US Navy destroyer collision

[UAEguy]

Although it looks like a tremendous amount of damage, considering the size of both vessels, it would appear they were both moving very slowly. So much so that one might have been at anchor or loitering.

My guess is that the Navy vessel was loitering, likely at rest, and the Cargo ship was maneuvering slowly. The cargo ship ran into the Navy vessel.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by Saleen411

Like this? :big grin:

This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

That story of the aircraft carrier and the lighthouse is a good joke.

That story has been around the internet for ages (in internet terms, since 1996) and was based on humorous cartoons and jokes that have been traced back to 1931.

It is of course FALSE, and simply a humor story or joke, and often the nationalities and vessel types are changed.

To learn more about that jokes history, see this link:
The Obstinate Lighthouse

-----------

That said, there is nothing funny about a collision or accident at sea that causes loss of life.

[UAEguy]

Only possible scenario I see is that the Cargo ship was slowly overtaking the Navy vessel from behind glancing the Navy ship starboard side with it's fwd port bow and bulb.

If it wasn't a glancing impact, there would have been far more damage to both ships.

[jmschmidt]

Starboard hit, looks bad for our guys. Hope there is a better reason.

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

Only possible scenario I see is that the Cargo ship was slowly overtaking the Navy vessel from behind glancing the Navy ship starboard side with it's fwd port bow and bulb.

If it wasn't a glancing impact, there would have been far more damage to both ships.

But there is apparently more damage than meets the eye. The cargo shop's bulb apparently punched into the navy hull below the waterline. As I see it, the asymmetrical damage to the cargo ship's bow is because of the way it hit the navy superstructure. It probably wasn't a 90-degree hit, but hardly a glancing blow.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Too many people on the bridge on those navy ships. Its got to be a nightmare to properly coordinate all the noise. Also navy ships have a certain "arrogance" about them. They have speed and manuverobility, and I wonder if they end up much like motorcyclists on busy roads, weaving through traffic. Fine till it goes wrong. I am not sure if they have (or use) ARPA. Plotting boards are all well and good, but an ARPA is far better, and presents the info visually for the OOW.

If you haven't listened to this it is a classic piece that shows the US ship making every bridge resource management mistake. Appalling and scary how bad that ship was managed.
The Most Intense Bridge Conversation EVER - USS Porter Collides With Supertanker [BRIDGE RECORDING AUDIO] – gCaptain

Then again maybe the Container ship altered to port? Merchant ships aren't immune to mistakes either. But the long cadetship helps prepare OOW's reasonably well.

This was our companies moment of shame. One of the brightest lighthouses. Drunk OOW... BBQ night.

Ships and Harbours Photos - Kowloon Bay aground.

Whether or not the Fitzgerald was broadcasting AIS should not have made much difference. It's only us WAFIs who rely so much on AIS. On the bridge of a commercial ship, they will normally be doing it with radar and ARPA.

The Porter collision is a really chilling case, and I wonder if it is really indicative of collision avoidance procedure on our Navy ships?

People go on about bridge resource management, but the problem I heard in that audio recording had little to do with that. On the Porter bridge, no one was calling out CPA, TCPA, or indicating in any way, that anyone was doing anything but eyeballing the other ship. "Look he's over there, let's turn that way!" The way you might expect a couple of fishermen in a jonboat to do collision avoidance.

You can't do collision avoidance that way -- you can tell by eye how you're crossing or how to turn. Where was the radar operator in all this? There must have been 10 people on that bridge.

I wonder if the same thing was going on, on the Fitzgerald?

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Plotting boards are all well and good, but an ARPA is far better, and presents the info visually for the OOW.

The electronic plotting board integrates charts, nav radar w/ ARPA, AIS, and a feed from CIC and thus the weapons radar.

[UAEguy]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

It probably wasn't a 90-degree hit, but hardly a glancing blow.

I can see an essentially intact bulb therefore disagree. The cargo ship was stand-on and navigating predictably for (at least) last 10 nm.

Guy on news claims the ACX was maneuvering erratically. But in reality he was on constant heading for a considerable distance.

I'm guessing since we don't have an AIS track for the Navy vessel, they were not broadcasting. Therefore we can't make any judgements about their navigational response which to me places them in the guilty box till more is known from crash investigators.

[tankersteve]

First, thought and prayers out to the families of the missing.

If it's haze grey, stay away. If you are a small boat captain.

tankersteve

[Tikka]

It's not about seamanship , but inability to protect the fine Navy ship .
When ship can not be protected from 20000 t cargo ship how you protect the ship from lone fisherman with boat loaded with explosives .
it obvious , you can't. Human error , electronic mis function , all above. Now we have driverless car, buses, ships and planes coming soon. Let's pray .

[admiralslater]

my interpretation of the collision is that both ships where headed in the same basic direction which is the only way to to get port to starboard damage after which there are a number of possibilities all of which could have been avoided with proper watch keeping either actual or electronic .
1 the freighter over took the warship and failed to keep clear
2 the warship tried to cut in front of the freighter
3 it was a pure t bone the impact ahead of the beam and the warship spun to allow the port side anchour to get into the super structure .

IMO the damage looks like a blow slightly abaft 90 degrees .
Terrible and unnecessary

[Pelagic]

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

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.

Thanks for providing the AIS history.... Clears up a lot of confused media reports.

Track does indicate a normal delaying scenario where ship jogged out away from main traffic flow and then did a reciprocal run to kill time. Cheaper for them to burn fuel than pay extra port fees and longshoremen costs on a weekend.
The Japanese Marine Department will have a Radar track of the NW..
I wonder if it will ever be released to the public?

Without corresponding track of the Fitzgerald, my speculation and others are missing key information

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

I can see an essentially intact bulb therefore disagree. The cargo ship was stand-on and navigating predictably for (at least) last 10 nm.

Guy on news claims the ACX was maneuvering erratically. But in reality he was on constant heading for a considerable distance.

I'm guessing since we don't have an AIS track for the Navy vessel, they were not broadcasting. Therefore we can't make any judgements about their navigational response which to me places them in the guilty box till more is known from crash investigators.

Correcto..... the collision occured at 0240 at which time the box boat had been steering a steady course for some time. That was followed by a bold alteration to starboard and a 'did you feel a bump' conversation. That was followed by a reversal of course back to the scene.

No way was the warship T-boned ..... that would have ended in serious tears .... google 'HMAS Melbourne' to see what happens when small navy ships get T-boned.

All I am seeing is the result of a glancing blow when the navy ship got under the flare of the merchant ship's bow.

How and why she got there I'm sure we will discover in the fullness of time.

[El Pinguino]

Here you go....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbou...ager_collision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne–Evans_collision

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Here you go....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbou...ager_collision

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne–Evans_collision

Thanks for sharing the links.
I read both.
Tragic accidents, both of them.
1964 82 killed
1969 74 killed

Same carrier, different captains.

Also interesting as the same ship, Melbourne, cut two destroyers in half, and that the CAPT Stevenson had warned the captains of his escorts about the first incident, as a lesson or warning, yet it happened again.

This short excerpt from the Evans incident was interesting too:

"Seventy-four of the 273 crew on Evans were killed.[10] It was later learned that Evans's commanding officer—Commander Albert S. McLemore—was asleep in his quarters at the time of the incident, and charge of the vessel was held by Lieutenants Ronald Ramsey and James Hopson; the former had failed the qualification exam to stand watch, while the latter was at sea for the first time."