USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Very good Dockhead. The big question is "was it intentional?" Is the top navy brass trying to get rid of the surface warship? Is the stealth destroyers failure and extension of this or just navy incompetence?

Why would they intentionally make a mess, kill sailors, and waste billions of dollars? Heads will roll and careers will be ruined.



No, of course not, it's just a breakdown of organization. It happens. It is an art to make an organization work well; an even bigger work of art to make a large bureaucracy function well and achieve its goals efficiently. They just screwed the pooch here.


I guess they just tossed out the training and forgot about ship-driving as an essential process which needs to be implemented correctly.



And what is frightening is that if they got this so wrong, what other processes can the Navy no longer do well? Can they shoot, for example? I wouldn't take that for granted, under the circumstances. Can they maneuver in battle? Sailors who can't even maneuver in traffic? The skills are similar, but maneuvering through a swarm of hostile enemy vessels is vastly more complex than dealing with container ships. I would be really concerned.


This display of obvious dysfunction certainly indicates the need for a thorough audit of the whole organization and its processes and systems, even its values, and possibly a thorough overhaul. The current Sec of Navy is a former company CEO -- so this sort of thing should be in his skill set. I wonder if he is engaged in it?

[hpeer]

Dock,

To further your point and make it real simple:

The AIS computer didn’t work
They could not get the radar to operate correctly

This, along with seamanship, is basic and fundamental to their role. These are high technology ships, and they are failing at the relative low technology end we have insight into.

Wonder what Nelson would say? Or Nimitz?

My sarcastic and snarky self wants to say their only reason for being has become to support contracts in congressional districts.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Dock,

To further your point and make it real simple:

The AIS computer didn’t work
They could not get the radar to operate correctly

This, along with seamanship, is basic and fundamental to their role. These are high technology ships, and they are failing at the relative low technology end we have insight into.

Wonder what Nelson would say? Or Nimitz?

My sarcastic and snarky self wants to say their only reason for being has become to support contracts in congressional districts.

I agree.

[JPA Cate]

The escalation of the rate of failures has been increasing. The cluster**** Dockhead calls it has been going on for a while, till it became systemic. There will be the kinds of breakdown in team management or encouragement, but the multiple underlying causes will be manifest. These modern young people have <whatever> motivations for joining the military, and the upper ones--how many?--have fallen into grievous error, and it is an egregious error. But, if the rot is typical top down rot, it's like a nest of rattlesnakes, you gotta get rid of the whole lot, not just a couple of tokens, and it's the "infected" top ones who are best able to protect themselves through $$ and political connections.

Dockhead, if you have time, can you explain how you could go about giving the Navy a healing? obviously, to me, anyway, every single serviceman or woman needs to be able to make a living, and feel supported both up and down, but how can it be done if there is not adequate organization? Up to a point, for instance, DVDs offer some modeling, but people need to learn to the level of I do this, then, and would notice a twinge if they make a mistake in the routine, to think and move from the level of muscle memory. Two women having a snit on maneuvres! how far up the failure to condoning that, who noticed and didn't say a word? and his/her superior?

What a waste! And, cui bono?

Ann

[Uricanejack]

Hopefully I’ve got a short answere to a very long slow complicated process.

The Navy has to figure it out for themselves.
Why?
Thier own people are the experts in what the Navy do. Thier own people already know what the problems are. Thier own people will figure out the answers.
The Navy will accept what the Navy comes up with better than anyone else’s suggestions.

There are experts outside the Navy who consult and assist organizations to figure this out.
The Navy might need or at least benefit from some assistance.

The Navy is not the first big organization to have an accident or to have required more than 1 accident to figure out it was not just a coincidence.
Who to consult?
An organization who has been through it.

1 suggestion might be NASA.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

OK -- thanks for all these explanations.



I sense there is something cultural involved in these points of view -- a basic hostility to book learning, or something. Something like the barracks view that all officers are useless because they learn from books and don't do, or something. But anyway, that's all fine, that's one point of view, and the long tales from real experience from you and Jack are really interesting and really valuable.

Come on, get a grip, surely your comprehension skills are better than that.

I have no hostility whatsoever towards booklearning combined with practical experience... I am not 'hostile' to 'booklearning' at all.... just that I consider booklearning combined with some shoreside schooling and little practical experience to be of limited value.... as has been shown by the USN in recent times. Its sounds as if you reckon you can learn this stuff from a box of DVDs..

It used to be that you were **expected** to read the book, these shore courses are just making sure that you **have** read the book.

Hostile to booklearning? have you read this https://www.dropbox.com/s/a5blh1rgvi...ation.pdf?dl=0
? Written some quarter of a century ago along with quite a bit of other stuff some of which is still used at a certain school of navigation attached to a certain university... over 3500 people signed up to do the course - accepted by the AYF - I even met a 13 year old who had completed it with no difficulty. I imagine there are more than a few here on CF who did it. And it is far more 'in depth' than the requirements for 2nd mates back when celestial was still king..... less on Napier maybe... but a bit more on the derivation of the haversine formula and why it was used... they never taught us that at King Teds...

Second Mates in the UK was considered to be on a par with 'O' levels.... of course now they hand out diplomas or some such.... SOS with a fancy name..

I consider dancing to be difficult, I find foreign languages to difficult - I don't understand English grammer... let alone Spanish - people who only have book learning and no practical experience may consider navigation and everything involved with it difficult.

You keep saying how 'difficult' this stuff is... it is not... but then nothing you can understand is - at the end of the day - difficult.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I am aware of all the courses people have to do these days... to some with no seagoing experience it may all look hard ... its not.... I've done them all....well not 'Oil and Gas' or 'DP' and some other specialised stuff ... my time in those industries predated the requirement...

Going in with seagoing experience may make the booklearning part look like a doddle; but try to look at if from the perspective of going into it with no seagoing experience. Navies, as with any armed force, need to get young people in, and get them to a competent state in a relatively short period. They don't have the luxury of bringing one in as deckwatch and working years towards standing a bridge-watch.

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

'Those that can...do.
Those that can't... teach
and..
Those that can't teach teach teachers'

IME, those who can't do, can't teach. In fact, a goodly number of those who can do, can't teach - even some who are truly gifted doers. Teaching is a special skill in its own right. It is entirely possible for just about anyone to learn the skills on-the-job, but the downside is that there is no standard in doing so. One only learns what is taught by the mentor - if that is incomplete, or incorrect, that is what they learn, and then that is what they pass on to their own apprentices - and the cycle of ignorance continues.

Why do we send our children to school? There's nothing they learn there, that they couldn't learn at home. Not so long ago, that is how it was done, and it probably is still done in some undeveloped areas of the world. Clearly structured education has been the prime factor in the much greater literacy rates we now enjoy.

Classroom study followed by an at-sea apprenticeship with a defined training syllabus, is the best method to achieve a reasonable standard of competence, imho.

[kmacdonald]

Guys, even without traing, AIS, and radar these accidents should not have happened. It was caused by a total dysfunctional crew and poor management at the Pentagon. Inbreeding. You really have to have your head up it to drive in front of another ship.

[kmacdonald]

And yes, there are plenty on 23 year olds that could pass the CG tests AND apply the knowledge better than the navy has. Not everyone has common sense and the navy is first in line to prove it. Its sickening.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Going in with seagoing experience may make the booklearning part look like a doddle; but try to look at if from the perspective of going into it with no seagoing experience. Navies, as with any armed force, need to get young people in, and get them to a competent state in a relatively short period. They don't have the luxury of bringing one in as deckwatch and working years towards standing a bridge-watch.



IME, those who can't do, can't teach. In fact, a goodly number of those who can do, can't teach - even some who are truly gifted doers. Teaching is a special skill in its own right. It is entirely possible for just about anyone to learn the skills on-the-job, but the downside is that there is no standard in doing so. One only learns what is taught by the mentor - if that is incomplete, or incorrect, that is what they learn, and then that is what they pass on to their own apprentices - and the cycle of ignorance continues.

Why do we send our children to school? There's nothing they learn there, that they couldn't learn at home. Not so long ago, that is how it was done, and it probably is still done in some undeveloped areas of the world. Clearly structured education has been the prime factor in the much greater literacy rates we now enjoy.

Classroom study followed by an at-sea apprenticeship with a defined training syllabus, is the best method to achieve a reasonable standard of competence, imho.

Agreed, that is why some British companies insisted on cadets having done pre sea.... others.... such as the one I was with ... had a lot of cadets and apprentices from distant imperial outposts where pre-sea was not available.
However.... if you had done pre-sea you would get a remission on the seatime required before sitting your ticket..... direct entry you could be doing 6 months or more seatime than one with pre-sea.

And even 55 years ago all cadets would be following a defined training syllabus...including a correspondence course with one of the UK colleges... and all monitored by the Old Man and ...further up the line.... Head Office.

Of course there were good O/Ms and officers and bad... most, in my experience, were good.

[SailRedemption]

Originally Posted by Uricanejack

You can and should learn the academics of the theory and mathematics of navigation in school. In a class room environment.



My opinion. You can get an introduction. To radar observation. ARPA ECDIS and other electronic aids. They are all add on courses.

Even Bridge Resource Managment course is at best just an introduction to the subject.



The real learning is on the job on the ship with an expierenced mentor trainer or instructor.



So like Elpingo I learned how to navigate by navigating. How to asses risk of collision by assessing risk of colision, to Pilot by piloting, I learned the very basic technics at school, I learned the mathematics at school.

I developed the skills by doing on the ship with the help of the officers insailed with.

There is a lot to learn and skills to learn. Most of which just can’t be replectated in a class room.

Simulators help, they don’t replace sea time. Or maybe the maritime simulators just aren’t good enough yet.



I think you might be shocked and surprised how poorly a significant no of current professional certified maritime shool graduates are at some of this basic stuff.

It’s not just a navy problem. Don’t forget thier were two ships involved in this incident.



It’s the senior officers role to promote, encourage and train good BRM practices.

.

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Very similar career path.... No pre sea - 2 ships, 18 months, then MAR with EDH and Radar Observers, back to sea for 14 months.... then 2nd mates with a short 'Gyro Maintenance' course on the side. King Teds correspondance course pre MAR... A Warsash one afterwards which I considered rollocks so I went my own way - got in a bit of strife with the coy. over that but still passed first time.

Too much book learning these days.... not enough practical.

...

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Guys, even without traing, AIS, and radar these accidents should not have happened. It was caused by a total dysfunctional crew and poor management at the Pentagon. Inbreeding. You really have to have your head up it to drive in front of another ship.

I don't know when the last time some of you sailed with your license or looked into US maritime academies, but they are 4 year programs and you come out with a license and a bachelor's degree in your chosen field. Cadets go on 3 individual "practical" training cruises (2 on a training ship and one on a commercial vessel) each are 60-90 days hitches. Not to mention most of the classes are hands-on, practical courses.

You don't get "introduction" level to Radar, Ecdis, and other electronic navigation, you get trained to know how to use them, not just tinker level. It's a full semester course. BRM is another full semester course that includes class time and simulator time for a whole semester. When is the last time you actually went to a maritime academy simulator? Most are at least 180 viewing degrees bridges, some are 360*. Some academies have one or two other smaller simulators that are connected to the same simulation as the main. Many ports, vessels, traffic congestion levels, weather/seas, viability. And some simulator courses give sea time... I would say SOME things can't be replicated in a classroom or a academy if that's what yall are implying.

I've been shocked too, but at the lack of skills a significant number of hawsepipers have had as well. What's your point?


You can't sit there and tell us that you don't need training if you have radar or AIS. I don't know what was wrong with the Fitzgeralds radar, but unless it was hardware related, someone who actually took a course on radar would know how to zoom it in, since apparently it was too far out to be helpful. You can't learn the very basics of radar and know how to tune the radar so it shows a clear picture, that's not basic stuff. Learning how to use an ECDIS properly isn't basic stuff. Navigation isn't basic stuff, sure the Rules book makes it look simple, but congested waters with multiple vessels isn't basic risk assessing. Basic stuff is showing a deck hand to alert you when they see lights or hear sounds when on lookout. It's basic because a low level ordinary can do it.

It's not an officiers job to teach someone their entire job, sure tips and tricks, but that's under the assumption that the trainee has already been taught how to operate things. That's why academies work, you get taught more than the basics in your field then you apply those in training on training ships and commercial ships (cadet shipping) BEFORE you get to your job.

The Fitzgerald had a lot of breakdowns, mainly poor training and I'm not saying it's completely the crews fault. It's out of their hands where/if the navy sends them to train or what to train with(pack of DVDs). They shouldnt have sailed, but that's easy to say when your job and career is on the line like the Capts was. I sincerely, hope and navy changes their course from these collisions and opens the doors again for legitimate training for officers who will be navigating naval vessels.

Full disclosure, I'm an academy graduate.

[Uricanejack]

Well I guess I’ve been put in my place.

It’s been a while. No I haven’t been through a maritime academy in the US ever.
The Acadmey I went to was in the UK about 4 decades ago. So I expect things have even changed there.

Have I been in a simulator? Yep. Even did a BRM course in a simulator. Was it recent. Depends how you define recently. So maybe not. It was a 5 day course.
Not a full semester.

I posted about my expierence of on board ship training. Simply to illustrate it can be done. Also partly a reply to surprise about the chipping painting and wiping. Not suggesting it should be done or adopted by the current USN.

I appear to have touched a nerve about academies and simulators. Ouch.
I will stand by my point. You can’t learn it all in the academy or simulator.
I will also stand by my statement about it being an introduction.
The introduction may be better or more thoroughly carried out than the course I took. Even so it’s still just an introduction. Hawse Pipe or Graduates or Cadets.

I won’t comment on the Navy Graduates. I’ve never been in the Navy.

Why does onboard training fail today? First I don’t believe it always does. Many of today’s graduates receive on board training as cadets. Some better than others. This has always been a problem. Even back in the good old days I am nostalgic about from a computer keyboard.

The system I went through no longer exists. It worked well in its day. Most of the time. Particularly due to most of the Mates. Junior, Senior and Masters, had grown up with this system themselves and the vast majority of them believed it was part of thier job. Were they all good at it. of course not.

Culture was mentioned. It was a different culture.

According to the articles in Propublica. The Navy made a decision to go from a shore based training shool system to an on board based training system.

The system the Navy created to conduct on board training. Has apperntly become know in the Navy as “SWOS in a box”.
The articles suggest. Referring to comments from current and retired USN personal. The system has not worked very well.

Why not? I don’t know.
I would guess. Unlike the days of yore. When old farts like me went to sea as lads. The culture of having apprentices. Or young officers in training didn’t exist. Some Capt will have embraced it and tried to do it well. While others will have resented the change and resisted it believing it was not thier job or should not have been thier job.

I am sure you will find ships in the USN where it has gone well and others where it has not. Clearly the ones involved in these incidents had problems.

The problem is consistency. How do you get on board trying to be carried out well and consistently?
Can it be done, I would argue yes, but it’s not easy.
To start the have to get all those officers who don’t believe in it to change thier minds. Which will not be easy. It will not happen quickly.

Can you go back to a shore academy based system? Yes at great expense. It won’t be easy ither. You now have to recreate the school from scratch.

Or you could do a bit of both. Re create some of the shool programs and Improve the on board training.

I have always regarded training as a fundamental part of my job. I enjoy it. I hope anyone who ever had the misfortune to sail with me learned something of value. Gained some good expierience. And may one day pass it on to some other folks working thier way up.

I have sailed with others who don’t enjoy it or have much interest. A few who won’t. Thier choice I guess.

Do I know or can I teach. Well it’s debatable. On both counts.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Guys, even without traing, AIS, and radar these accidents should not have happened. It was caused by a total dysfunctional crew and poor management at the Pentagon. Inbreeding. You really have to have your head up it to drive in front of another ship.

^^^^^ THIS

A simple sense of self preservation would dictate better performance.

Somehow it’s not thay have not been trained, they have been. They have been trained to ignore the obvious and do something really stupid. Not intentionally, but true none-the-less.

Three incidents:
Fitzgerald-as above
McCain-they didn’t know how to transfer steering/power controls? Really?
Gulf-they see the first tanker but not the second? No AIS? No radar?

It’s all simple fundamentals.

If I could teach them ONE rule it would be this: in with commercial traffic, slow down, go with the flow.

[Pete7]

Weren't McCain and Fitz both part of the same 7th Pacific Fleet? I would start there.

Also didn't someone crash into Australia with a mine sweeper? not exactly a small lump of rock, in a mine sweeper

Pete

[psk125]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Weren't McCain and Fitz both part of the same 7th Pacific Fleet? I would start there.

Also didn't someone crash into Australia with a mine sweeper? not exactly a small lump of rock, in a mine sweeper

Pete

and USS San Francisco: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=18257