Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 17-06-2017, 16:24   #76
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 Uplander View Post
Do US warships use AIS? My guess is that they would receive but not transmit.
In my experience they *can* transmit, but very seldom do so. Yes, they receive.
__________________

__________________
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, 16:32   #77
Registered User
 
Snowpetrel's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hobart
Boat: Alloy Peterson 40
Posts: 3,919
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by UAEguy View Post
If it wasn't a glancing impact, there would have been far more damage to both ships.
When the Tor Bay T boned the HMS Southhampton (who had just overtaken them then cut accross the Tor Bays bow too close). The damage to the Tor Bay was minimal, mostly just paint. Compamy legend has it she hit the officers wardroom and when they pulled out they had all sorts of souvineers left on her foredeck. I believe she continued the rest of her run without any repairs. The southhampton was an economic write off, the whole ship was bent in half. She was repaired so they didnt have to classify her as a casuality. Ironic since the Tor Bay was one if the few very rare British ships in the area. Friendly fire!

Looks to me like the CS was in a standard slowdown pattern. UMS enginerooms, economisers, shaft generators, and grumpy engineers mean slowing the main engine is not the best option.

If the Ais track is true it shows nothing particularly erratic about the CS's movements from a colregs POV. There appears to be a very slight alteration of course to port by the CS at some stage. This will hurt them if its a standard crossing situation.

I think the point about no AIS on the warship is a good one, if it came through as a small radar target with no AIS the CS OOW might have assumed a small vessel. If he even was watching the arpa carefully enough to notice it. Without AIS you are almost invisible these days to a less than diligent watchkeeper used to seeing everything big pop up as an AIS target.
__________________

__________________
My Ramblings
Snowpetrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 16:44   #78
Registered User
 
Snowpetrel's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hobart
Boat: Alloy Peterson 40
Posts: 3,919
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
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.

Attachment 150052

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.
Good Analysis, my take would be more of a direct "T" impact , but with both ships moving. The CS would have swung around. I think this is where the port bulwarks would have been damaged. This would also have wrenched the port anchor through the warships plating explaining the tear out marks and anchor damage.

The CS propeller would likely have been in ahead for a time after the impact. An engine that size doesn't just stop.

Thoughts go out to the missing crew and there family. Tragic.
__________________
My Ramblings
Snowpetrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:01   #79
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 8,289
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Would the Fitzgerald be equipped with FLIR or Starlight mast cameras and recording equipment?
Pelagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:02   #80
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Phillipines
Boat: Vancouver 27
Posts: 4
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

My be this can be the cause of the incident.....
sv zazen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:04   #81
Registered User
 
Snowpetrel's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Hobart
Boat: Alloy Peterson 40
Posts: 3,919
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel1 View Post
I blame Pu Rondo for not altering course.

Worked out well for me, I was skipper on one of the salvage tugs which refloated the Kowloon Bay.

On the Kowloon Bay, if I remember correctly, it was her skippers last trip before retirement, and it was a bit of a party trip. OOW the worse for wear and asleep, and the look out was absent from the bridge.

Strange but true, the OOW ended up getting a job with the salvage company, and promptly ran aground the first tug he was given command of.
Thanks for this info Nigel, I had often wondered about that rumour about that second mate. It seemed very far fetched, but hearing it from outside the company is very interesting. I have heard plenty of gossip about this incident over the years. Its hard to know whats true. The best two stories are that the OOW and watchkeeper were both alseep, and the ship sat there engines full ahead until (depending on who tells the story) the light from the lighthouse wakes the captain. Or an engine room alarm wakes the duty enginner (high EGT with overloaded engines, Or bilge alarm?)and he can't raise the bridge so wanders up to see whats going on, and finds the ship hard aground, engines churning away...
__________________
My Ramblings
Snowpetrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:34   #82
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Somewhere in Patagonia
Posts: 5,010
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowpetrel View Post
Thanks for this info Nigel, I had often wondered about that rumour about that second mate. It seemed very far fetched, but hearing it from outside the company is very interesting. I have heard plenty of gossip about this incident over the years. Its hard to know whats true. The best two stories are that the OOW and watchkeeper were both alseep, and the ship sat there engines full ahead until (depending on who tells the story) the light from the lighthouse wakes the captain. Or an engine room alarm wakes the duty enginner (high EGT with overloaded engines, Or bilge alarm?)and he can't raise the bridge so wanders up to see whats going on, and finds the ship hard aground, engines churning away...
Watchkeeper was asleep.... lookout just kept on looking out.... duh.... I think it was the engineer and the overloaded engine...

Memorable comment from man in charge of inquiry 'the only alcohol they didn't have on board was light beer......
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:38   #83
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Somewhere in Patagonia
Posts: 5,010
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cate View Post
Aww, that'll buff right out, Frank! Absolute wonder that she was still afloat.

Jim
That's why big ships have collision bulkheads....

That ship, 'Stockholm' was built in 1948, the photo was taken in 1956.. and she was still going strong about 5 years ago...maybe still is....

The ship she hit, "Andrea Dorea', sank
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:44   #84
Registered User
 
El Pinguino's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Somewhere in Patagonia
Posts: 5,010
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

You can find the pdf of the full enquiry here.... https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...85/mair/mair8/

Seems it wasn't even the engineer....
__________________
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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 17:59   #85
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,904
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
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.

Attachment 150053
Seems relatively straightforward - the horizontal cut in the CSX bow is where it impacted Fitz's gunwhale (the deck/hull joint at the forecastle just forward of the superstructure); the raised part of the hull and superstructure then slammed into the portside of CSX's bow. If CSX had managed to get it's engines going astern the bow would have been slewing to stbd. The actual approach angle prior to collision cannot be determined from the damage, and will have to be determined from radar, AIS/CCS/SINS reconstruction.

Not likely that the Fitz would have lookouts on the wings - radhaz. My WAG given time of day, would be Fitz was running some sort of internal drill, some sort of battle scenario for CIC and bridge watches; maybe including engineering drills (think electrical power failure, possible steering gear failure) and the officer of the deck lost the situational bubble.
From CSX's point of view - no AIS from Fitz, possibly no nav lights and (from experience) possibly no or very small radar paint.
Condolences to the sailors' families.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 18:16   #86
Registered User
 
Randy's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego
Boat: Searunner 31
Posts: 668
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
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?
I was in 30 yrs ago but manning is likely similar with 7 on the bridge, Port, stbd, stern lookouts. CIC is probably around 4.
Alarms are not active on radar since they are assumed to be continually monitored.

We see multiple layers of cross checking BRM failures here.
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 19:52   #87
Senior Cruiser
 
hpeer's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Boat: Murray 33-Chouette & Pape Steelmaid-44-Safara-both steel cutters
Posts: 5,199
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Reuters....sad news

Bodies of missing sailors found in flooded compartments of U.S destroyer | Reuters

Quote:
Bodies of missing sailors found in flooded compartments of U.S destroyer

Sat Jun 17, 2017 | 10:44 PM EDT

By Tim Kelly | YOKOSUKA, Japan

The bodies of a number of sailors who were missing after the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship were found in flooded compartments of the damaged ship, the U.S. Seventh Fleet said in a statement on Sunday.
. . .
(Reporting by Tim Kelly and Linda Sieg; Editing by Paul Tait)
hpeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 20:04   #88
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ontario, currently in the Chesapeake
Boat: Hunter 37c
Posts: 137
Images: 2
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

The photos don't show all of the damage as there is damage below the waterline to the Warship. It is possible that the bow wave bulb on the CS. hit the Warship at or close to "T" and the bulwark damage is the result of angle of incidence changing with momentum.
My heart goes out to all of the families and crew who are suffering as a result of this event.
nautitrix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-06-2017, 23:07   #89
Registered User
 
Three Sisters's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 485
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Another angle of the CS


Click image for larger version

Name:	acx crystal.jpg
Views:	175
Size:	270.1 KB
ID:	150062
Three Sisters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-06-2017, 01:23   #90
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 8,289
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

That angle seems to support more of an almost T-bone collision where the tear in the CS bow bow lines up with the crushed structural weather deck of the Fitzgerald.
The bow flare crushed in the CO's quarters where he was sleeping and the ratings below the waterline got hit and flooded by the bulbous bow.

Such a tragedy to die that way.

We really need to know the speed, direction and aspect of the Fitzgerald to understand how this could have happened to such a sophisticated and defensively manned warship
__________________

Pelagic 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 06:01.


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.