Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 06-02-2019, 16:19   #91
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 832
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
I understand the point on pg 21 references the ship's standard manning protocol, ie. when there is a lookout on watch, he is on the port wing, not specifically the state of manning when the accident occurred. I wonder if that is common amongst USN ships, as that was the manning in McCain during her accident. It is certainly curious.
With the inconsistency of the graphic, it does foggy up the interpretation.

The conclusion is rather explicit in stating:

“Watchstanders performing physical lookout duties did so only on Fitzgerald’s left (port) side, not on the right (starboard) side where the three ships were present with risk of collision.”

No starboard watch which is the side with the Closest ships and the side from which they were required to give way.

Seems like if they only have one watch person that the duty should rotate frequently from side to side, or heck just look out from the front window instead of a bridge deck since you are barreling along at 20 knots traveling faster than the cargo vessels transiting the area.

Lot's of failures on both sides leading to things that go bump in the night.

Fatigue was an issue given their four hour watch had started after a 16 hour day without any rest before the watch.

The Norwegian destroyer that recently crashed into the tanker and sank was also operating without transmitting AIS, just receive mode which added a lot to the miscommunication until it was far too late.

Do Navies typically not transmit AIS so as to not give away their position and allow for tracking of their deployment? I can see that they would not want to broadcast where they are from a military viewpoint but civilian ships sure are put at a disadvantage if they don't know where the grey boats are nearby. Conflicting matter. Safety versus security. But it seems when leaving or entering port in traffic areas particularly at night or reduced visibility AIS should be transmitting so as to avoid collisions.
__________________

Montanan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2019, 16:47   #92
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 832
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Researched and found that the US Navy will transmit AIS in high traffic areas.

Reference article: https://gcaptain.com/u-s-navy-ships-...traffic-areas/

The U.S. Navy has already taken action to prevent future mishaps involving its ships at sea, including turning on the Automatic Identification Systems of its vessels in high-traffic areas.

The Navy’s new policy on transmitting AIS was revealed by the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richardson during questioning following his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week on the recent incidents involving Navy Surface Fleet ships. The incidents include the deadly collisions involving USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain as well as two earlier incidents, one of which was a collision.

Under U.S. and international regulations, nearly all ships are required to carry Automatic Identification Systems that automatically transmit key information about the ship – such as vessel identity, type, position, course, speed, navigational status and other safety-related information – so that info can be picked up other ships, coastal authorities, or aircraft.

Under U.S. law, however, warships and other Government vessels are not required to use AIS, even though almost all Navy ships are equipped with a functioning AIS system – it just happens to be turned off.

You may recall that following the Fitzgerald and McCain collisions, AIS animations of the incidents only included information for the merchant vessels, leaving the tracks of the warships a mystery in both cases.

When asked by committee member Senator Angus King of Maine about the technology available to Navy sailors and other ships to help with collision avoidance, Admiral Richardson responded that the Navy has taken action to turn the AIS systems on its vessels back on, particularly in high-traffic areas.

“The other question is about these ships that ran into us,” said Senator King, referring to the merchant vessels involved in the collisions. “Is there some technology that they couldn’t see us? Are we using a stealth technology?”

“Sir, it wouldn’t surprise anybody that we design our warships to have a low radar cross-section, some even designed to be very low, so that degree of stealth makes us more effective from a war-fighting standpoint,” said Admiral Richardson. “But that also imposes a burden, if you will, on the crew of that ship to understand that they are low-observable, to understand that they might not be seen as something that is as large as a destroyer. It will have a radar cross-section of a ship that is much smaller.”

“Or they are not in a conflict situation, that they emit some kind of signal,” said Senator King.

Admiral Richardson continued:

“That’s been an immediate action. There is this Automatic Identification System, AIS. We had, I think, a distorted perception of operational security that we kept that system secure – off – on our warships. One of the immediate actions following these incidents is that, particularly in heavily trafficked areas, we’re just going to turn it on.”

“In heavily trafficked areas like off Japan?”, asked Senator King.

“Right. You can look outside and see the ship, so, it’s not an operational security standpoint,” said Admiral Richardson.
__________________

Montanan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2019, 17:05   #93
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,908
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montanan View Post
The conclusion is rather explicit in stating:

“Watchstanders performing physical lookout duties did so only on Fitzgerald’s left (port) side, not on the right (starboard) side where the three ships were present with risk of collision.”
This report was clearly written for laypersons, and the grammar is ambiguous. As written, it could mean "watchstanders performing physical lookout duties typically did so only on the port side, not of the starboard side, which is where the three ships presented a risk of collision during this incident."

Navy vessels may or may not transmit AIS, depending on the situation. These are the police cars of the sea - on the roads you don't see massive neon signs with a blinking arrow saying "radar trap here", do you?
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2019, 17:26   #94
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Boat: Catalina 22 Capri, 15' Catboat, Bristol 35.5
Posts: 2,293
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
This report was clearly written for laypersons, and the grammar is ambiguous. As written, it could mean "watchstanders performing physical lookout duties typically did so only on the port side, not of the starboard side, which is where the three ships presented a risk of collision during this incident."

Navy vessels may or may not transmit AIS, depending on the situation. These are the police cars of the sea - on the roads you don't see massive neon signs with a blinking arrow saying "radar trap here", do you?
Police cars aren't painted to camouflage them and don't drive with their light off. If they did everyone knows what would happen.

The Navy ships deliberately make it hard if not impossible to be seen and therefore assume ALL collision avoidance responsibilities, period. The Navy has consistently failed at doing so. To discuss "rules of the road" is irrelevant. The officers in charge failed a test of the rules anyway. The Navy should be mothballed.
kmacdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 03:44   #95
Senior Cruiser

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Out there doin' it
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 2,908
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmacdonald View Post
Police cars aren't painted to camouflage them and don't drive with their light off. If they did everyone knows what would happen.

The Navy ships deliberately make it hard if not impossible to be seen and therefore assume ALL collision avoidance responsibilities, period. The Navy has consistently failed at doing so. To discuss "rules of the road" is irrelevant. The officers in charge failed a test of the rules anyway. The Navy should be mothballed.
The navy ships had their navlights on - the point about being darkened is about extraneous exterior lighting, and internal white lighting - it is a red herring in the report, and has no bearing on the outcome of the incident.

As to the rules test, we do something similar in the RCN - all NWO officers on board write the test, but only a few of them regularly stand Bridge watches. It is not uncommon for us to have similarly dismal failure rates. The report does not specify, but I imagine those who passed the exam are likely bridge watchkeepers (OODs). If we gave an exam like this to most of the forumites, the results would also be abysmal, and it makes a big impression in such a report, but it is highly misleading.

You don't seem to have an appreciation of what a navy does in terms of "forward diplomacy"; you're of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't add anything to the thread.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 05:04   #96
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,481
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

https://features.propublica.org/navy...crash-crystal/
john61ct is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 05:40   #97
Moderator
 
Pete7's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Solent, England
Boat: Moody 31
Posts: 11,335
Images: 14
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
You don't seem to have an appreciation of what a navy does in terms of "forward diplomacy"; you're of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't add anything to the thread.
Events that we all benefit from, here are a couple:

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/cr...ures-1-8746798

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa...-Atlantic.html

The recent multiple events including loss of life by the US Navy has been a wake up call for many.
Pete7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 06:49   #98
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Boat: Catalina 22 Capri, 15' Catboat, Bristol 35.5
Posts: 2,293
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post

You don't seem to have an appreciation of what a navy does in terms of "forward diplomacy"; you're of course entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't add anything to the thread.
Sorry, but the Navy embarrassing itself on the world stage isn't the type of diplomacy we should be looking for. Doubling down with inaccurate and misleading information makes it all the more troubling. The days of sending a carrier task group to intimidate second world countries is over. All bark, no bite. (USS Cole)

The FACT remains the NAVY is the give way vessel in almost all situations. Their deliberate actions to "hide" themselves clearly puts the burden on them.

Just a side note on the Navys corrective action: "We are bringing back celestial navigation to the Naval Academy". WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
kmacdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 07:03   #99
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Boat: Catalina 22 Capri, 15' Catboat, Bristol 35.5
Posts: 2,293
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post

As to the rules test, we do something similar in the RCN - all NWO officers on board write the test, but only a few of them regularly stand Bridge watches. It is not uncommon for us to have similarly dismal failure rates. The report does not specify, but I imagine those who passed the exam are likely bridge watchkeepers (OODs). If we gave an exam like this to most of the forumites, the results would also be abysmal, and it makes a big impression in such a report, but it is highly misleading.
I'm sure you're right. The difference is most if not all the forumites have "the where with all" to avoid collisions at sea. As for the Navy, the FACTS speak for themselves.
kmacdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 07:05   #100
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 10,481
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Couple more.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...l-that-hit-it/

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...t-you-to-read/
john61ct is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 07:16   #101
Moderator
 
Pete7's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Solent, England
Boat: Moody 31
Posts: 11,335
Images: 14
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmacdonald View Post
The FACT remains the NAVY is the give way vessel in almost all situations.
Oh really
Pete7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 07:19   #102
Registered User
 
flyingfin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Cape Haze,FL
Boat: Carver,Cobia,Nacra
Posts: 371
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Perhaps the Navy need to broadcast their AIS position when operating near shore. I sure hope they were running their nav lights.

From this AIS track, the entire event might have been avoided had all vessels been able to see the Fitzgeralds course:

flyingfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 07:37   #103
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Boat: Catalina 22 Capri, 15' Catboat, Bristol 35.5
Posts: 2,293
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete7 View Post
Oh really
Yes, really. A cursory reading of the Navy brass testimony reveals the truth. The Navy designs, maneuvers, and operates it's vessels to produce small or no footprints and therefore assumes responsibility for collision avoidance. Try and look past the smoke, it's not that hard. Fortunately it takes a multitude of failures by many people to crash ships but the Navy was able to pull it off six times (or more) last year. You should be proud.
kmacdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 18:31   #104
Registered User
 
Randy's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Diego
Boat: Searunner 31
Posts: 668
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

The FACT remains the NAVY is the give way vessel in almost all situations. Their deliberate actions to "hide" themselves clearly puts the burden on them.
Kmacdonald that statement is so incredibly ridiculous. Any and every vessel is obliged to follow the same international COLREGS from an 8' dinghy to a supertanker as well as every warship. Nor is any warship absolved from their navigational responsibilities.
Randy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2019, 19:42   #105
cruiser

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Easton, MD
Boat: Catalina 22 Capri, 15' Catboat, Bristol 35.5
Posts: 2,293
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy View Post
The FACT remains the NAVY is the give way vessel in almost all situations. Their deliberate actions to "hide" themselves clearly puts the burden on them.
Kmacdonald that statement is so incredibly ridiculous. Any and every vessel is obliged to follow the same international COLREGS from an 8' dinghy to a supertanker as well as every warship. Nor is any warship absolved from their navigational responsibilities.
Not true. Paint your car gray and drive around at night with the lights off. Report back how it turns out.
__________________

kmacdonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
collision, 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald astokel Health, Safety & Related Gear 1 09-11-2015 18:01
'Ella's Pink Lady' Collision Report Is Out SvenG Seamanship & Boat Handling 32 18-06-2010 20:28
Report on Sub’ Collision GordMay Pacific & South China Sea 5 21-10-2005 20:48



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 16:22.


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.