US Navy destroyer collision

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Well, maybe. Do we have any direct evidence of their profecciency?

IRC the USCG had to sink a Japanese derilict a bit ago. They put a lot of rounds into it and finally sunk it with hand set charges or some such thing. That was in broad daylight and the CG. When was the last time the Navy sank a hostile vessel trying to evade it using a deck gun?

Operation praying mantis 1988 the sinking of a hostile iranian cruiser. After the attack on a us navy frigate.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pizzazz

So, what is the typical operation of these radars on Navy ships? Is the big (-67) surface search radar usually on or off? I would be surprised if a destroyer only relied on a souped up version of a (small) commercial radar for navigation at night.

The big radar is for building the surface picture - from a warfare aspect rather than anti-collision. That said, the operators would be trained to report surface contacts that fit certain parameters to the OOD. Depending on the defensive posture (not likely very high, as not in a war zone) the watch may be reduced or otherwise employed. The radar would normally be on all the time at sea, but being close to land might have sectors blanked or be off altogether. These radars tend to mess with cell phones and other electronics.
The small radar would be the OOD's main tool for navigation and anti-collision.

[Astrid]

"In any case, the reason I was asking if the SPS-67 radar is typically on is that radar is used to direct gun fire. If it could do that it surely can figure out the bow, the stern and the movement of a commercial ship."

The SPS-67 is a surface search radar with limited low flying detection capabilities. AN/SPG-62 Fire Control Radar is used for engaging surface and air targets. The SPG-62 is normally directed onto target by a second radar, the SPY-1 which is used to detect, while the SPG-62 provides the terminal guidance for the missile systems. If the USN follows the practice elsewhere, the fire control radars are typically not on and active unless battle stations has been ordered, but on stand by. Being on stand by, the radars are quick to come on line and produce accurate data, and on standby are not producing a detectable signature that can be easily tracked. If I recall, the SPS-67 and SPS-73 have signatures indistinguishable from commercial radars.

"IRC the USCG had to sink a Japanese derilict a bit ago. They put a lot of rounds into it and finally sunk it with hand set charges or some such thing. That was in broad daylight and the CG."

The largest actual gun on board was a 25mm Mk3 Autocannon. In the event this proved insufficiently powerful to do the job, so the Mk19 40 x 53mm automatic grenade launcher was brought into action firing HEDP ammunition and a few rounds from this at close range finished the trawler off.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by hpeer

It's called a SELECTIVE ATTENTION test.

What it really means is we suck at multi tasking.

...

It was a bit of a trick demo. The task we were given was one of focusing on one thing in particular in a very confusing situation. Many people are good at that. And many people are also good at looking at a broad picture, if that is the task. I think it is more about individual abilities and the tasks assigned to them, than any inherent human problems. Well, there is always Pride, if you want to look at human problems. That is the place to look at. Probably in this tragedy too.

[hpeer]

Two Blocked,

Yes, that is to the point. If you focus people away from some object there is a good chance they will miss it.

Who is/are the bridge staff designated to traffic avoidance? What other duties do they have? Is that a good or poor practice?

[bcn]

More from Reuters:
U.S. likely to bar Japan investigators from interviewing warship crew, official says | Reuters

[justwaiting]

Originally Posted by bcn

More from Reuters:
U.S. likely to bar Japan investigators from interviewing warship crew, official says | Reuters

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Orwell @ US Navy

[TwoBlocked]

gCaptain has not come out with the promised article on how the collision was also the ACX Crystal's fault. I have to respect their judgment and integrity. I just wonder with the statement from her Captain, the AIS track, and perhaps other info, whether gCaptain cannot find a reason to fault the ACX Crystal.

If it is a case of the USS Fitzgerald "running down" the ACX Crystal (inadvertently, while presumably trying to avoid a collision) while she is doing all in her power to get away, can we fault her?

[estarzinger]

I have a question about navy bridge command culture.

Let's say you are on a collision course with a commercial ship, impact in 5 minutes, and the OOD the deck freezes - not making decisions or taking actions, not calling the captain, not sounding the impact alarm.

Will someone step up and push him out of the way and take over? If so, at what point?

I am asking about in the real world, not in theory? I guess there would be unpleasant consequences if someone tried to push the OOD out and he actually was not 'frozen'

I know that is a soft question, and the answer is probably "it depends", but thoughts?

This seems to me to be possibly the most "occam razor" explanation for this incident. One guy froze, no-one else stood up in time.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Operation praying mantis 1988 the sinking of a hostile iranian cruiser. After the attack on a us navy frigate.

Wiki says that was an A6.
Late in the day, the Iranian frigate Sabalan departed from its berth and fired a surface-to-air missile at several A-6Es from VA-95. The A-6Es then dropped a Mark 82 laser-guided bomb into the Sabalan's stack, crippling the ship and leaving it burning. The Iranian frigate, stern partially submerged, was taken in tow by an Iranian tug, and was repaired and eventually returned to service. VA-95's aircraft, as ordered, did not continue the attack. The A-6 pilot who crippled the Sabalan, LCDR James Engler, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by Admiral William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for the actions against the Sabalan and the Iranian gunboats.[9]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Wiki says that was an A6.
Late in the day, the Iranian frigate Sabalan departed from its berth and fired a surface-to-air missile at several A-6Es from VA-95. The A-6Es then dropped a Mark 82 laser-guided bomb into the Sabalan's stack, crippling the ship and leaving it burning. The Iranian frigate, stern partially submerged, was taken in tow by an Iranian tug, and was repaired and eventually returned to service. VA-95's aircraft, as ordered, did not continue the attack. The A-6 pilot who crippled the Sabalan, LCDR James Engler, was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by Admiral William J. Crowe, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for the actions against the Sabalan and the Iranian gunboats.[9]

I stand corrected it was a long time ago and I have been in many ops since that one. Likely memories converging. ( happens as we get older)

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Two Blocked,

Yes, that is to the point. If you focus people away from some object there is a good chance they will miss it.

Who is/are the bridge staff designated to traffic avoidance? What other duties do they have? Is that a good or poor practice?

I am thinking there may be too much reliance on procedures and training, thinking this will take the place of natural aptitude and understanding concepts rather than learning facts.

For example, when we would get Cadets from Merchant Academies, I would ask them a question about celestial navigation. Are the orbits of the planets around the sun pretty much in one plane, like the grooves of a record player, or are they each in their own plane, like electrons in an atom? (Yes, I know that electrons aren't in orbits, but that is how it is pictured.) Only half would know the first is correct. I could then start talking about the ecliptic. The other half only knew the steps to go through for computing a celestial fix, and be pretty lost when the inevitable errors occurred. Like how can the declination of the sun ever be 40-some degrees?

Another way of stating this is the problem with "teaching to the test" rather than focusing on real understanding and competency. Along with this is the idea of mental ergonomics. Are tasks really being designed for how people think and act, or is a task first decided upon and then procedures and training are put into place to try to make humans do it?

I am reminded of those awful steering stands like they had on the Exxon Valdez...

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I have a question about navy bridge command culture.

Let's say you are on a collision course with a commercial ship, impact in 5 minutes, and the OOD the deck freezes - not making decisions or taking actions, not calling the captain, not sounding the impact alarm.

Will someone step up and push him out of the way and take over? If so, at what point?

I am asking about in the real world, not in theory? I guess there would be unpleasant consequences if someone tried to push the OOD out and he actually was not 'frozen'

I know that is a soft question, and the answer is probably "it depends", but thoughts?

This seems to me to be possibly the most "occam razor" explanation for this incident. One guy froze, no-one else stood up in time.

The standing orders are for ALL watch standers. They ALL have the responsibility to follow them, including calling the Captain when in doubt. So if the lowly bridge messenger doesn't like what is going on, he is required to call the Captain. But in the real world, so much depends on the "culture" of the bridge team.

I am reminded of a sea story I happen to believe. A merchant ship was transiting the Panama Canal, about the only place where not even the Captain can overrule the pilot. The helmsman, who told me the story, could see that if the ship didn't turn RIGHT THEN there would be a collision, so he turned the ship - he just couldn't help himself. He was reprimanded by the Captain and Pilot and told that even if the result was a collision, he should have done exactly what he was told.

So... like the proverb about the time to take action is when there is still time to do so, the person to take action can only be the one in place and of a mind to do so.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

The standing orders are for ALL watch standers. ....... told that even if the result was a collision, he should have done exactly what he was told.

Yea, that is exactly what I am wondering about - say the outside bridge wing watch sees the commercial vessel and tells the OOD, and OOD responds something like 'thanks' but then does not do anything - is that junior bridge wing watch stander going to do something about it or just keep standing there reporting as the ship keeps getting closer.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yea, that is exactly what I am wondering about - say the outside bridge wing watch sees the commercial vessel and tells the OOD, and OOD responds something like 'thanks' but then does not do anything - is that junior bridge wing watch stander going to do something about it or just keep standing there reporting as the ship keeps getting closer.

It depends, like in any human interaction, on the relationships between those involved. For instance, the lookout might get the QMOW's (Quartermaster of the Watch) attention and say "Hey, buddy. Is this ship going to be a problem?" If it is a problem, the OOD will usually listen to the QMOW's advice and concerns. If not, the lookout's concerns can be calmed. At least that's how it went while I was in the USCG. But different ships, different long splices.

Had a lookout once report a tugboat as a floating lighthouse. Well, it did sort of look like one.