US Navy destroyer collision

[CaptTom]

The cost of repairs in the context of this discussion is irrelevant. The only place we have input into what the military spends is in the voting booth. As a citizen, I hope there are lots of things they do which I don't know the details of.

Where I think public disclosure comes into play is when there's an accident, particularly of the kind that can affect us (members of the public.)

I have no right to hear private conversations between airline pilots, until there's a crash. At that point, the traveling public has, IMHO, a right to know the cause, so public policy can address it and hopefully avoid similar situations in the future.

Obviously, it's trickier with the military. There are very likely some details we shouldn't (and hopefully won't) ever find out.

Still, we all have an interest in learning from mistakes, and in our own safety in the vicinity of military vessels.

The temptation by those who wear a uniform (be it military, police, fire or whatever) is to take a superior attitude toward us "mere civilians." Within the bounds of reasonable force protection and operational security, we need to hold everyone accountable.

They sometimes forget that THEY work for US.

[estarzinger]

TJ,

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I disagree with most of what you have written above.

#1 I doubt the failure(s) here were so "complex" that most of us here could not understand an explanation. The Porter, nor any of the other six or so major recent incidents, have been that "complex".

#2 I think you perhaps misunderstand the requirements of government documents to be made public. The USCG report on this incident (just for example) is required by law to be made public (with redactions only for classified data). This is government work product which legally belongs "to the people". The Navy can and probably will stall that as long as possible, probably years, but a FOIA will eventually legally force it public. Just as the porter bridge tape and log were forced public.

#3 I do believe US citizens have a right and an obligation to be informed about military efficiency/effectiveness/improvement. This is a democracy. We vote to fund the military and to pick its (ultimate) leader. To do so, we need to be informed. The military has an obligation to inform us. When they make what look like crazy stupid half billion dollar mistakes, they have an obligation to be very very clear what went wrong and what they are going to do to fix it. Either we citizens have confidence that they are doing the correct things or we eventually get a big broom and sweep out their budget and/or their leaders.

#4 "just trust us" is not an effective answer after the porter and fitz.

On night time manning - may be there is a US UK difference. US military doctrine is "the night is our friend" (because sensor tech gives competitive advantage). Optimal operation time is viewed as 2 or 3am. And because of this their is a focus on training and gaining operation experience at that time.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

But just be aware that a couple people who have served on these ships say that in their experience in this exact context the bridge/lookout/CiC manning would not be reduced to the levels you suggest. Somewhere up thread I posted what one of them suggested would have been normal manning in this exact context.

Maybe you can point to where it was stated otherwise, and by whom. There seems to have been a few opinions on how many bodies would be on watch, but most have been around 7 on the Bridge and 4 in CIC. The most recent posting describes 7 persons on the Bridge with some others (comms and aft lookout) that would be stationed elsewhere. It specifically said it was the manning in or around the approaches - which is not really where the collision occurred. Sure it was a busy piece of water, but they were at least 20 miles from the nearest land and much further than that from any choke points.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Now, of course, this Captain might have been "over confident", and not doing the "typical", as you suggest.

I was talking about the OOD, who would have some latitude in how he ran his watch, especially considering any constraints. I've had watches with no spares - still need to rotate people to keep them fresh, so there wouldn't be a stbd lookout from the time he took the helm, until the entire watch rotated and the BM was relieved to become stbd lookout.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

It was in a press conference a few days after the incident. Was all in Japanese, so I fully admit my interpretation here is 3rd hand. But (I was told) they said they had "talked with navy officials but not interviewed navy crew (think they still have not). . . . . Navy vessels was at full manning levels . . . . Specifically had 3 lookouts on duty". (And yes, that detail could be a translation error).

IIRC, a few days after the incident, they were still reporting that it happened an hour later than it did. Again this might be a matter of what there was on paper vs actual boots on the deckplates.

Originally Posted by estarzinger

I guess I am not sure where you are going with this? You seem to be suggesting that perhaps the effective bridge and CiC manning combined was really "only" twice the commercial ship standard. Do you think that is an explanation or excuse for a warship with advanced sensor suite to allow itself be hit? It seems to me that #1 even at the reduced levels you suggest there was more than enough manpower, with more than enough information, to avoid this collision, and #2 if there is any question at all about that then this reduced manning level is dramatically not appropriate and a complete command fail.

Not making excuses or explanations - just trying to correct what I see as wildly inaccurate statements given as fact. When someone says something like "why didn't the 16 people on the bridge of the destroyer see anything, when commercial vessels can keep an effective lookout with just 3" I think it clutters the discussion. Whatever the reason for being in this discussion, be it professional interest, or morbid curiosity, we're better served if everyone has a better understanding of what really happens on these ships. I have never claimed an intimate knowledge of the USN, but have spent years at sea as OOW in RCN ships - not the same navy, but we have a lot of doctrinal commonalities. I'm willing to bet when (if?) the conclusions to the investigation are published, "reduced manning" will be among the contributing causes.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

IIRC, a few days after the incident, they were still reporting that it happened an hour later than it did. Again this might be a matter of what there was on paper vs actual boots on the deckplates.

Yea, I believe the statement I was referring to was made at the same point/press interaction where they announced the new "correct" incident time.

Would bet "reduced manning" will be among the contributing causes.

The vessel itself was not on "reduced manning", so if there were fewer than necessary on the bridge/lookout/CiC then perhaps the correct contributing cause would be "command failure to allocate resources appropriately". I still can't quite fathom even 3 on bridge/lookout/CiC (talking about marginally collusion related bodies) being called "too few" to avoid such a collision.

However I have heard nothing at all to suggest your specific speculation here is true. I personally doubt it. As you say we may or may not learn the answer in the future.
"

..........

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by hpeer

As to the need for full disclosure, one thing that should weigh on this decission is the cost of repair, which I'm assuming to be at least $500 million.

John Doe should have some interest in that.

$500M, 20-25% of cost of new build? I don't think so.

$50-100M.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Adelie

On a military surface ship ship, there is never going to be time a lookout shouldn't be posted, even mid-ocean. Except, maybe, the middle of the night during heavy weather, and even then I could see it still being a requirement.

Daytime, good vis, middle of the ocean, the OOW can handle lookout duties on the bridge by him/herself or have the helmsman do double duty as lookout. Even in coastal areas, with little traffic, it wasn't uncommon to stand down one of the lookouts.
Middle of the night in heavy weather, is when we want more eyes looking out.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

TJ,

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I disagree with most of what you have written above.

#1 I doubt the failure(s) here were so "complex" that most of us here could not understand an explanation. The Porter, nor any of the other six or so major recent incidents, have been that "complex".

#2 I think you perhaps misunderstand the requirements of government documents to be made public. The USCG report on this incident (just for example) is required by law to be made public (with redactions only for classified data). This is government work product which legally belongs "to the people". The Navy can and probably will stall that as long as possible, probably years, but a FOIA will eventually legally force it public. Just as the porter bridge tape and log were forced public.

#3 I do believe US citizens have a right and an obligation to be informed about military efficiency/effectiveness/improvement. This is a democracy. We vote to fund the military and to pick its (ultimate) leader. To do so, we need to be informed. The military has an obligation to inform us. When they make what look like crazy stupid half billion dollar mistakes, they have an obligation to be very very clear what went wrong and what they are going to do to fix it. Either we citizens have confidence that they are doing the correct things or we eventually get a big broom and sweep out their budget and/or their leaders.

#4 "just trust us" is not an effective answer after the porter and fitz.

On night time manning - may be there is a US UK difference. US military doctrine is "the night is our friend" (because sensor tech gives competitive advantage). Optimal operation time is viewed as 2 or 3am. And because of this their is a focus on training and gaining operation experience at that time.

Thank you for making my points far more effectively than I have tried so many times before in this discussion.

No one wants to compromise Naval security by demanding an answer to the basic question..
... .."How could this go so terribly wrong?"

And no one should be criticised for asking it as was G-Captain

For once you start down that road, McCarthyism mindsets and all the darkest periods of our great democracy, raise their ugly heads .

[SecondBase]

Honestly the professionals at unraveling this sort of thing and bringing a fresh perspective are the NTSB.

In this day and age many of them must already have the basic clearances.

We need to respect the individual Sailors and the public doesn't need their names byeond Sailor X and Sailor Y. We need to respect current and future Sailors by getting to the bottom of it and drawing out the Lessons Learned as earlier post suggested so any systemic weaknesses can be removed.

This is not Admiral Nelson's battle tactics. This is at the heart a "Transportation went wrong" issue. Would it make sense to get the NTSB point of view?

[Pelagic]

[QUOTE=SecondBase;2443149]

We need to respect the individual Sailors and the public doesn't need their names byeond Sailor X and Sailor Y. We need to respect current and future Sailors by getting to the bottom of it and drawing out the Lessons Learned as earlier post suggested so any systemic weaknesses can be removed.
QUOTE]

I also disagree on that point.
They are suppossedley adult professionals

They apear to have screwed up big time and will probably get discharged from the Navy.

If they were applying to me for a job in a civilian command capacity, I would like to know that history.

I heard no gasps of indignation when they named Captain Hazelwood?

Why the double standard in a non classified situation?

[SecondBase]

Edit: I meant that anonymity to apply for junior enlisted Sailors involved.

[newhaul]

[QUOTE=Pelagic;2443163]

Originally Posted by SecondBase

We need to respect the individual Sailors and the public doesn't need their names byeond Sailor X and Sailor Y. We need to respect current and future Sailors by getting to the bottom of it and drawing out the Lessons Learned as earlier post suggested so any systemic weaknesses can be removed.
QUOTE]

I also disagree on that point.
They are suppossedley adult professionals

They apear to have screwed up big time and will probably get discharged from the Navy.

If they were applying to me for a job in a civilian command capacity, I would like to know that history.

I heard no gasps of indignation when they named Captain Hazelwood?

Why the double standard in a non classified situation?

You can lookup any ship in the us navy with google . It will give.you the names of all senior officers . That is considerd public knowledge however individual crew list is not.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

TJ,

You and I agree on a lot of things, but I disagree with most of what you have written above.

#1 I doubt the failure(s) here were so "complex" that most of us here could not understand an explanation. The Porter, nor any of the other six or so major recent incidents, have been that "complex".

#2 I think you perhaps misunderstand the requirements of government documents to be made public. The USCG report on this incident (just for example) is required by law to be made public (with redactions only for classified data). This is government work product which legally belongs "to the people". The Navy can and probably will stall that as long as possible, probably years, but a FOIA will eventually legally force it public. Just as the porter bridge tape and log were forced public.

#3 I do believe US citizens have a right and an obligation to be informed about military efficiency/effectiveness/improvement. This is a democracy. We vote to fund the military and to pick its (ultimate) leader. To do so, we need to be informed. The military has an obligation to inform us. When they make what look like crazy stupid half billion dollar mistakes, they have an obligation to be very very clear what went wrong and what they are going to do to fix it. Either we citizens have confidence that they are doing the correct things or we eventually get a big broom and sweep out their budget and/or their leaders.

#4 "just trust us" is not an effective answer after the porter and fitz.

On night time manning - may be there is a US UK difference. US military doctrine is "the night is our friend" (because sensor tech gives competitive advantage). Optimal operation time is viewed as 2 or 3am. And because of this their is a focus on training and gaining operation experience at that time.

The "big picture" reason for this surely is quite simple many watchstanders weren't paying attention to what they should have been and priorities were grossly misplaced), but once the investigation is complete the details will involve talking about customs and routines and improper use of equipment that we aren't familiar with. There will be nuances that, unless you have served on a similar ship or made a serious study of how each crewman is supposed to do his job, you won't fully understand and that can lead to making wrong judgments about what was done wrong. Since my background is in aviation I tend to fall back on that for analogies. Take the example of the
Asiana 777 that crashed short of the runway in SFO in good weather because that accident was similar to this one due to it's inexplicable nature. The accident report on that has been released and you can google it if you'd like. There were 3 experienced pilots in the cockpit in good weather and they all sat there and watched the plane on autopilot first get slow and then descend below glideslope into the lights. Right up until the last few moments it would have been easy for either pilot at the controls to press one button to click off the autothrottles and push up the power and save everyone, but they didn't until it was too late. Nothing was wrong with the airplane before it crashed. So, we could point to fatigue after a Pacific ocean crossing but similar flights happen every day and fatigue isn't an issue, and just how fatigued would one have to be to sit and watch your plane descend to crash short of the runway? There was training going on, where one of the (experienced) pilots was new to this jet but that also means there was also a very experienced pilot in that particular aircraft type present as an instructor. The report says the autopilot was "mismanaged" and spells out exactly HOW they mismanaged the autopilot too but I can guarantee that unless you make a serous study of what all the acronyms mean and how this autopilot's logic works in all it's descent modes, you still won't really understand what they did that led to the crash. I happen to be very familiar with all the acronyms and have spent 26 years flying planes (757,767,747) that use virtually the same autopilot and even I had to read the summary several times slowly before I was sure I had an accurate picture in my head of exactly what they did wrong. Even pilots who fly other types of airplanes won't understand exactly why this autopilot did what it did. So, the vast, vast majority of people who read that report and make judgments based on reading it won't understand any more about what happened after they read it than they did before they read it and thus aren't in any position to speculate on exactly what the pilots should have done differently and how other pilots could avoid the same situation. To pilots like myself who operate this same autopilot, there might be some value in understanding exactly what they did but I'm not sure even that is true because I've always known that what they did was possible and was to be avoided. Of course we can all see that the most important thing they didn't do was to avoid distraction, look out the window and at their instruments and take over manually in a timely manner. But we could have said that before ever reading the accident report. Similarly, though we can all see that those aboard the Fitz obviously weren't paying attention to what they should have been paying attention to, it's unlikely that reading an accident report that references the misuse of equipment none of us are familiar with and watch routines and traditions that very few of us (except for ex Navy types) will understand is going to lead us to really understand exactly what led EVERYONE to be so distracted that they let this happen. So, while I agree that the "big picture" reason for all these accidents is very UN-complex, the details are very complex and those outside the community involved are unlikely to gain a greater understanding by reading a lot of info that details things they aren't familiar with. We already know the "big picture" reason for all these accidents we are discussing, including the Fitz and the Asiana flight in SFO. They all had their heads up their ---!

As you say, this report won't be released to folks like us for many years and by then most of those posting here will have lost interest and as I think I illustrated above, (myself included) won't understand most of it.

Of course I understand this is a democracy and we taxpayers pay for all this stuff, but despite what rights you "believe" we have, that doesn't give us the right to know details and pass judgments on how members of the military do their jobs. We also pay for all kinds of non military stuff but we aren't allowed to be privy to the discussions and committee meetings where all OUR money is being spent even if it sometimes seems like most of it is being wasted. Instead, we vote for others who hopefully represent our interests and speak for us. We are all entitled to our opinions of course, but that doesn't mean we suddenly become qualified as auditors and enforcers of every rule and everything our government or military seems to do wrong. As you say, if you've lost confidence in our government because you don't get to be privy to this accident report then do your best to "sweep them away" but you'll have an uphill battle persuading 51% of the eligible voters that seeing this accident report should be a top priority for them.

"Trust us" may not be what you want to hear but it IS effective. You're obviously a very smart guy but you are not an authority on the inner workings of the way the Navy does things and neither are any of us, and even IF you could read the report and fully comprehend all it's subtleties, you don't have the authority to make any changes that will prevent this from happening again. But the good news is that other, equally smart people, have dedicated their lives to understanding and refining Navy procedures and THEY will have access to the report and will make appropriate changes. Just because you won't personally be involved doesn't mean it won't happen. Obviously, aboard the Fitz, there were problems that badly needed to be addressed, and rest assured they will be, "just trust us!"

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Of course I understand this is a democracy and we taxpayers pay for all this stuff, but despite what rights you "believe" we have, that doesn't give us the right to know details and pass judgments on how members of the military do their jobs.

"Trust us" may not be what you want to hear but it IS effective.

I think I agree 90% with the missive above.

Where I start to waver is the idea that we (the public) need not trouble ourselves to hold those in power accountable for their actions.

Granted, we shouldn't expect (or want) to micro-manage those who serve us. Still, history is replete with examples where an individual or group was given power without accountability, and it rarely ends well.

It's not just the military. It can be as simple as a local fireman or policeman (and it does often seem to be a man) abusing their limited power. Treating us "mere civilians" as a distraction from them doing their job. Keeping us in the dark, preventing us from accessing locations or information "for our own good."

Big picture, society needs people who will step up to the plate to help protect us. We very rightly repay them with money and respect. But we must remain vigilant or that fragile relationship can do a 180-degree turn, and we can find ourselves needing protection from our "protectors."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

... Of course I understand this is a democracy and we taxpayers pay for all this stuff, but despite what rights you "believe" we have, that doesn't give us the right to know details and pass judgments on how members of the military do their jobs. We also pay for all kinds of non military stuff but we aren't allowed to be privy to the discussions and committee meetings where all OUR money is being spent even if it sometimes seems like most of it is being wasted.

... "Trust us" may not be what you want to hear but it IS effective.

I think that where this argument potentially goes wrong is "forest vs trees". And it applies to all government initiatives. If you're mostly comfortable with the size and extent of the US military, its budget and rationale, then things like the Fitz are just glitches to be fixed. And so you still have confidence and you "trust them". If you're a little more critical of the military and how it operates in the world, you want to be reassured that this was indeed a small procedural or technical glitch, and not a flaw in the attitude or nature of how the forces are directed and deployed.

So, while the details of the cause may be arcane or subtle, the US public still has a right to know what happened, together with sidebars from experts to explain the subtleties where necessary, to reinforce confidence that the military are not being reckless, and are operating with the appropriate caution and cooperation in this mostly peaceful world. Not hitting reefs or civilian shipping isn't that much to ask...

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I think I agree 90% with the missive above.

Where I start to waver is the idea that we (the public) need not trouble ourselves to hold those in power accountable for their actions.

Granted, we shouldn't expect (or want) to micro-manage those who serve us. Still, history is replete with examples where an individual or group was given power without accountability, and it rarely ends well.

It's not just the military. It can be as simple as a local fireman or policeman (and it does often seem to be a man) abusing their limited power. Treating us "mere civilians" as a distraction from them doing their job. Keeping us in the dark, preventing us from accessing locations or information "for our own good."

Big picture, society needs people who will step up to the plate to help protect us. We very rightly repay them with money and respect. But we must remain vigilant or that fragile relationship can do a 180-degree turn, and we can find ourselves needing protection from our "protectors."

BTW, I totally think that those responsible for this accident most definitely should be held accountable and am very confident that they will be. And of course I agree that when an individual is found to have abused power, they need to be exposed and removed from that position of power. But that doesn't mean that gives ME carte blanche to know every detail of what everyone "in power" has been doing, even when there's an accident like this one. IF the accident investigation finds that there was an abuse of power, I'd want it addressed, but I don't see it as MY job to be the one who does the investigating, the deciding, or the punishing in areas where I have very little expertise. As for this meaning we are being "treated as mere civilians" and this means the military might do a 180 and take over, I really don't see the connection. It's just that we aren't qualified to micromanage and tell them specifically how to do their job. I have no problem with us civilians emphatically telling them that they REALLY need to make sure they collide with any more slow moving behemoths on the high seas, but HOW they ensure they accomplish that is up to them, not me and not anyone else posting on this board.

Yes, we have the right to "generally" know what happened, and we pretty much already do know that. But I disagree that we have any right to know all the details of how a ship like this is supposed to be run or the changes that might be made as a result of this accident. We civilians have a right to insist on better results but not to tell those who are much more knowledgeable in running Navy ships than we are how to do their jobs. It's up to those in command of them to do that. If they don't do that then it's up to OUR politicians to replace them and if they don't do that then it's up to us to reelect different politicians. So, ultimately we are in charge, but that doesn't mean we get to micromanage USNavy procedures.