US Navy destroyer collision

[taxwizz]

Do Yankees think they are Gods?
Just wondering

[hpeer]

Navy doesn't have to TRANSMIT AIS. just look at the bloody receiver and CPA data.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

Yes, transmitting "here I am" is a risk for a warfighter. I wonder if that is a good reason to eschew AIS or just an excuse.

What do you mean by "just an excuse?" Do you disbelieve that there is a legitimate threat or that transmitting AIS would make it much simpler for an enemy to track and predict where a US warship is headed?

[Astrid]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

Do Yankees think they are Gods?
Just wondering

No according to R.F. Delderfield,it's the English.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Astrid

No according to R.F. Delderfield,it's the English.

No, it's just the members of 'western civilization'. Skip to the last minute for confirmation (but you'll miss an interesting discussion)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3wcjwY4mz8

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Totally agree, turning a generic AIS on and off when appropriate is a no brainier , but modifying the naval mindset to be less aggressive and arrogant in a COLREGS situation will be more of a challenge.

The report said the Fitz seemed to have been "traveling faster" than was expected.

To me that is probable code that watch keeper panicked , increased speed and turned the wrong way right into the CS that was making a proper avoiding turn

Yup! That has been my thought since we first heard from the ACX Crystal. The CS did what they should while the Destroyer did what they shouldn't. Exactly what is hard to say, but we have all panicked at one time or another and whatever we tried at the time was b---s to the walls! If I was the Captain of the CS I would have been beside myself for a while, too. Maybe even reluctant to go back to the scene in case they tried to run me down again! Not to mention being an armed vessel. Remember, some of the crew thought they were under attack and manned battle stations.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by taxwizz

Do Yankees think they are Gods?
Just wondering

No, we KNOW we are God!

[Cavalier MK2]

Why not send AIS with a different name for a disguise. Container ship? Cruise Ship? Their ships?

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Cavalier MK2

Why not send AIS with a different name for a disguise. Container ship? Cruise Ship? Their ships?

The only difference I see AIS making in this situation is that the track of the Fitzgerald would be public knowledge (which in most situations is NOT a good idea.) The CS knew where the destroyer was and that there was a danger of collision and apparently took appropriate action. It didn't need AIS. Did the Destroyer need AIS, or would it have been helpful? No, they probably needed a thorough understanding of the Colregs and better situational awareness. A gadget isn't the answer.

[Seabeau]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

No, it's just the members of 'western civilization'. Skip to the last minute for confirmation (but you'll miss an interesting discussion)...

Western Civilization is largely liberal, educated and democratic due to its underlying ethos.. The rest of the world is still trying to catch up.

[hpeer]

It's not about turning AIS on and off. It's about having the AIS RECIEVE turned on. That's what I don't get. You can just turn off the transmit and still see the container ship and still not revel your position.

That is what I find absolutely inexcusable. You can have it both ways, recieve but not transmit. You do then have to look at the damn thing. Which seems to be where they failed.

I don't understand and why folks keep talking about turning AIS on and off. It's just the transmit function. The CS knew where the Fitz was, it's the Fitz not looking at AIS, or anything else apparently, that caused the problem.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

What do you mean by "just an excuse?" Do you disbelieve that there is a legitimate threat or that transmitting AIS would make it much simpler for an enemy to track and predict where a US warship is headed?

The bad guys have no difficulty finding US targets.

I suggest that US Navy policy should be to transmit AIS (analogous to foreign port visits - show them what we could do) and go silent only by exception.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by hpeer

It's not about turning AIS on and off. It's about having the AIS RECIEVE turned on. That's what I don't get. You can just turn off the transmit and still see the container ship and still not revel your position.

That is what I find absolutely inexcusable. You can have it both ways, recieve but not transmit. You do then have to look at the damn thing. Which seems to be where they failed.

I don't understand and why folks keep talking about turning AIS on and off. It's just the transmit function. The CS knew where the Fitz was, it's the Fitz not looking at AIS, or anything else apparently, that caused the problem.

People are talking about a war ship transmitting its exact location, course and speed to any and all would be attackers. It is easy to understand why they might view that as undesirable.

The Fitz does not need an AIS receiver to electronically identity targets and threats. It has much more sophisticated systems with much greater accuracy and immunity to spoofing than AIS can ever provide. If they had an AIS receiver turned on (doubtful) they are most likely trained not to believe what it says. AIS messages can be easily transmitted with erroneous position, course and speed.

The presumed failure of the Fitz crew to take early and decisive action to avoid collision cannot be due to having or not having AIS. It has to be a much more fundamental problem. They had the means to see at night.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Auspicious

The bad guys have no difficulty finding US targets.

I suggest that US Navy policy should be to transmit AIS (analogous to foreign port visits - show them what we could do) and go silent only by exception.

Unfortunately your first sentence is true, but that doesn't mean the Navy should make it even easier. I bet water finds its way into your boat in a few places, but it would still be a bad idea to open a sea cock below the waterline...

As many others have already pointed out, a Navy destroyer has many other devices that should allow it to be aware of other vessels and avoid them. In this case they failed to use the assets at their disposal, including apparently their eyeballs.

So much is being made of AIS on this forum but even if they were transmitting AIS, if the destroyer maneuvered into the relatively unmaneuverable container ship, how would that have helped? I'm sure your "suggestion" about the USNavy getting AIS transmitters has already been made...and rejected for very good reasons, the overall safety of hundreds or even thousands of crewmmembers on each Navy ship. The way to avoid future accidents like this is to avoid the apathy towards watchkeeping that this particular USNavy vessel exhibited. My nephew serves aboard a similar USNavy vessel in the Pacific and when I spoke with him while home on leave last week he ruefully smiled, shook his head, and assured me that point had already been made, loud and clear, at least on his ship. I'm not sure if that was officially or just from his immediate supervisor, but nobody seems to have any illusions that there was a very serous and unnecessary breakdown in awareness.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

I think that an honest investigation will point out a 'failure to look out the window' and fatigue as major causes. It was interesting to hear that most of the ex-navy guys remarked on how tired they were from all the drills, whereas civilian watchkeepers have required rest periods.

On Fatigue, IME the military is hard-charging and often sleep-deprived. To give an idea when a soldier is going to operate under these conditions a piece of cord is tied from the equipment belt to the rifle. The sound of the dragging rifle reminding one, eventually, to pick it up. Working with that level of fatigue is praised as part of the warrior ethos, toughness, "stress similar to combat", winnowing, etc. And yes it achieves some of those goals for sure.

My assumption is that bits of that culture transferred over to military aviation way back when. It led where you would expect it to. And then - at least the way I'll tell it for discussion - then Crew Rest became a requirement.

Navy Aviation appears to have Crew Rest procedures well understood.


- - - - -
From the OPNAVINST 3710.7T Chapter 8:

8.3.2.1.2 Flight Crew

Ground time between flight operations should be sufficient to allow flight crew to eat and obtain at least 8 hours of uninterrupted rest. Flight crew should not be scheduled for continuous alert and/or flight duty (required awake) in excess of 18 hours. If it becomes necessary to exceed the 18-hour rule, 15 hours of continuous off-duty time shall be provided.
8.3.2.2.a Flight Time

Daily flight time should not normally exceed three flights or 6-1/2 total hours flight time for flight personnel of single-piloted aircraft. Individual flight time for flight personnel of other aircraft should not normally exceed 12 hours. The limitations assume an average requirement of 4 hours ground time for briefing and debriefing.

- - - - -

This incident while awful could easily have been worse. So here's my question.

Do Navy watchstanders maintain a highly disciplined Crew Rest program?

At the time of the incident what % of the on duty Bridge team would have been fit to flight duty standards?