Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 26-07-2017, 09:32   #661
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 12,120
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captsteve53 View Post
From a retired Navy guy re manning levels just for info, and yes the point is that commercial vessels may have three on the bridge at night (if your lucky) but a warship close to land or approaches:

QUOTE::The bridge team then consisted of:
1)The Officer of the Deck who was in charge during his watch.
2)Sometimes a Jr. Officer of the Deck to assist him.
3)A Quartermaster - a petty officer to help with navigation and kept the log.
4)A Boatswain mate of the watch in charge of the other enlisted watch standers. He also ensured that the people under him rotated their positions every 15 minutes to keep them alert.
5)The Helmsman - actually steers the ship.
6)The Lee Helmsman - controls the ships speed
7)The port lookout - on the port wing of the Bridge
8)The Starboard Lookout - on the Starboard wing of the Bridge.
9)The After Lookout - who was stationed on the 02 deck in the aft part of the ship.
10)There was also a Signalman in the Signal Shack just slightly aft of the Bridge
That close to port shouldnt the sea and anchor detail also have been set?
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 10:44   #662
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,852
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captsteve53 View Post
From a retired Navy guy re manning levels just for info, and yes the point is that commercial vessels may have three on the bridge at night (if your lucky) but a warship close to land or approaches:

QUOTE::The bridge team then consisted of:
1)The Officer of the Deck who was in charge during his watch.
2)Sometimes a Jr. Officer of the Deck to assist him.
3)A Quartermaster - a petty officer to help with navigation and kept the log.
4)A Boatswain mate of the watch in charge of the other enlisted watch standers. He also ensured that the people under him rotated their positions every 15 minutes to keep them alert.
5)The Helmsman - actually steers the ship.
6)The Lee Helmsman - controls the ships speed
7)The port lookout - on the port wing of the Bridge
8)The Starboard Lookout - on the Starboard wing of the Bridge.
9)The After Lookout - who was stationed on the 02 deck in the aft part of the ship.
10)There was also a Signalman in the Signal Shack just slightly aft of the Bridge
Not sure where you got 16 people from then?
Of those listed above, 9 and 10 aren't on the Bridge. No. 2 is optional. No. 4 might not be on the bridge either - out doing rounds, making shakes, checking on cleaning stations. Given night steaming, they might have stood down no. 6, and could have sent either or both bridge lookouts down to do cleaning stations too. As I said, between 3 and 8 on the Bridge, with as few as 1 person doing the job of looking out.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 12:33   #663
Senior Cruiser
 
hpeer's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Between Caribbean and Canada
Boat: Murray 33-Chouette & Pape Steelmaid-44-Safara-both steel cutters
Posts: 8,506
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Does CIC crew count? That might make 16.
hpeer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 15:30   #664
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,033
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

^^ Various people who have actually sailed on AB destroyers have said the bridge and CiC would have been 'fully' manned in that situation (nighttime moderately crowded coastal waters). The JC has said that their understanding was that Fitz bridge and CiC were 'fully manned' - and they have specifically said that there were 3 lookouts on duty.

But you have a vessel with +275 crew in moderately crowded waters. If they had much of the watch 'checking cleaning stations' that would seem to suggest something in of itself.

In any/either case, a (probably many) very significant failure(s) occurred.

note: btw - those folks who have actually crewed on AB destroyers say they do have AiS, and it is usually receiving, and it is 'usually' repeated on the bridge navigation display.
estarzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 18:02   #665
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 2,123
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelagic View Post
This is where I differ with that mindset....I guess I'm not a very good soldier when it comes to blindly accepting that "superiors" do not need to explain to me why there was such a major screw up.

Or why the crew need to be treated with Kidd gloves in what should be a public enquiry.

In the extreme the message is... While wearing our uniform, you can be guilty of anything and we will protect you from being outed.

That is not our democratic way of values and yes I know.......
...the military is not a democracy
Why do you care and why does it matter who the individuals are? Do you want them in stocks in the public square, or the modern day equivalent? Is THAT what you mean by "our democratic way of values?"

The important thing is that the accident is properly investigated and appropriate lessons learned and changes to personnel or rules governing watchkeeping or monitoring equipment or whatever else is found to be a cause is properly addressed to ensure something like this doesn't happen again. I'm very confident that will happen. Telling you or me the names of the sailors involved and exactly what they should have been doing but didn't do isn't going to help avoid a repeat occurrence even a little bit and would serve no purpose except to satisfy your curiosity.
jtsailjt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 18:18   #666
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 10,280
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

According to previous posts and well meaning articles by Naval advisors, there seems to be a systematic failure in what the Navy has done so far to maintain proper bridge management during normal patrols in friendly waters.

So transparency of that failure, discussing the problem and treating the sailors fairly but openly in a public forum as would be the case with any other professional mariner in a high profile inquest ....would be a good message to both the taxpayer and the recruit, that this investigation is not part of an 'old boys school' but that COLREGS matters are under public domain.

War games and conflict zones obviously excluded.

Perhaps that would help them to solve the problem.
Pelagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 20:54   #667
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,852
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
^^ Various people who have actually sailed on AB destroyers have said the bridge and CiC would have been 'fully' manned in that situation (nighttime moderately crowded coastal waters). The JC has said that their understanding was that Fitz bridge and CiC were 'fully manned' - and they have specifically said that there were 3 lookouts on duty.
"Fully manned" really needs to be taken in context. When a ship is in the 1st degree, (at battle stations, or emergency stations) everyone in the ship is awake and every conceivable piece of equipment is manned. Obviously you cannot maintain that posture for very long. If not engaged in battle, damage control, pilotage (exit/entering harbour), they can be in the 2nd degree - where sensors and weapons are ready and sufficiently manned to respond to a threat. This is a state that can be maintained indefinitely, with the deck and combat departments working 1 in 2 - half are on watch, while the other half eat, sleep, whatever. While not half of the entire ship's company, it's a significant portion of the crew that is sleeping at any given time. This is a state where you could patrol an area of operations, but basic administration and housekeeping in the ship suffer, and some training has to be curtailed. Out of a war-zone, it is more typical to assume a lower posture, with a much smaller number of persons on watch at any given time, with anyone off-watch working through the day (admin, individual training, etc.).

As you can well imagine, that while on paper it is required to have 3 lookouts, if you're in the middle of the Pacific and haven't seen another ship in a week, 3 lookouts would be overkill and you could stand 1, 2 or even all 3 down. Obviously, you and I might not think it prudent to do such a thing in a busy shipping zone, but a less-experienced officer, or perhaps one that is over-confident might do just that.

As to night-time cleaning stations - how easy do you think it is to wax the deck in the main flats (the main hallway that runs the length of the ship) with 275 crew up and about? Not very, that's why they do it at night with the watch on deck, while the rest of ship is sleeping.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 21:57   #668
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,852
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by estarzinger View Post
The JC has said that their understanding was that Fitz bridge and CiC were 'fully manned' - and they have specifically said that there were 3 lookouts on duty.
Where have you seen that stated?
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 22:25   #669
Moderator
 
Adelie's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: La Ciudad de la Misión Didacus de Alcalá en Alta California, Virreinato de Nueva España
Boat: Cal 20
Posts: 20,490
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
. . . As you can well imagine, that while on paper it is required to have 3 lookouts, if you're in the middle of the Pacific and haven't seen another ship in a week, 3 lookouts would be overkill and you could stand 1, 2 or even all 3 down. Obviously, you and I might not think it prudent to do such a thing in a busy shipping zone, but a less-experienced officer, or perhaps one that is over-confident might do just that. . . .
On a military surface ship ship, there is never going to be time a lookout shouldn't be posted, even mid-ocean. Except, maybe, the middle of the night during heavy weather, and even then I could see it still being a requirement.
__________________
Num Me Vexo?
For all of your celestial navigation questions: https://navlist.net/
A house is but a boat so poorly built and so firmly run aground no one would think to try and refloat it.
Adelie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-07-2017, 22:37   #670
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: 21,154
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Except, maybe, the middle of the night during heavy weather, and even then I could see it still being a requirement.
To me, that is when extra vigilance is required. But of course, noot applicable to the Fitz issue.

Jim
__________________
Jim and Ann s/v Insatiable II, lying Port Cygnet Tasmania once again.
Jim Cate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2017, 01:06   #671
CF Adviser
 
Pelagic's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Boat: Van Helleman Schooner 65ft StarGazer
Posts: 10,280
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Hi Jim,.... Posting lookouts in heavy weather used to be one of those Oral questions favored by the examiners when being tested for higher licenses.

What they were after in an acceptable answer was due consideration for the safety and reasonable comfort of the lookout.

We nicknamed those the Bligh questions
Pelagic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2017, 01:20   #672
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: 21,154
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelagic View Post
Hi Jim,.... Posting lookouts in heavy weather used to be one of those Oral questions favored by the examiners when being tested for higher licenses.

What they were after in an acceptable answer was due consideration for the safety and reasonable comfort of the lookout.

We nicknamed those the Bligh questions
Ho, ho... Bligh questions! But there are some differences in mores and practices and for that matter, missions between merchant and military training and sailors. I've never served in the military, but I don't think comfort and even safety come above the mission in the Navy.

Anyhow, in the Fitz's case, evil conditions were not an issue...

BTW, if you answered the Bilgh questions wrongly, did they rig the gratings and get out the cat? Tough school...

Jim
__________________
Jim and Ann s/v Insatiable II, lying Port Cygnet Tasmania once again.
Jim Cate is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2017, 03:58   #673
Senior Cruiser
 
hpeer's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Between Caribbean and Canada
Boat: Murray 33-Chouette & Pape Steelmaid-44-Safara-both steel cutters
Posts: 8,506
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

As to the need for full disclosure, one thing that should weigh on this decission is the cost of repair, which I'm assuming to be at least $500 million.

John Doe should have some interest in that.
hpeer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2017, 04:10   #674
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,033
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
"Fully manned" really needs to be taken in context. or perhaps one that is over-confident might do just that.
Lode, I fully understand what you are saying. But just be aware that a couple people who have served on these ships say that in their experience in this exact context the bridge/lookout/CiC manning would not be reduced to the levels you suggest. Somewhere up thread I posted what one of them suggested would have been normal manning in this exact context.

Now, of course, this Captain might have been "over confident", and not doing the "typical", as you suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
Where have you seen that stated?
It was in a press conference a few days after the incident. Was all in Japanese, so I fully admit my interpretation here is 3rd hand. But (I was told) they said they had "talked with navy officials but not interviewed navy crew (think they still have not). . . . . Navy vessels was at full manning levels . . . . Specifically had 3 lookouts on duty". (And yes, that detail could be a translation error).

I guess I am not sure where you are going with this? You seem to be suggesting that perhaps the effective bridge and CiC manning combined was really "only" twice the commercial ship standard. Do you think that is an explanation or excuse for a warship with advanced sensor suite to allow itself be hit? It seems to me that #1 even at the reduced levels you suggest there was more than enough manpower, with more than enough information, to avoid this collision, and #2 if there is any question at all about that then this reduced manning level is dramatically not appropriate and a complete command fail.

As to the disclosure discussion . . . . I personally don't much care if navy is transparent about the details, but I would like to be confident that they have actually learned the appropriate lessons. I don't feel confident they did from the Porter incident, and there are whole classes of lessons that military culture are very resistant to acknowledging/learning from. And yes, I do consider myself a "stakeholder" in our military performing effectively.

I am however "annoyed" by those who say "stop discussing, wait for the report, of course they will publish a complete report". As it is certainly not clear to me there ever will be a public report, or if there is that it will not have been completely "sanitized".
estarzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-07-2017, 04:26   #675
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Penobscot Bay, Maine
Boat: Tayana 47
Posts: 2,123
Re: US Navy destroyer collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpeer View Post
As to the need for full disclosure, one thing that should weigh on this decission is the cost of repair, which I'm assuming to be at least $500 million.

John Doe should have some interest in that.
Lots of things the military does cost a lot more than that, but that doesn't mean you or I are entitled to all the details about it. Having an interest in something government does doesn't mean you get to be inside it and privy to every detail when that would serve no real purpose other than satisfying your own curiosity.

I find it odd that there seems to be a certain group who think they are entitled to know the inner workings of how our military does their job (enlist and you can find out for yourself). Obviously aboard this ship some things were done very wrong and I suppose it's natural to be curious about that, but that doesn't mean that every time something goes wrong in the military or someone in the military makes a grievous error that the civilian world will get a detailed report to analyze and then recommend changes. It's just silly and isn't going to happen and shouldn't happen because neither you nor I are qualified to fully understand all the issues or to recommend an appropriate fix, taking all relevant factors into account. Besides, you already know what they did wrong (inadequate attention to watchkeeping) and the corrective action must include a much greater emphasis on watchkeeping, but HOW the USNavy ensures that happens isn't really our business and that's why you'll never know all the details of what happened aboard the Fitz that led to this whole unnecessary, tragic, fiasco.
jtsailjt 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


Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 14:15.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.