USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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]

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.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Montanan

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?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

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.

[john61ct]

https://features.propublica.org/navy...crash-crystal/

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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.

[john61ct]

Couple more.

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

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...t-you-to-read/

[Pete7]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

The FACT remains the NAVY is the give way vessel in almost all situations.

Oh really

[flyingfin]

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1b58yelh_c

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Pete7

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.

[Randy]

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.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Randy

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.