US Navy destroyer collision

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Three Sisters

Yes, well, with that in mind, someone will surely ring you at the nursing home on the release of the report.

In the mean time, it would probably be wise to always keep a proper lookout, make yourself as visible as possible to other vessels, know and follow the rules of the road but don't "assume" the other guy is going to do any of the above and be ready to take whatever action is necessary in a timely manner to protect your vessel. Once (IF) we all see the report, none of that will be more true or less true.

About the only change we can hope for as a result of this accident is that the USN will reemphasize the need for always keeping a proper lookout using all available aids and that lesson will be heard and heeded by all USN personnel, especially by those in command. As someone with military service in my past, I expect that the "attention step" the Navy will take will involve those found to be responsible having any hope for upward mobility in their careers terminated and some may face court martial. But none of us will be in a position to make any of this happen so the only good that might come of us learning all the details will be just to satisfy our curiosity.

[justwaiting]

Not a good look for USA /USN.

Japanese authorities said Monday that they were almost finished with their investigation into last month's collision between a Philippine freighter and a U.S. naval destroyer that left seven Navy sailors dead, but still haven't been given access to data from the U.S. side.

The container ship, the ACX Crystal, and most of its crew were allowed to leave Japan for Thailand on Sunday after repairs were finished. Coast guard officials declined to give details.

A spokesman for the company that owns the freighter, Yoshinori Fukushima, said Monday that the captain and some crew members had stayed behind voluntarily for additional questioning.

The crash occurred on June 17 south of Tokyo off the Izu peninsula in an accident-prone area known for congestion with ships trying to reach Tokyo by daybreak. That is within Japanese territorial waters, but the U.S. military holds the right to investigate its naval vessel and has not cooperated with Japan's investigation, which is allowed under the bilateral status of forces agreement, officials said.

Japanese coast guard officials said that they were still discussing possible cooperation with the U.S. side, but that nothing concrete has been decided and they could not say when a conclusion was expected.

A team of experts at the Japan Transport Safety Board is also investigating the cause of the accident. Katsunori Takahashi, a spokesman for the safety board, has said officials may have to compile a report of what caused the accident only with what information they have. There have been past cases in which the U.S. never cooperated, he said.

U.S. and Japanese officials haven't said whether crew members from the USS Fitzgerald were thought to be responsible for the crash.

The USS Fitzgerald, by far the smaller vessel, was carrying nearly 300 crew members when the ships collided. Severe damage to the right side and bottom of the guided missile destroyer flooded the berths of 116 sailors. Navy divers found the bodies of seven sailors in the ship after it returned to the naval base at Yokosuka, near Tokyo.

Japan almost finished with probe into US Navy ship collision - ABC News

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Once (IF) we all see the report, none of that will be more true or less true.
. . .
the only good that might come of us learning all the details will be just to satisfy our curiosity.

I can think of at least 5 areas where concrete colregs learning could come from the release of the details, which could possibly immediately save lives.

1. Emergency maneuver distance for stand on vessel. The box ship (appears) to have done everything by the book - stand on and starboard at extremis. However a collision still occurred. That raises the (series of) question(s): should the typical maneuver distance for stand-on be increased, should it be increased for vessels not showing AiS, or for suspected navy vessels? Or was navy's maneuver (so bad) such that no action by stand on could avoid the collision?

2. Collision concern signaling. The box ship tried to signal Navy. Did Navy not see the blinking light, or did they see it and not understand it? Would another of the 'standard' signals have worked better (vhf, horn, flare). VHF is a topic actively debated in this context - would be interesting to know if Navy had an effective VHF watch and a call might actually have alerted them. Then, there are new signalling possibilities - like the ability to sound 5 horns thru the contact's AiS or DSC system right in their bridge - again if those were available would then have actually alerted Navy?

3. Turn to Port by give way. I see a lot of people trained up who effectively believe that they should never ever under any circumstances turn to port. Because of their conditioning it does not enter into the realm of possibilities when they are under stress. But, (I believe but dont know) that this case was one of the situations (stand on behind beam to starboard) where a turn to port was correct and possibility they only way for give way to avoid or mitigate the damage. If that is the case, then releasing the details and highlight this would remind people that rule 15 says 'dont turn into/across their bows', it does not say 'only starboard turn allowed'.

4. Distraction and fatigue. We can guess (but not be certain yet) that one or both of those played a part. They are pretty systematic human weaknesses, especially at 2am. That is all well known. But publishing the actual gritty details about how motivated and disciplined sailors fell into this trap helps make it real for others, helps others take it more personally and seriously. Navy has probably studied these factors more (or at least as much) as anyone else. So, it would be useful to know if some tools or trick or procedures were not used (which might be useful for the rest of us to know); or if the book was followed and this still happened, which would be a sober lesson in and of itself. The point here is that details help bring it alive and make it much more possible to believe 'I could have been there but for the grace of god'.

5. Finally, very broadly, even if no-one in the universe learns anything at all specifically from these facts; releasing them would tamp down the release and discussion of 'alternative' facts which might be causing people to learn wrong lessons. Setting the picture straight with the real facts is pretty much never ever a bad thing to do in situations like this.

Originally Posted by justwaiting

Japanese authorities . . . . still haven't been given access to data from the U.S. side.

Simply unacceptable. In fact in violation of our status of forces agreement with japan.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I can think of at least 5 areas where concrete colregs learning could come from the release of the details, which could possibly immediately save lives.

1. Emergency maneuver distance for stand on vessel. The box ship (appears) to have done everything by the book - stand on and starboard at extremis. However a collision still occurred. That raises the (series of) question(s): should the typical maneuver distance for stand-on be increased, should it be increased for vessels not showing AiS, or for suspected navy vessels? Or was navy's maneuver (so bad) such that no action by stand on could avoid the collision? That depends on the precise geometry of the situation. Clearly, the cargo vessel didn't turn soon enough to avoid a collision but we already know that.

2. Collision concern signaling. The box ship tried to signal Navy. Did Navy not see the blinking light, or did they see it and not understand it? Would another of the 'standard' signals have worked better (vhf, horn, flare). VHF is a topic actively debated in this context - would be interesting to know if Navy had an effective VHF watch and a call might actually have alerted them. Then, there are new signalling possibilities - like the ability to sound 5 horns thru the contact's AiS or DSC system right in their bridge - again if those were available would then have actually alerted Navy? You're right that all might be interesting, but if a USNavy destroyer with all their high tech gadgets onboard manages to remain unaware they are about to collide with a HUGE ship, I'd say that flashing lights of calling them on the radio isn't likely to make the difference. If I were in the cargo ship and had time, I'd try all the above, but no matter what the findings of this investigation are, I wouldn't bet my life on any one of them working 100% of the time.

3. Turn to Port by give way. I see a lot of people trained up who effectively believe that they should never ever under any circumstances turn to port. Because of their conditioning it does not enter into the realm of possibilities when they are under stress. But, (I believe but dont know) that this case was one of the situations (stand on behind beam to starboard) where a turn to port was correct and possibility they only way for give way to avoid or mitigate the damage. If that is the case, then releasing the details and highlight this would remind people that rule 15 says 'dont turn into/across their bows', it does not say 'only starboard turn allowed'. Certainly something to consider but what you said above is just as valid whether or not it happens to apply to this particular situation.

4. Distraction and fatigue. We can guess (but not be certain yet) that one or both of those played a part. They are pretty systematic human weaknesses, especially at 2am. That is all well known. But publishing the actual gritty details about how motivated and disciplined sailors fell into this trap helps make it real for others, helps others take it more personally and seriously. Navy has probably studied these factors more (or at least as much) as anyone else. So, it would be useful to know if some tools or trick or procedures were not used (which might be useful for the rest of us to know); or if the book was followed and this still happened, which would be a sober lesson in and of itself. The point here is that details help bring it alive and make it much more possible to believe 'I could have been there but for the grace of god'.Like you, I suspect that fatigue or circadian rhythm issues played a role, but again, that is a very well known danger that all crews who work the "night shift" and for long hours must deal with. When flying internationally, I have often briefed that the reason we have an extra 1 or 2 guys in the cockpit for long international flights is because no matter how hard we try, none of our brains are working at peak performance after staying up pretty much all night so everybody needs to pay attention and back each other up. This isn't a big secret and, while it might be nice to know for sure if it played a role here, even with some of the crew suffering badly from fatigue, they had so many crew members involved in keeping watch that SOMEBODY should have noticed a HUGE ship "sneaking up" on them.



5. Finally, very broadly, even if no-one in the universe learns anything at all specifically from these facts; releasing them would tamp down the release and discussion of 'alternative' facts which might be causing people to learn wrong lessons. Setting the picture straight with the real facts is pretty much never ever a bad thing to do in situations like this.I doubt if too many people even remember this happening unless they are sailors like we are on this site, and most people will only remember that 2 ships ran into each other and some people got killed. I bet we'll learn enough to cover the big issues about why this happened, but I just don't think it serves any useful purpose for us to see all the details for ourselves. I understand you and others think you are entitled to every detail but I disagree and think that just a synopsis will do nicely for us civilians but the Navy needs to analyze ALL the details and make appropriate changes. Whether you or I know exactly what those are won't increase safety at sea even a little bit.



Simply unacceptable. In fact in violation of our status of forces agreement with japan.

I guess we just disagree on who has a genuine need to know the details of this investigations results and who is just curious.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I guess we just disagree on who has a genuine need to know the details of this investigations results and who is just curious.

Perhaps, but it does not really matter because they are required BY LAW (FOIA) to release the report (with appropriate scrubbing).

Of course they may pull some technicality, as they did with the porter report, not to comply with the law. But hopefully you don't support navy intentionally evading the law of the land.

Also, I hope you realize you have not made a positive argument that the report should be withheld. You have argued that releasing it will do little good (on which I and others strongly disagree). But that is not an argument that it will do harm and should be withheld.

I above have made a positive argument it should be released and could do immediate good. Your "rebuttal" seem to be based on the (incorrect) belief that concrete real live examples and details do not help us learn or improve. Rather few educators or process improvers would agree with that.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I can think of at least 5 areas where concrete colregs learning could come from the release of the details, which could possibly immediately save lives.

......
3. Turn to Port by give way. I see a lot of people trained up who effectively believe that they should never ever under any circumstances turn to port. Because of their conditioning it does not enter into the realm of possibilities when they are under stress. But, (I believe but dont know) that this case was one of the situations (stand on behind beam to starboard) where a turn to port was correct and possibility they only way for give way to avoid or mitigate the damage.

Good post and your points echo my own in previous posts.

However, to clarify.....in marine college and simulators we are taught that it is acceptable to turned to Port when the approaching bearing is more than 22.5° Abaft the Beam of the other vessel

In other words, you cannot see either of their side lights.

That particular scenario you describe.. approaching abaft the starboard beam only underlines the professional value of education to have the Navy release the Track of the Fitz NOW, so that we stop guessing and appreciate the final maneuvers

[Pelagic]

I will try and find and post a copy of the Normal Maneuvers versus Escape Action ..... Drawing, which I believe is in Cockcroft

This is for vessels detected by Radar and not in sight.

IF the Fitz was not showing lights it would be valid, but of course those basic details have been withheld.

[hpeer]

Just speaking as lil ol me here.

When someone does something wrong I like to hear them say

"Yes, I messed up and take responsibility for my action."

That gives me some indication that they actually understand the situation. Not proof mind you, but a step in the right direction.

If, on the other hand, Johnny is found standing under a broken window with a baseball bat looking red faced and when asked "What happened?" he replies "I dunno." I get the sense that something is being withheld and a learning opportunity missed.

If Johnny sullenly refuses to answers but runs off to the ball field, well then I get annoyed. If it happens a second time, it's time to reconsider Johnies training and intentions.

1-Porter
2-Fitzgerald

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I will try and find and post a copy of the Normal Maneuvers versus Escape Action ..... Drawing, which I believe is in Cockcroft

This is for vessels detected by Radar and not in sight.

IF the Fitz was not showing lights it would be valid, but of course those basic details have been withheld.

Actually the fitz was reported showing lights. Way back in this thread there was a link to an article where a crewmember of the cs stated that they saw the destroyers lights. Prior to the collision.

[JPA Cate]

Many of us cruisers would say we like people to accept responsibility for their actions. However, we are at a stage in the world where to do so can open us up to various suits. So now, we have crew deaths, and possible wrongful death suits arising out of Navy training. I would not expect complete transparency. It would be nicer to have it, for many reasons, but I think we should wait and see what comes out in the final report. I've read a few of these, and usually they are extremely interesting, with details that have not been predicted in the CF threads preceding them.

Ann

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

Many of us cruisers would say we like people to accept responsibility for their actions. However, we are at a stage in the world where to do so can open us up to various suits. So now, we have crew deaths, and possible wrongful death suits arising out of Navy training. I would not expect complete transparency.
Ann

Hi Ann,
That is exactly why Independent inquiries are required, but as the Japanese board has lamented....the Navy are not cooperating with the basic data.

[hpeer]

Ann,
I think the worry or concen is that the report will either not be issued or will be a white wash. Time will tell.

IIRC, which is usually doubtful, for some long time the British Navy conducted a court martial anytime a ship was lost, no matter how extenuating the circumstances. The CM was their method of doing an investigation so that the facts could be put forth. It protected a good captain as he could always state that the CM had investigated and found him not at fault.

OTOH they would bring a CM at times when they thought the captain negligent. That might be through a loss, damage, or failure to actively engage the enemy. At least one Admiral was hung for not being sufficiently agresive and a couple of captains shot for not engaging in a fight.

I don't know if those findings were all public record at the time or if we only know this in the fullness of time. It's just another way, and maybe a better way, to conduct an investigation.

I wonder how they do it now?

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. At least one Admiral was hung for not being sufficiently agresive and a couple of captains shot for not engaging in a fight....

Poor old Byng... shot 'to encourage the others' ....

The Execution of Admiral Byng | History Today

[El Pinguino]

Courts martial are still the norm in the RN https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...%20Martial.pdf

Four sailors disciplined over 'Nottingham' grounding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And also HMS Brazen... recently sunk by the Brazilian navy as a target..
Sack for officer who grounded ship | The Independent

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

3. Turn to Port by give way. I see a lot of people trained up who effectively believe that they should never ever under any circumstances turn to port.

It is unfortunate that rules of thumb become ironclad mandates. In my view every option is on the table for collision avoidance. Turn left or right, slow down and speed up. Slowing down is an option not used often enough, in my opinion. How can giving more time to build situational awareness, to communicate, to separate be bad?

Originally Posted by Pelagic

That is exactly why Independent inquiries are required, but as the Japanese board has lamented....the Navy are not cooperating with the basic data.

I continue to believe that the sheer inertia of US bureaucracy is the issue. There are many people who can say no and few who can say yes. In modern US government most of the power for "yes" is in committees and not individuals. Whether that is right or desirable does not change the reality.