Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 17-06-2017, 14:48   #61
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,037
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Two questions for those with direct experience:

Likely Navy manning: 4 on bridge, 4 in CiC, 2 watch keepers on wings?

Automatic alerts/alarms when small cpa - ais and multiple bands of radar?
__________________

estarzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 14:52   #62
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dubai
Posts: 88
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by admiralslater View Post
my interpretation of the collision is that both ships where headed in the same basic direction
Terrible and unnecessary
I agree with this in general, but I assumed a loitering condition for the Navy vessel since that would explain why they did not react.

I'd imagine early morning crew drinking coffee wondering what that beeping sound is coming from.

At the same time, Cargo vessels these days seem to rely 100% on AIS and hardly ever look at the radar unless a 50ft sail boat calls out to them that they are running up their ass and they are under sail in big seas...not that this has ever happened to anyone.
__________________

UAEguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:12   #63
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,037
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Crude look at angle of impact.

looking at the navy vessel . . . . I would guess from this the commercial vessel was coming from forward of the beam. 50 degrees off reciprocal/40 degrees off T bone. I think it is pretty clearly not a hit from behind the beam - both lining up the damage, and looking at the withdrawal tear away area.

Click image for larger version

Name:	<a title=collision.JPG Views: 267 Size: 392.2 KB ID: 150052" style="margin: 2px" />

But I am not sure how that is consistent with the apparent commercial vessel damage more on the port side of their bow. . . . which seems like more of an aft approach.
estarzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:22   #64
Registered User
 
admiralslater's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Toronto summer rest somewhere else
Boat: Outremer 45/pdq36
Posts: 1,002
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
Crude look at angle of impact.

I would guess from this the commercial vessel was coming from forward of the beam. 50 degrees off reciprocal/40 degrees off T bone. I think it is pretty clearly not a hit from behind the beam - both lining up the damage, and looking at the withdrawal tear away area.


Attachment 150052
I agree with forward of the beam . But I think it was aft of a t bone other wise how do you explain the portside damage on the container ship
admiralslater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:35   #65
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,037
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Yea, the ASX Crystal sure shows a hit with it's port side bow, which would indicate a track from behind the beam.

I cannot square the two photos.

It is possible that the Crystal photos have been (accidentally) flipped left/right - I'v seen that happen in the media. Short of that, I am puzzled.

The Fitzgerald photo is correct (I believe) because it is consistent with video of the vessel.

Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpg
Views:	285
Size:	33.6 KB
ID:	150053
estarzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:47   #66
Senior Cruiser
 
Cheechako's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Skagit City, WA
Posts: 21,216
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Unfortunately this doesn't surprise me. Obviously the Navy is "not under command" based on recent collisions, running right onto marked reefs etc. With that damage to their stbd side they were very likely at fault.
Wait... that can't happen! everyone has AIS right? har har har. :>)
__________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted" - Elmore Leonard











Cheechako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:48   #67
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dubai
Posts: 88
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post

It is possible that the Crystal photos have been (accidentally) flipped left/right - I'v seen that happen in the media.


Attachment 150053
What????? Port side is port side if you know top and front of the vessel...especially with writing in the photo.
UAEguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:49   #68
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Somewhere in Patagonia
Posts: 5,013
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by UAEguy View Post
Although it looks like a tremendous amount of damage, considering the size of both vessels, it would appear they were both moving very slowly. So much so that one might have been at anchor or loitering.

My guess is that the Navy vessel was loitering, likely at rest, and the Cargo ship was maneuvering slowly. The cargo ship ran into the Navy vessel.
AIS track of the merchant ship shows her doing 18 knots at the time of the collision... if the navy ship was overtaking at, say, 25 knots and just laid herself under the flare it would be a gentle impact with the sort of slight damage shown in the pics... and yes that is 'slight' damage.
__________________
Simple Celestial https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5blh1rgvi...ation.pdf?dl=0

A little bit about Chile http://www.cruiserswiki.org/wiki/Chile
El Pinguino is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:49   #69
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Oregon to Alaska
Boat: Wheeler Shipyard 83' ex USCG
Posts: 2,328
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

I was on the destroyer side in the Melbourne collision. A lot of casualties are from being thrown by the collision. People asleep just go flying. We had people thrown 35', but that was a direct t-bone. Ship rolled 90. Some people were probably unconscious when their compartment flooded. Others may have stayed too long helping their buddy. We had some that did.
Lepke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:54   #70
Moderator
 
Paul Elliott's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,593
Images: 4
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
I cannot square the two photos.
I think the angle of the superstructure damage on the navy ship is due to the shape of the Crystal's bow. The portside damage on the bow is where it slid into and past the Fitzgerald superstructure. There wasn't much on the Fitzgerald forward deck to scrape the Crystals starboard bow.

I'm not claiming it had to be a dead-on 90-degree t-bone, but I think the visible damage to both ships is consistent.
__________________
Paul Elliott, S/V VALIS - Pacific Seacraft 44 #16 - Friday Harbor, WA
www.sailvalis.com
Paul Elliott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:57   #71
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dubai
Posts: 88
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
AIS track of the merchant ship shows her doing 18 knots at the time of the collision... if the navy ship was overtaking at, say, 25 knots and just laid herself under the flare it would be a gentle impact with the sort of slight damage shown in the pics... and yes that is 'slight' damage.
If that is the case, then the Navy vessel was likely doing the same speed and nearly same heading.

Amazing how a 700 ft ship can sneak-up on a state-of-the-art Navy Ship like that. Just goes to show the human is always the weakest link in every system.
UAEguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 15:59   #72
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Somewhere in Patagonia
Posts: 5,013
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

This is what the front of your ship looks like after you have t-boned someone

http://www.ssmaritime.com/Stockholm-damaged-bow-2.jpg
__________________
Simple Celestial https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5blh1rgvi...ation.pdf?dl=0

A little bit about Chile http://www.cruiserswiki.org/wiki/Chile
El Pinguino is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 16:18   #73
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 8,301
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
AIS track of the merchant ship shows her doing 18 knots at the time of the collision... if the navy ship was overtaking at, say, 25 knots and just laid herself under the flare it would be a gentle impact with the sort of slight damage shown in the pics... and yes that is 'slight' damage.
That is my best guess as well
Pelagic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 16:20   #74
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Southern New Zealand
Posts: 44
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Do US warships use AIS? My guess is that they would receive but not transmit.
Uplander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 16:24   #75
Moderator
 
Jim Cate's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: cruising SW Pacific
Boat: Jon Sayer 1-off 46 ft fract rig sloop strip plank in W Red Cedar
Posts: 14,368
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
This is what the front of your ship looks like after you have t-boned someone

http://www.ssmaritime.com/Stockholm-damaged-bow-2.jpg
Aww, that'll buff right out, Frank! Absolute wonder that she was still afloat.

Jim
__________________

__________________
Jim and Ann s/v Insatiable II now lying Towlers Cove, in Broken Bay NSW for a while
Jim Cate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
collision, Japan, navy

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.