US Navy destroyer collision

[hpeer]

For those here with a sense of humor only......(all else ignore!)

The bridge crew were in a furious argument over transgender folks in the Armed Services and were not paying attention. The fix is Trumps ban.

[Wotname]

Crikey, it sounds like some here think the USN owns the water it sails in.

One of their very fast, manoeuvrable and well manned warships crashes into a big slow merchant ship in waters in (or nearby) one of their allies and they won't even assist with the rightful investigator (Japan).

We all should be outraged and the taxpayers of USA doubly so. Frankly their complete absolute silence is indefensible.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Crikey, it sounds like some here think the USN owns the water it sails in.

One of their very fast, manoeuvrable and well manned warships crashes into a big slow merchant ship in waters in (or nearby) one of their allies and they won't even assist with the rightful investigator (Japan).

We all should be outraged and the taxpayers of USA doubly so. Frankly their complete absolute silence is indefensible.

Exactly. The incident must be look so undefensiblely bad for the US navy that they dare not release (or allow to be released) any details of their track or else they will look even more incompetent.

Very worrying considering the firepower of these ships. And the past poor record. It makes one wonder what horrific acidents involving innocent civilians are hidden in the US military's top secret folders.

I still suspect the fight or flight instinct took over on the bridge and they accelerated into danger, much like the porter incident.

What I think is really dishonest is the way they allowed the US press to run with misleading stories blaming the ACX for the incident for so long. They clearly had enough facts to know the stories were completely wrong, yet they deliberately withheld the basic facts like the time of the incident to enable the deception to continue for a few more news cycles. This is lying by ommission.

[transmitterdan]

There are a lot of tensions on and under the sea right now. I don't know if that affects the US behavior or not. Time will tell and I hope the Navy cooperates with Japanese authorities.

Regarding the concept of 'you don't need to know because you are not in the Navy' I think that's a bit of a stretch. Using the air accident analogy, if a Navy plane hit a civilian aircraft or a civilian structure there would definitely be an investigation and the non classified results given to the public. Especially if the civilian entity involved can do anything to help prevent a recurrence. I have to believe in this case there is plenty the civilian side can do to avoid a similar accident in the future. All naval collisions are the result of multiple parties taking (or not taking) various actions. Any one of which, if done differently might have avoided the collision. So I don't buy the argument that no one outside the Navy needs to know what and why. But especially the lessons learned that civilian vessels can use in the future need to be released. Hopefully in time they will.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

There are a lot of tensions on and under the sea right now. I don't know if that affects the US behavior or not. Time will tell and I hope the Navy cooperates with Japanese authorities.

Regarding the concept of 'you don't need to know because you are not in the Navy' I think that's a bit of a stretch. Using the air accident analogy, if a Navy plane hit a civilian aircraft or a civilian structure there would definitely be an investigation and the non classified results given to the public. Especially if the civilian entity involved can do anything to help prevent a recurrence. I have to believe in this case there is plenty the civilian side can do to avoid a similar accident in the future. All naval collisions are the result of multiple parties taking (or not taking) various actions. Any one of which, if done differently might have avoided the collision. So I don't buy the argument that no one outside the Navy needs to know what and why. But especially the lessons learned that civilian vessels can use in the future need to be released. Hopefully in time they will.

That's a stretch. WHAT so you suppose a much bigger, less maneuverable vessel can possibly do differently than this container ship did to prevent a more maneuverable vessel that he can't establish contact with from attempting to cross his bow too close? Other than turning tail and fleeing at top speed anytime you get a radar contact that might possibly be a USNavy ship, what could they do differently? What might be unique about this collision that might teach us all a lesson that all the prior ship collisions in maritime history shouldn't haven't already taught us?

[transmitterdan]

And just to clear up some semantics... all indications are that the container ship hit the war ship in the side, not the other way around. That does not mean the container ship was at fault. It probably was not. In the aircraft analogy if a US civilian aircraft hit a bomber there would definitely be US civilian agencies investigating.

[transmitterdan]

We don't know what the container vessel could have done differently because there is yet no public report. That's precisely why I hope eventually we can read one. But to just assert the container vessel was entirely powerless to avoid the collision assumes facts not in evidence. And that's the whole problem if the Navy never releases a detailed enough report or cooperates with Japanese/Philippine investigators

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

We don't know what the container vessel could have done differently because there is yet no public report. That's precisely why I hope eventually we can read one. But to just assert the container vessel was entirely powerless to avoid the collision assumes facts not in evidence. And that's the whole problem if the Navy never releases a detailed enough report or cooperates with Japanese/Philippine investigators

You can ask the container ship crew what they saw and when and what their reactions were and then try to figure out what they could/should have done differently with the benefit of your 20/20 hindsight. But if the more maneuverable ship doesn't have an adequate lookout, isn't transmitting AIS, and then doesn't answer a hail or follow the crossing rules, it's pretty tough to put the blame on the container ship and say they should have done something different. Maybe the container ship could have somehow avoided the accident, but since you'll never find yourself in that same geometry at that same speed in a vessel with the same degree of maneuverability, I don't see how that's going to help you avoid running into someone. I get that you're curious (me too), but why not just say that instead of making up all these justifications for "needing" to know.

[hpeer]

Jtsailjt,

Just to be ornery for a moment,

We had the Porter incident a couple of years ago
No report was ever released
No one seem to be able to point to some changed policy because of that incident
Now we have a second incident of outwardly and broadly similar nature
Navy again seems to be stone walling
There is no evidence, no scuttlebutt, of changed procedures at some period of time from the accident.
Given the number of sailors involved news would leak out. The Air Force will have a stand down day occassionally, when some serious incident occurs.


From that sequence of events one could be forgiven for being suspicious that the Navy is on top of their situational awareness. You might conclude the senior brass is exhibiting no situational awareness of how their ships are handled.

This all seems to point to some systematic issue the Navy can not handle. If they were taking steps to handle it there would be some evidence, some leakage.

As a minimum they should man up and own the proble and say they are working on it.

[Pelagic]

As a comparison to the freedom of information in most marine incidents.

This AIS video graphic was supplied less than 36hrs after the incident

http://gcaptain.com/watch-ais-animat...eid=0a4d88d4b5

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

As a comparison to the freedom of information in most marine incidents.

This AIS video graphic was supplied less than 36hrs after the incident

WATCH: AIS Animation Shows CSCL Jupiter Grounding and Salvage – gCaptain

That isn't something released by the owners or flag or port but just a Marinetraffic type record... if Fitzgerald had been running AIS we would have had the same info available in this case.

We have no idea what happened on the ship to cause her to run aground but as the same thing happened to a sister in the Elbe not that long ago I suspect equipment failure.. or a 'press the button!... what button?... the blue button!!!! what blue button? the blue button on the left!!!!!!!!! on the left of what????? oh sh1t.......' sort of scenario

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

That isn't something released by the owners or flag or port but just a Marinetraffic type record... if Fitzgerald had been running AIS we would have had the same info available in this case.

That is actually my point

I am 99% sure that Japan Marine Traffic Authority already has a Radar Track history of all vessels in their coastal waters

Synchronizing Fitz:s radar target with AIS will have produced a similar animation.
...But this has been withheld...?
Why?...... Again all I can think of is Naval bullying.

Failure of crew or companies to cooperate in a marine enquiry/inquest is rare and contemptible, but it happens....
Suppressing track history, which should be public knowledge, takes a wholly different level of arrogance.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

That is actually my point

I am 99% sure that Japan Marine Traffic Authority already has a Radar Track history of all vessels in their coastal waters

Synchronizing Fitz:s radar target with AIS will have produced a similar animation.
...But this has been withheld...?
Why?...... Again all I can think of is Naval bullying.

Failure of crew or companies to cooperate in a marine enquiry/inquest is rare and contemptible, but it happens....
Suppressing track history, which should be public knowledge, takes a wholly different level of arrogance.

Maybe the track is being withheld because releasing the track would make it obvious to all exactly what the Fitz was doing, or at least let the whole world have a good idea what managed to distract them all to the point where they got involved in this collision. But never mind those possibilities, all you can think of is "Naval bullying" without identifying WHO is being bullied and in what way. You've really should try to get this bullying idea out of YOUR head and you'll probably be a lot happier. The USNavy isn't bullying anyone, not pressuring anyone, and not even asking anything of anyone, just running an independent internal investigation about why one of their ships allowed itself to get into a bad situation resulting in expensive damage and loss of life without publicly disclosing more details than we need (there was a collision and tragic loss of life and it's being looked into). That's what really needs to be investigated and rectified and it's the Navy that really needs that info so they can address the problem(s), not you or me. Maybe you should ask yourself WHY you feel the need to repeatedly use such harsh words as "bully," "arrogant," and "contemptible" just because the USNavy has chosen to learn exactly what happened independently, without releasing details to the whole world, details BTW that would be very unlikely to help those of us who don't drive Navy destroyers for a living avoid a similar accident in the future. You're curious and apparently very frustrated because you aren't getting all the info you feel you should be "entitled" to. But from the Navy's perspective, what do they (we) have to gain by telling you and me all sorts of details about how they run their ships that we'd need to understand in order to have any sort of perspective or understanding about what exactly went wrong aboard the Fitz leading up to this accident. It's their problem, and they need to fix it.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Maybe the track is being withheld because releasing the track would make it obvious to all exactly what the Fitz was doing, or at least let the whole world have a good idea what managed to distract them all to the point where they got involved in this collision. .

That is quite a stretch to imply that the track of this colision has national security implications.

Sorry I don't buy it!

Nor can I come up with another word or reason why that track is being withheld by the Japanese Authorities.

We will just have to respectfully disagree on this subject.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Maybe the track is being withheld because releasing the track would make it obvious to all exactly what the Fitz was doing, or at least let the whole world have a good idea what managed to distract them all to the point where they got involved in this collision. But never mind those possibilities, all you can think of is "Naval bullying" without identifying WHO is being bullied and in what way. You've really should try to get this bullying idea out of YOUR head and you'll probably be a lot happier. The USNavy isn't bullying anyone, not pressuring anyone, and not even asking anything of anyone, just running an independent internal investigation about why one of their ships allowed itself to get into a bad situation resulting in expensive damage and loss of life without publicly disclosing more details than we need (there was a collision and tragic loss of life and it's being looked into). That's what really needs to be investigated and rectified and it's the Navy that really needs that info so they can address the problem(s), not you or me. Maybe you should ask yourself WHY you feel the need to repeatedly use such harsh words as "bully," "arrogant," and "contemptible" just because the USNavy has chosen to learn exactly what happened independently, without releasing details to the whole world, details BTW that would be very unlikely to help those of us who don't drive Navy destroyers for a living avoid a similar accident in the future. You're curious and apparently very frustrated because you aren't getting all the info you feel you should be "entitled" to. But from the Navy's perspective, what do they (we) have to gain by telling you and me all sorts of details about how they run their ships that we'd need to understand in order to have any sort of perspective or understanding about what exactly went wrong aboard the Fitz leading up to this accident. It's their problem, and they need to fix it.

I agree that it is not you or me that needs the info but the information should be made available to the relevant authority that is responsible for the investigation.

In this instance, this is Japan. Withholding the track data from the proper investigators could be described as "bullying" or worse.

Sure the USN can run it's own internal investigation concurrent with any other investigation but it can't considered as the only true or rightful investigator. And sure, they can withhold classified data where necessary but right now they are withholding all data.