USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[kmacdonald]

For the navy to say it's best for the families of the murdered sailors to drop all charges speaks volumes to the stupidity of the Navy leadership. They think they are "getting out front" of the families desires to have justice for their dead children. Im sure they plan on any objections disappearing with a payoff (bribe) to the families. The more I hear the sicker the Navy looks. Mothballs the surface fleet and the Navy Country Club.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Improper command influence is the relevant phrase. And repeatedly by multiple commanders.

Any time charges are brought against someone, the desired outcome is a conviction. It is obvious the Navy feels they can't field an impartial jury because of rightful fear of retaliation from higher ups if they dont decide a case on the whims of upper admirals. Hopefully a civilian trial will take place where an unbiased jury, free of Naval influence, will take place. These deaths were no accident.

[kmacdonald]

I would like to see why the Navy feels it's in the best interests of the Navy and families of the dead sailors to drop all charges. Accountability and consequences have never been a part of the Navy, or any government agency, I guess.

[Pelagic]

FINALLY 3 years later we have a Track which showed the amazing incompetence of the USN Bridge team and obvious conclusion

https://gcaptain.com/ntsb-issues-saf...investigation/

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

FINALLY 3 years later we have a Track which showed the amazing incompetence of the USN Bridge team and obvious conclusion

https://gcaptain.com/ntsb-issues-saf...investigation/

The tracks show they steered into each other.

Fitz made a slight alteration to starboard sometime between 1:21 and 1:24, and then altered again

Crystal altered to port around 1:18, but that might have been a planned course change.

Was Fitz steering a solution based on Crystals pre-alteration course?

Clearly shows someone asleep at the switch. No course changes in the last 10 minutes of the crossing. Fitz run by imbeciles, but Crystal equally at fault.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Crystal altered to port around 1:18, but that might have been a planned course change.
.

Indeed, Crystal altered port, when she should have been standing on. Not excusing the incompetence of the Fitz crew, but blame all around.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

The tracks show they steered into each other.

Fitz made a slight alteration to starboard sometime between 1:21 and 1:24, and then altered again

Crystal altered to port around 1:18, but that might have been a planned course change.

Was Fitz steering a solution based on Crystals pre-alteration course?

Clearly shows someone asleep at the switch. No course changes in the last 10 minutes of the crossing. Fitz run by imbeciles, but Crystal equally at fault.

I would not say that Crystal was "equally" at fault.

As to the final turn to Port......
....This is not in the COLREGS rules but part of commercial training where if the master feels a collision is imminent.....
Turn your ship bow on to the threat!

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Crystal altered to port around 1:18, but that might have been a planned course change.

My memory of the discussion years back is that there is a 'voluntary' traffic separation scheme (inbound and outbound lanes) there which Crystal was following, and that turn was part of the lane.

And my memory is that the Fitz bridge did not know about the lane.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Crystal altered to port around 1:18, but that might have been a planned course change.

My memory of the discussion years back is that there is a traffic lane (inbound and outbound lanes) there which Crystal was following, and that turn was part of the lane. You can see the Wan Hai made roughly the same turn.

Edit: yea, the actual full report confirms "About 0115, the second officer on the ACX Crystal began a scheduled course change per the vessel’s voyage plan. The ACX Crystal gradually turned from a mainly eastbound course of 089° to an east-northeast-bound course of about 069°. "

And my memory is that the Fitz bridge was not aware of the separation scheme and was crossing at an oblique angle.

[Breaking Waves]

Fitz made a course change that exacerbated the collision situation - eg if they had not made this change they would have passed in front by 1/2 nm. Instead they turned into the collision. Why this course change was made was never explained in the whole investigation.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

Fitz made a course change that exacerbated the collision situation - eg if they had not made this change they would have passed in front by 1/2 nm. Instead they turned into the collision. Why this course change was made was never explained in the whole investigation.

Attachment 222752

Well it looks like they were solving for Crystal's previous course, doesn't it?

If Crystal was following a TSS, voluntary of otherwise, then I don't think the course change was a violation of the obligation to stand on. This would fall under that 19th century picking-up-a-pilot case (brain fart -- can't remember the name).

Where Crystal screwed the pooch was failing to monitor the developing situation and make its own move in time. To my mind that's approximatley 50% responsibility. She just steamed right into the collision

And of course what happened on the Fitz -- just beggars belief. The collision occurred more than 10 minutes after Crystal changed her course and more than SIX minutes after Fitz made that ineffectual alteration to starboard.


Only ONE of the two vessels, doing even approximately what the Rules require, would have been enough to avert the collision. Neither did

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

My memory of the discussion years back is that there is a 'voluntary' traffic separation scheme (inbound and outbound lanes) there which Crystal was following, and that turn was part of the lane.

I notice in the report that the Wan Hai had made a similar turn, and the Maersk Evora on a similar course to Wan Hai and Crystal post-turn, which created a distinct impression that a VTS may be in play.

Here is what is in the Sailing Directions. (I feel that the placement seems off compared to the tracks in the report.)

[requiem]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This would fall under that 19th century picking-up-a-pilot case (brain fart -- can't remember the name).

The Roanoke [1908]?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by requiem

The Roanoke [1908]?

I think it was something Castle. Damn, am I getting senile already? Read and cited that case 100 times I guess. I'm travelling without my books.


Edit: No, you're right -- Windsor-Roanoke, 1908, Lord Alberstone. That's the one.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I would not say that Crystal was "equally" at fault.

As to the final turn to Port......
....This is not in the COLREGS rules but part of commercial training where if the master feels a collision is imminent.....
Turn your ship bow on to the threat!

Exactly...the lawyers and underwriters can argue until they are blue in the face but in the real world ASX Crystal behaved in a perfectly rational manner... altering onto her new course when she did.... and in extremis she altered to starboard.

And when push turns to shove it is always better to be the T-boner rather than the T-bonee.

As you and all other real ships' officers know there is no worse situation than the one ASX Crystal's watchkeeper found herself in....