US Navy destroyer collision

[transmitterdan]

Hypothetically there could be classified details that directly contributed to the accident. The Navy will not want to disclose information that compromises their classified information. Hypothetically the ship could have been tracking an underwater target (or being tracked by an underwater craft). In such a case the details of the exact maneuvers of the Fitz might be useful to an enemy of the US and Japan.

All of this is hypothetical just to illustrate that there cod be circumstances that might justify withholding details for now. But eventually I think all Americans expect the Navy to issue a report and tell us what they will do to prevent recurrence. If anyone is guilty of a military crime they will punished and we will know that as well.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by redsky49

jtsailit:

While I have followed this thread closely (though not 100%), I have failed to understand your motivation in many of your posts.

Certainly there is wisdom to be gained from this incident, otherwise it is simply the senseless loss of lives, with zero takeaway.

Do you feel compelled to defend the US Navy during their silence on this matter? Are the other posters here out of line? Is this a "You can't handle the truth!" situation?

What motivates you so strongly in this matter? Not an ad hominem criticism, just unclear why such strong opinions in what seems to be a simple matter.

Again, not personal, just trying to understand.

And your opinion is certainly as valid as mine, or any other posters.

And I fail to understand why anyone not in a position to make changes to Navy procedures that could prevent a recurrence thinks they are entitled to all the facts so they can do their own analysis. To what purpose? I agree with what Transmitterdam said in last post. Once all the investigating is finished and digested by the Navy they'll hopefully satisfy our curiosity and tell us in very general terms what happened. Not that us knowing will help save any lives or even change Navy policy, just give us fodder for more discussion.
I've been familiar with countless military flying accidents and they're all handled internally and ive never been aware of a group of Internet posters who are demanding they be privy to details. So I find the behavior of those who feel entitled to this info to be at odds with my experience regarding military airplane crashes.
As you made the distinction, I am defending the USNavys silence but most definitely am not defending the conduct of the Fitz. The important thing that must happen is the Navy most definitely needs to address the causes of this accident and I'm confident they will. But you and I have no role to play in this so have no need to know details. It's not that we can't handle the truth, and I certainly don't suggest the Navy should lie or mislead us. but there is nothing to be gained by giving all the civilians and enemy governments of the world deep insights into just how USNavy ships are run and what other distractions might have led to such a profound failure to maintain situation awareness. The wisdom that is to be gained has to do with Naval procedures, Navy culture and training, and very little to do with how we run our little boats. So, once again, what purpose would be served by us being given all the details of the investigation?

[Jim Cate]

I've been familiar with countless military flying accidents and they're all handled internally

Military air crashes are not exactly analogous to this incident. If a military aircraft crashes into a civilian plane, a situation more like this one, do you not think some public reporting of the investigation would be appropriate? It seems to me that once the civilian population is affected, more transparency is required.

Of course, this does not mean disclosure of classified information...

Jim

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Military air crashes are not exactly analogous to this incident. If a military aircraft crashes into a civilian plane, a situation more like this one, do you not think some public reporting of the investigation would be appropriate? It seems to me that once the civilian population is affected, more transparency is required.

Of course, this does not mean disclosure of classified information...

Jim

Of course air/sea accidents aren't entirely analogous but it's what I'm familiar with and is analogous in many ways. To answer your question, yes I think "some" public reporting would be appropriate in both cases and we certainly have seen that here. When a F18 crashes into civilian property and damages it you will see a photo of the wreckage in your newspaper or on tv and a very generalized statement about what went wrong but nobody demands or expects a public review of F18 flight procedures that led to the crash or a detailed report of exactly what the pilot did wrong, and even if the results of the detailed military investigation were publicized, all those of us who aren't trained to fly F18s would struggle to make any sense of it and would lack the perspective or opportunity to use that info to prevent additional F18 crashes. So what would be the point of releasing more than we already know except to satisfy our curiosity?

[JPA Cate]

The point would be to have transparency on the world scene that the US is behaving according to its contractual treaty obligations. Failure to do so makes us look like a giant bully --at best, untrustworthy-- in the view of much of the rest of the world, and, even, possibly, to some of us Americans.

The reductio ad absurdum is that if one enters in an agreement, and fails to follow through, there are sequelae. Unavoidably. Generally unpleasant.

This is just my take on it, Jim's may be different.

Ann

[hpeer]

Especially when it isn't the first time.

[Pelagic]

It is a shame that what was just a tragic lapse in training/judgement devolves into international criticism of Naval arrogance.

Some will keep putting it in global perspective of the growing tensions in the area, but ironically the attitude of "You don't need to Know" just dilutes the coperation and trust, when most needed.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

The point would be to have transparency on the world scene that the US is behaving according to its contractual treaty obligations. Failure to do so makes us look like a giant bully --at best, untrustworthy-- in the view of much of the rest of the world, and, even, possibly, to some of us Americans.

The reductio ad absurdum is that if one enters in an agreement, and fails to follow through, there are sequelae. Unavoidably. Generally unpleasant.

This is just my take on it, Jim's may be different.

Ann

And what contractual treaty obligations must be satisfied by disclosing the internal workings of a USNavy ship during a period when things obviously weren't going well or the crew were all distracted by something else? Do we really have a treaty which demands this level of disclosure to the whole world every time one of our ships or planes are involved in an accident? Of course not. The US military would never agree to such a broad and intrusive requirement and neither would any other nations military forces. We already have the essential facts, the collision occurred, we've seen the extent of the damage to both ships, and the lives lost.
As far as your bullying statement goes, I find it offensive and absurd, and even a bit ironic since it's you who seem so frustrated that the USNavy isn't allowing itself to be bullied into releasing more info than they deem appropriate. For bullying to occur there must be someone who is being bullied and in this case nobody is. The USNavy is not harassing or pointing the finger of blame at anyone else or trying to force anyone to do anything against their will and they are not demanding anything of anyone or even disparaging anyone. They are merely looking into this incident internally and privately rather than publicly. I'm amazed that you think you have any right to demand that the USNavy disclose details of how this ship was operating, which obviously would also include details of how it should have been operating and exactly why they were so distracted. There's nothing to be gained by all that and there possibly is much to lose since it could involve other nations ships or a mission this ship was in the process of accomplishing or maybe nothing special was going on and they all just fell asleep. Whatever the reason, it's something the USNavy must deal with internally and I'm confident they will.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

.......the internal workings of a USNavy ship during a period when things obviously weren't going well or the crew were all distracted by something else? ................

If that happened then they fell at the first hurdle....

Rule number 1...'when things go wrong somebody must still be flying the aeroplane... even if there is only one person in the cockpit'

Rule number 2... refer rule number 1

Aeroplanes, ships yachts, cars, same rules apply.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

And I fail to understand why anyone not in a position to make changes to Navy procedures that could prevent a recurrence thinks they are entitled to all the facts so they can do their own analysis. To what purpose?. . .

As a representative democracy there is an expectation that any and all citizens of the USA may ask questions about the conduct of all parts of the government including the military. The answers obtained from those questions informing their decisions about what future course of action the government should take and what follow up there should be for past action.

Given that it is a representative democracy not a true democracy then representatives (elected and otherwise) will address the sensitive issues that shouldn't be made public. Following from this there will always be disagreements about where to draw the line on what needs to be kept confidential.

It is noted that the US Navy, which has a interest in minimizing embarrassment, will play a key roll in deciding how much of the accident report is made public.

Probably it will be 50yr or more before we learn all the detail the US Navy has collected if past experience with military accidents are any indication. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds as an example.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

If that happened then they fell at the first hurdle....



Rule number 1...'when things go wrong somebody must still be flying the aeroplane... even if there is only one person in the cockpit'



Rule number 2... refer rule number 1



Aeroplanes, ships yachts, cars, same rules apply.

I agree 100%. Obviously something was very wrong about this crews priorities, but whatever that is, no CFer is going to fix it. All we can do is hope the Navy will address this crews shortcomings and the reasons for them.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Adelie

As a representative democracy there is an expectation that any and all citizens of the USA may ask questions about the conduct of all parts of the government including the military. The answers obtained from those questions informing their decisions about what future course of action the government should take and what follow up there should be for past action.



Given that it is a representative democracy not a true democracy then representatives (elected and otherwise) will address the sensitive issues that shouldn't be made public. Following from this there will always be disagreements about where to draw the line on what needs to be kept confidential.



It is noted that the US Navy, which has a interest in minimizing embarrassment, will play a key roll in deciding how much of the accident report is made public.



Probably it will be 50yr or more before we learn all the detail the US Navy has collected if past experience with military accidents are any indication. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Reynolds as an example.

I also agree with most of this. We vote and our elected representatives and those they appoint oversee our military, not we as individuals.

We ALL want and expect our Navy to do a better job of not running into things but that doesn't mean we all get to peer under the hood, diagnose their problems, and tell them what changes to make. As you say, there will always be disagreements about where to draw the line regarding confidentiality. The really tough part for us civilians is that, since we aren't privy to what about this accident or what the ship was doing must be kept confidential, we have no basis to determine where that line of confidentiality regarding this accident should appropriately be drawn and why. If we all knew what must be kept confidential and why, then it wouldn't be very confidential. So some of us, in the absence of that basis, and depending on our own view of the world, decide it MUST be fear of embarrassment, or the Navy is somehow bullying someone, or is disrespecting another country, etc. that is motivating the Navy to not share more details with the public. I have just been attempting to point out that none of us know why the Navy isn't sharing everything and only they know why, so none of us are in a position to "assume" we know their motivation. Also, other than satisfying our curiosity, since our boats are so different and the equipment we use is so different and the way we keep watch is so different and our " missions" are so different, it wouldn't do us any good to know details of why this crew allowed this to happen.

But without knowing any more details than have already been reported, I believe that the USNavy needs to determine exactly how this could have happened and take appropriate steps to ensure this trend of running into things stops. That's the important thing, not providing info for a bunch of armchair quarterbacks to chew on and then generously offer their "expertise." This accident is a reflection of a USNavy problem and the USNavy must fix it.

Later this month I will be visiting a similar USNavy ship in the Pacific that my nephew serves aboard and I will once again ask what he's heard. But when I spoke with him 2 weeks ago, without divulging any details of scuttlebutt he'd heard, he made no attempt to put the blame for this accident on anyone else outside the Navy.

[hpeer]

I don't hear anyone hear asking for ALL THE DETAILS.

I hear folks asking for an explanation with sufficient detail to be assured the Navy understands the problems and how to fix them.

Firing or terminating careers provides some revenge satisfaction but in and of itself does little to fix the problem.

Think of it this way, the "fix" whatever it is, likely requires some realignment of training as a minimum. More likely some adjustment of procedure. And to be effective it must permeate across the surface fleet. That means the adjustment will be well known to many thousands of sailors.

Now ask yourself 2 questions.

How are you going to keep that secret?

What adjustment was made after the Porter?

[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.