International ‘Rules of the Road’ vs. Naval Operation provedures

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

This is not definitive, because the photo angle is not perfect, and one of the wakes is less clear . . . . but to be 'overtaking' this angle would have to be less than 67.5 degrees (eg "more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam,"). From this photo, it actually looks like a crossing situation with USA give way.

Attachment 193503

All the information offered from both sides so far is 'just propaganda'. And both these governments/militaries have a recent history of being hmmm less than forthright about the truth.

If the Navy really wanted to 'prove their case' here they surely could - publish their radar log* - this (the nav radar) is bog standard technology so would not reveal any 'secrets'. And if they are claiming 'restricted' a photo from deck or helo showing the restricted day symbols being displayed.

*assuming their collision radar was working, which it was not on, for example, the Fitzgerald.

Ho hum.


As usual when things get this close -- and that is ridiculously close -- both are at fault, and egregiously so. Egregiously poor seamanship on both sides. The U.S. vessel should have altered course miles before, and the failing that, the Russians should have altered THEIR course far sooner than this. We've come to expect this kind of horrendously poor seamanship from the USN, but it's sad to see that the Russians drive their ships the same way


If we can't perceive the angle right and if in fact the Russian was overtaking, it changes little -- in any case, both vessels were obligated to take action far sooner than this.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

in any case, both vessels were obligated to take action far sooner than this.

Absolutely.

But as I said above, this most likely really was not a Colregs nor seamanship conundrum.

It was a game of chicken, power pissing test, of who blinked first. Both militaries obviously see some value to such games, as they do them in the air, on the surface, and under the surface, pretty consistently for decades.

My comments are really only directed at the “propaganda battle”. If they US really wanted to “win” there, they need to finally realize that they have pissed away a **** ton of trust and a bit of actual truth and real facts are necessary to allow them to gain higher ground.

[Captain Bill]

If I see a boat off my starboard side abeam or a bit forward of my beam doing 20 knots and I'm doing 10 knots and his course is more than 112.5 degrees off mine, the fact that our relative positions put him more than 22.5 degrees behind my beam when we collide does not make him an overtaking vessel. He's only an overtaking vessel if he was more than 22.5 degrees behind the beam when the vessels first observed each other. If the US vessel was not flying their day shapes then they were not the stand on vessel. There's just too much propaganda and not enough facts to make a judgement here.

[Snore]

The way I teach it and I believe the way COLREGS is intended- “if the first light you see of the other vessel is the white stern light- you are overtaking them.”

Given the starting location of the Russian ship she was overtaking the US vessel

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Snore

The way I teach it and I believe the way COLREGS is intended- “if the first light you see of the other vessel is the white stern light- you are overtaking them.”

Given the starting location of the Russian ship she was overtaking the US vessel

How do you know the relative positions when the encounter started, were you there or do you have access to information that has not been in the news?

[jmorrison146]

Here you go . . . From the Russian's wake seen in the video you can clearly see that she was overtaking, underway faster than the USN ship, continuously closing once alongside. ******** provoking an incident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/w...ussia-usa.html

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

This is not definitive, because the photo angle is not perfect, and one of the wakes is less clear . . . . but to be 'overtaking' this angle would have to be less than 67.5 degrees (eg "more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam,"). From this photo, it actually looks like a crossing situation with USA give way.

Attachment 193503

All the information offered from both sides so far is 'just propaganda'. And both these governments/militaries have a recent history of being hmmm less than forthright about the truth.

If the Navy really wanted to 'prove their case' here they surely could - publish their radar log* - this (the nav radar) is bog standard technology so would not reveal any 'secrets'. And if they are claiming 'restricted' a photo from deck or helo showing the restricted day symbols being displayed.

*assuming their collision radar was working, which it was not on, for example, the Fitzgerald.

Perhaps, if the photo and your protractor were directly overhead. As it is, you're not overhead, the measurement point on the Russian is midships and the one on the USN ship,is on the port side. Is it so hard to believe that the Russians, NAVRULS be damned, were being ******** and trying to provoke an incident? The best indicator of future behavior is -- wait for it -- past behavior.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Perhaps, if the photo and your protractor were directly overhead. As it is, you're not overhead, the measurement point on the Russian is midships and the one on the USN ship,is on the port side. Is it so hard to believe that the Russians, NAVRULS be damned, were being ******** and trying to provoke an incident? The best indicator of future behavior is -- wait for it -- past behavior.

Assaholism is not the issue here -- seamanship is. Egregious on both sides. Imagine if there had been a collision -- the hundreds of millions of dollars of damage, the international incident. Idiots. On both bridges.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Here you go . . . From the Russian's wake seen in the video you can clearly see that she was overtaking, underway faster than the USN ship, continuously closing once alongside. ******** provoking an incident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/w...ussia-usa.html

The still photo pretty clearly shows (from the wake) the USA vessel makes a turn to parallel the Russian after the vessels are already quite close. Your video is taken after that turn - so it makes it look like the Russians have been overtaking the whole time because - you don't see that USA changed course.

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

if the photo and your protractor were directly overhead

sure, I said exactly so myself in my post ("This is not definitive, because the photo angle is not perfect, and one of the wakes is less clear") BUT it is very clear that USA changed course, and that it was much more a crossing situation before that change. I might note that USA Navy 'experts' have recently seemingly switched to the 'restricted to maneuver because of helo' explanation rather than the overtaking explanation - which might suggest . . . they were crossing.

Bottom line is that we do not, have not been given, sufficient evidence to determine who was give way. All we really know is that neither vessel conducted themselves in a way consistent with the intent of the colregs.

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

The best indicator of future behavior is -- wait for it -- past behavior.

Neither party's past behaviors are especially merit-worthy. Like perhaps which navy, and even the same specific fleet, has been the primary factor in several collisions recently, and which then tried it's very best to obscure for just as long as it possibly could.

If I were a US oversight committee, I would insist on all the details on this event. I would want to know that those on the bridge actually fully recognized and understood the situations. If they did not, then the Pacific fleet STILL has not learned the necessary lessons from the recent series of collisions. If they did, then as DockHouse suggests, their behavior is probably not excellent seamanship at the best. You might write it off as 'military - boys will be boys', but just imagine the collision potential there if a cotter pin came out of a drive or steering coupling there.

[El Pinguino]

I'm rather surprised Cockcroft hasn't been brought into play yet.....

I am also surprised that Rule 13 c hasn't been mentioned..

'(c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.'

While it is easy to know what is going on when you are in the ship on the port side of the argument it is not so easy when you are in the ship to starboard during daylight hours...

Brinksmanship... they were just seeing who would blink first.....

That's it... I'm done...

[Lepke]

The rules don't apply to the Russian navy. This type of act was common in the 1960s before the Soviets agreed it was dangerous and served no good purpose. Eventually some agreement was signed. I was in the USN then. Destroyers sometimes rubbed sides. It was always instigated by the Russians, most often in the Med or Black Sea. Usually they would sprint ahead and create a crossing situation where the US ship would be required to give way. Sometimes it would repeat for hours. I think the Russian ship in this situation couldn't make enough speed to get way ahead so did an overtaking and then turned into the US ship.

Putin is being a bad boy in the hopes of some larger agreement that eliminates sanctions caused by Russian aggression. It's happening all over the world, especially with aircraft. It's not news, just stories supporting current Russian propaganda.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

While it is easy to know what is going on when you are in the ship on the port side of the argument it is not so easy when you are in the ship to starboard during daylight hours...

except destroyer - pretty damn good radar - should have pretty damn good situational awareness - in a crossing with (apparently) only one other vessel

Brinksmanship... they were just seeing who would blink first.....

yes, exactly. Colregs and seamanship were not the priority here on either bridge.

That's it... I'm done...

breaking waves

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Breaking Waves

. . . except destroyer - pretty damn good radar - should have pretty damn good situational awareness - in a crossing with (apparently) only one other vessel. . .

Ahem.


We've seen the quality of this "situational awareness" a few times in the last couple of years -- Fitzgerald/Crystal, McCain/Acnic, USS Porter . . .

[mabowers]

Another game of cowboys & cossacks. Saw it a few times during 20 years in the USN.

[Breaking Waves]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Ahem.
We've seen the quality of this "situational awareness" a few times in the last couple of years -- Fitzgerald/Crystal, McCain/Acnic, USS Porter . . .

yes, and #1 I did explicitly include the word "Should have" to suggest the possibility they might not have in the actual situation. and #2 explicitly referenced the history of incidents you list in a later paragraph. and #3 explicitly said I thought an oversight committee should investigate whether the bridge did have the necessary knowledge and situational awareness or whether they were still just bumbling along. I'm not sure what more I could have done to satisfy you on this point.

I agree with Ping, hoping this fleet is following instructions to keep well away from other commercial traffic.

However, there are two observations which have to made with respect to navy vs navy incidents.

The first is that the US bridge team cannot let the Russian vessel turn/herd them away from their course, at least not too easily and not from too far a distance. If they allowed that, if they turned away from say a couple miles, then a couple of Russian ships could turn/herd an entire aircraft carrier battle fleet from their course/mission - entirely keep them from ever arriving at their intended destination. And they could easily disrupt anti-sub operations and all sorts of other military operations.

This is not a topic covered by colregs, because commercial ships are not going to be hunting each other like that, and dominance is not relevant like it is in military operations.

The second is that colregs do not give a specific minimum clearing distance, because it differs with the situations and vessels. These military vessels are (or should be ) very maneuverable, and fully crewed, and have great situational awareness (or should have ) and out in 'open ocean' and that means 'risk of collision' is a damn lot closer than it is for two container ships in busy shipping lanes with a guy or two on the bridges. The actual risk of collision here in broad daylight, with two alert bridge teams (should be ), was probably near zero.