship channel!) and as soon as we got some swing countered with 20 left and then eaasssed it off. This swung the first the bow and then the stern clear. The mate on the bridge wing could not tell how close we came... The wash probably kept us apart. One thing I did notice as we passed the tug was thick black smoke coming from the stack. I then realized what had happened. The tug eased off on the throttle to let us by quicker, but a light wind drifted her toward the center of the channel. He hooked her up when he realized the danger.

Then came one of the most difficult things I ever had to do. Instead of kicking the pilot's butt over the side, I very formally asked him for the course to regain the center of the channel. I still needed him to get to the sea buoy, you know.

My point is the same that Yogi Beara made: You sure can observe a lot just by looking. But you first have to look! These gadgets can give you a false sense of security. Remember the Andrea Doria!

Do you have some examples of the USN covering up or misleading in these very public instances in, say, the last 50 years?

You yourself have had a USN O-5 command, right?

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Do you have some examples of the USN covering up or misleading in these very public instances in, say, the last 50 years?

You yourself have had a USN O-5 command, right?

Not really an accident like this, but there was a certain lack of sunshine on the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Paul L

Not really an accident like this, but there was a certain lack of sunshine on the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

Correct. Nothing like this or even like subsequent events similar to this.

In other words, seriously?!

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Uncalled for. Shame.

Jim

Did you miss his earlier comment?

No shame on my end.

[Pelagic]

I am only interested in two bits of info this incident.....

1 What was the Fitzgerald's course and speed for the hour leading up to the collision?

2 Did she try any evasive maneuvers in the last 5 minutes?


Whether holding station or running speed and course drills .. whatever happened to these fine young sailors who put their lives on the line to protect or freedoms is a tradgedy and they deserve our support, regardless of fault.

But enquiring minds want to know the basic physical facts NOW, not when some Admiral deems it's correct to release old news.

Enough said!

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I am only interested in two bits of info this incident.....

1 What was the Fitzgerald's course and speed for the hour leading up to the collision?

2 Did she try any evasive maneuvers in the last 5 minutes?


Whether holding station or running speed and course drills .. whatever happened to these fine young sailors who put their lives on the line to protect or freedoms is a tradgedy and they deserve our support, regardless of fault.

But enquiring minds want to know the basic physical facts NOW, not when some Admiral deems it's correct to release old news.

Enough said!

Tragedy for sure but the real deciders will be interested in hearing a lot more than that.

Kangaroo Courts OTOH..........?

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I am only interested in two bits of info this incident.....

1 What was the Fitzgerald's course and speed for the hour leading up to the collision?

2 Did she try any evasive maneuvers in the last 5 minutes?


Whether holding station or running speed and course drills .. whatever happened to these fine young sailors who put their lives on the line to protect or freedoms is a tradgedy and they deserve our support, regardless of fault.

But enquiring minds want to know the basic physical facts NOW, not when some Admiral deems it's correct to release old news.

Enough said!

Well...."NOW" isn't going to happen.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Tragedy for sure but the real deciders will be interested in hearing a lot more than that.

Kangaroo Courts OTOH..........?

Or worse the court of public opinion. Both usually wrong.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Do you have some examples of the USN covering up or misleading in these very public instances in, say, the last 50 years?

You yourself have had a USN O-5 command, right?

USS Iowa.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

USS Iowa.

When viable, that was an O-6 command so your answer is no,

Arm chair Master Mariner, aye.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Not sure that I see 2 day old information as yet being historical.

So far there is no truth. I guess the track will come out well before the inquiry. It will be inconclusive without the actual context of events. I seriously doubt that will stop any conjecture

I am following this on another site mostly comprised of retired USN Surface Warfare Officers many of whom have commanded these vessels. They pretty quickly shut down the Wild Ass Guesses that we are seeing here.

I, too, would appreciate a link.

Here is another Wild Ass Guess: The rudder was put over the wrong way. When I was still shipping out 8 months a year I kept track and it would happen once a year on average in pilot waters. Learned to ALWAYS look at the rudder angle indicator when there was a command given.