US Navy destroyer collision

[ZULU40]

Search and rescue continues: aboard AKITSUSHIMA [JP] about 01.00 hrs their ZULU

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...y:34.5/zoom:10

[ZULU40]

Originally Posted by anacapaisland42

Just heard a report that the tanker took a sharp turn before the collision, this could be deliberate.
Speaking as a Canuck I find it somewhat unbelievable that this was the destroyers fault
Bill

my understanding of the Rules to prevent collision at sea,
its the destroyers task to stay clear, no matter what

[mynameismud]

I did not see anything posted but saw this. Be careful if anywhere near Japan.

USS Fitzgerald crash: Race to find seven missing navy crew - BBC News

[powsmias]

Originally Posted by Three Sisters

Other reports indicate crewmembers of the Fitzgerald unaccounted for and three compartments flooded. Our prayers are going out for everyone's safety.

[dannc]

It is hard to tell from the ships AIS track where the collision occurred but there appears to be a sharp turn to port prior to the collision. Certainly the naval ship should have been aware of the zig zagging commercial ship and I wonder if the navy ship had slowed to let the container ship pass ahead.

It is also possible that the navy ship turned to port to avoid the collision or to pass farther away from the commercial ship based on it's original course but then the ship made the sudden turn to port.

The real damage to the navy ship is below the water line due to to the container ship's bulbous bow.

We will just have to wait for the investigation to complete to know what really happened.

Later,
Dan

[rallyman1122]

Originally Posted by mynameismud

I did not see anything posted but saw this. Be careful if anywhere near Japan.

USS Fitzgerald crash: Race to find seven missing navy crew - BBC News

First of all, it was a Philippine-registered ship, not a Japanese Ship. Secondly, why be careful in this area specifically? Is there other areas of the ocean that don't require care when traversing?

[mynameismud]

I'm sorry. Yes Phillipines registered. There is still a search in the area. And well sorry to upset you to. I'll be careful and more quiet now.

[powsmias]

Originally Posted by dannc

It is hard to tell from the ships AIS track where the collision occurred but there appears to be a sharp turn to port prior to the collision. Certainly the naval ship should have been aware of the zig zagging commercial ship and I wonder if the navy ship had slowed to let the container ship pass ahead.

It is also possible that the navy ship turned to port to avoid the collision or to pass farther away from the commercial ship based on it's original course but then the ship made the sudden turn to port.

The real damage to the navy ship is below the water line due to to the container ship's bulbous bow.

We will just have to wait for the investigation to complete to know what really happened.

Later,
Dan

I know most think like this as well but the real damage is the mia's

[Rorzech]

I bet theres a big round hole below the water line on the destroyer where the container ships bulbous stabilizer rammed it. How else are 3 compartments going to get flooded. Maybe not a good idea to creep around shipping lanes with no lights on.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by anacapaisland42

Just heard a report that the tanker took a sharp turn before the collision, this could be deliberate.

My understanding is that the collision happened at the red X (that is where it's speed dropped off suddenly), and that the ship made its 180 turn 18nm before the collision. I dont know what the commercial ship was doing, perhaps just killing time for a dock in schedule, but in any case they seem to have given the Navy quite sufficient time to move.



Even if that is somehow not the case - these Navy vessels HAVE to be prepared to evade another USS Cole - they can't simply let any target, much less a 700' one, slam into them no matter what sort of turns are made.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by powsmias

I know most think like this as well but the real damage is the mia's

Yes but that kinda goes without saying. I would assume that the missing were in the berthing spaces where the bulbous bow entered the destroyer. They did not have much of a chance down there.

One of my professions has people dealing with deadly forces situations, and now a days, the incidents can be filmed. These incidents are often very good training but the cost is that one or more people may have died to teach the lesson. The cost has been paid so one might as well learn something from the situation and hopefully avoid repeating the incident.

Later,
Dan

[bobnlesley]

The report I read indicates that the cargo ship's bow impacted the Fitzgerald's starboard side? In the absence of any restricting factors, this would indicate that the cargo vessel was 'the stand-on vessel'? Therefore a more accurate thread-title might be: cargo ship gets hit by the USS Fitzgerald.

[dannc]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

My understanding is that the collision happened at the red X (that is where it's speed dropped off suddenly), and that the ship made its 180 turn 18nm before the collision. I dont know what the commercial ship was doing, perhaps just killing time for a dock in schedule, but in any case they seem to have given the Navy quite sufficient time to move.

Attachment 150045...

That is a better chart than what I saw which seemed to indicated the collision was at a different point. It is a head scratcher if collision happened at X which is what the chart seems to indicate.

Later,
Dan

[newhaul]

From what I have read and have heard on the news concerning this incident the cargo vessel was apparently acting erratic. which may have led to confusion as to stand on or give way vessel. As retired navy my prayers go out to the men and families that have been affected by this unfortunate incident.

[estarzinger]

Already 3 page thread here http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...on-186441.html