US Navy destroyer collision

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Of course air/sea accidents aren't entirely analogous but it's what I'm familiar with and is analogous in many ways. To answer your question, yes I think "some" public reporting would be appropriate in both cases and we certainly have seen that here. When a F18 crashes into civilian property and damages it you will see a photo of the wreckage in your newspaper or on tv and a very generalized statement about what went wrong but nobody demands or expects a public review of F18 flight procedures that led to the crash or a detailed report of exactly what the pilot did wrong, and even if the results of the detailed military investigation were publicized, all those of us who aren't trained to fly F18s would struggle to make any sense of it and would lack the perspective or opportunity to use that info to prevent additional F18 crashes. So what would be the point of releasing more than we already know except to satisfy our curiosity?

Somehow I think if a F18 crashes into a city (or a civilian aircraft) in any first world country outside the USA, there might just be expectation of the citizens of that country to know what went wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so...

[Auspicious]

I still believe that most observers don't gather the ability of the US Government to take a complex situation and make it really complicated. The US has multiple agreements led by a number of different agencies. They all of equities. Add a flavoring of classified information at various levels and yet more agreements about who will share what and who can declassify what and the delay does not surprise me at all.

[transmitterdan]

There are a lot of tensions on and under the sea right now. I don't know if that affects the US behavior or not. Time will tell and I hope the Navy cooperates with Japanese authorities.

Regarding the concept of 'you don't need to know because you are not in the Navy' I think that's a bit of a stretch. Using the air accident analogy, if a Navy plane hit a civilian aircraft or a civilian structure there would definitely be an investigation and the non classified results given to the public. Especially if the civilian entity involved can do anything to help prevent a recurrence. I have to believe in this case there is plenty the civilian side can do to avoid a similar accident in the future. All naval collisions are the result of multiple parties taking (or not taking) various actions. Any one of which, if done differently might have avoided the collision. So I don't buy the argument that no one outside the Navy needs to know what and why. But especially the lessons learned that civilian vessels can use in the future need to be released. Hopefully in time they will.

[transmitterdan]

And just to clear up some semantics... all indications are that the container ship hit the war ship in the side, not the other way around. That does not mean the container ship was at fault. It probably was not. In the aircraft analogy if a US civilian aircraft hit a bomber there would definitely be US civilian agencies investigating.

[Taichungman]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Somehow I think if a F18 crashes into a city (or a civilian aircraft) in any first world country outside the USA, there might just be expectation of the citizens of that country to know what went wrong.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so...

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are not wrong.
I tell you who really wants to know and has a right to know. The parents of the sailors killed that night. Some Parents might say they want the truth to come out so that whatever problems there were that night, that they may be remedied and lives saved in the future. But what most of those parents really want is accountability. They are hurt and want someone to pay and I'm not talking about money. They want whoever was responsible put up before a court. They want if nothing else to know that their sons lives were worth something and not just be forgotten and it all swept under the rug.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I don't hear anyone hear asking for ALL THE DETAILS.

I hear folks asking for an explanation with sufficient detail to be assured the Navy understands the problems and how to fix them.

Firing or terminating careers provides some revenge satisfaction but in and of itself does little to fix the problem.

Think of it this way, the "fix" whatever it is, likely requires some realignment of training as a minimum. More likely some adjustment of procedure. And to be effective it must permeate across the surface fleet. That means the adjustment will be well known to many thousands of sailors.

Now ask yourself 2 questions.

How are you going to keep that secret?

What adjustment was made after the Porter?

Who determines what is "sufficient detail?" Given our various levels of skepticism and curiosity, wouldn't that be pretty hard to determine?

Firing is not a cure-all but it ensures the same guy isn't in a position to make the same costly mistake again and again, and it sends a rather clear message to his peers that what he did was unacceptable so they might reexamine their own priorities. But you're right that more must be done.

I don't know what changes were made after the Porter but apparently at least this crew didn't get the message and more needs to be done, but that doesn't mean that you or I are in a position to determine WHAT more needs to be done. Some of what the Navy decides to change might become public knowledge and some might be secret and I'm OK with that.

The bottom line is that they need to somehow get the message across that overall situation awareness must be maintained at all times aboard their ships, no excuses. That's something we all struggle with and HOW we manage to do that is different on all our boats and during different phases of a voyage. I don't think a USNavy skipper is qualified to come on my boat and tell me HOW to do that (except in very general terms) and I don't think either you or I is qualified to go aboard his boat and tell him how he should get his crew to do that. But I really do agree it MUST happen and something needs to change so the Navy gets better results than in recent years. I don't need to know HOW they go about it, just that they do and that their results improve.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

There are a lot of tensions on and under the sea right now. I don't know if that affects the US behavior or not. Time will tell and I hope the Navy cooperates with Japanese authorities.

Regarding the concept of 'you don't need to know because you are not in the Navy' I think that's a bit of a stretch. Using the air accident analogy, if a Navy plane hit a civilian aircraft or a civilian structure there would definitely be an investigation and the non classified results given to the public. Especially if the civilian entity involved can do anything to help prevent a recurrence. I have to believe in this case there is plenty the civilian side can do to avoid a similar accident in the future. All naval collisions are the result of multiple parties taking (or not taking) various actions. Any one of which, if done differently might have avoided the collision. So I don't buy the argument that no one outside the Navy needs to know what and why. But especially the lessons learned that civilian vessels can use in the future need to be released. Hopefully in time they will.

That's a stretch. WHAT so you suppose a much bigger, less maneuverable vessel can possibly do differently than this container ship did to prevent a more maneuverable vessel that he can't establish contact with from attempting to cross his bow too close? Other than turning tail and fleeing at top speed anytime you get a radar contact that might possibly be a USNavy ship, what could they do differently? What might be unique about this collision that might teach us all a lesson that all the prior ship collisions in maritime history shouldn't haven't already taught us?

[transmitterdan]

We don't know what the container vessel could have done differently because there is yet no public report. That's precisely why I hope eventually we can read one. But to just assert the container vessel was entirely powerless to avoid the collision assumes facts not in evidence. And that's the whole problem if the Navy never releases a detailed enough report or cooperates with Japanese/Philippine investigators

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

We don't know what the container vessel could have done differently because there is yet no public report. That's precisely why I hope eventually we can read one. But to just assert the container vessel was entirely powerless to avoid the collision assumes facts not in evidence. And that's the whole problem if the Navy never releases a detailed enough report or cooperates with Japanese/Philippine investigators

You can ask the container ship crew what they saw and when and what their reactions were and then try to figure out what they could/should have done differently with the benefit of your 20/20 hindsight. But if the more maneuverable ship doesn't have an adequate lookout, isn't transmitting AIS, and then doesn't answer a hail or follow the crossing rules, it's pretty tough to put the blame on the container ship and say they should have done something different. Maybe the container ship could have somehow avoided the accident, but since you'll never find yourself in that same geometry at that same speed in a vessel with the same degree of maneuverability, I don't see how that's going to help you avoid running into someone. I get that you're curious (me too), but why not just say that instead of making up all these justifications for "needing" to know.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Who determines what is "sufficient detail?" Given our various levels of skepticism and curiosity, wouldn't that be pretty hard to determine?
.

Not really.....The International Civilian world is only requesting the physical data on the historical Track of the Fitz leading up to the collision.

This would, simply confirm or clarify the reports from the civilian crew.

Most will accept that Navy Personnel be handled internally as it has complicated levels of responsibility.

Unfortunately, those who deal in absolutes and argue that the whole incident should be classified even when involved in a friendly collision are simply being arrogant!

[hpeer]

Jtsailjt,

Just to be ornery for a moment,

We had the Porter incident a couple of years ago
No report was ever released
No one seem to be able to point to some changed policy because of that incident
Now we have a second incident of outwardly and broadly similar nature
Navy again seems to be stone walling
There is no evidence, no scuttlebutt, of changed procedures at some period of time from the accident.
Given the number of sailors involved news would leak out. The Air Force will have a stand down day occassionally, when some serious incident occurs.


From that sequence of events one could be forgiven for being suspicious that the Navy is on top of their situational awareness. You might conclude the senior brass is exhibiting no situational awareness of how their ships are handled.

This all seems to point to some systematic issue the Navy can not handle. If they were taking steps to handle it there would be some evidence, some leakage.

As a minimum they should man up and own the proble and say they are working on it.

[Pelagic]

As a comparison to the freedom of information in most marine incidents.

This AIS video graphic was supplied less than 36hrs after the incident

http://gcaptain.com/watch-ais-animat...eid=0a4d88d4b5

[El Pinguino]

Its not that uncommon for a party to decline the invitation to attend the inquiry...

In the case of the Norwegian Crown/ Ever Decent collision ' Little is known about the intentions or actions of those on board the Ever Decent, but the actual movements of the ship are known from the shore- based radar plot.'

Little was known because the 'Ever Decent' people.. Taiwanese owners/ Panama flag ... simply didn't feel inclined to get involved in the enquiry.

That is in this bit that I posted a few months ago but here it is again.. http://www.bahamasmaritime.com/wp-co...ver-Decent.pdf

Likewise after the 1971 collision between Texaco Caribbean and Paracas in 1971 not another word was heard from the Peruvian owners of Paracas ... and the loss of life was far greater than in the collision under discussion on this thread.

Texaco Caribbean - Cedre

The ensuing confusion over buoyage that led to the loss of Nikki and Brandenburg after that event was what led to the global standardisation of buoyage that we now know as IALA A... 'global' except for the USA and the bits of the planet under their influence which have IALA B...

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

As a comparison to the freedom of information in most marine incidents.

This AIS video graphic was supplied less than 36hrs after the incident

WATCH: AIS Animation Shows CSCL Jupiter Grounding and Salvage – gCaptain

That isn't something released by the owners or flag or port but just a Marinetraffic type record... if Fitzgerald had been running AIS we would have had the same info available in this case.

We have no idea what happened on the ship to cause her to run aground but as the same thing happened to a sister in the Elbe not that long ago I suspect equipment failure.. or a 'press the button!... what button?... the blue button!!!! what blue button? the blue button on the left!!!!!!!!! on the left of what????? oh sh1t.......' sort of scenario

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

That isn't something released by the owners or flag or port but just a Marinetraffic type record... if Fitzgerald had been running AIS we would have had the same info available in this case.

That is actually my point

I am 99% sure that Japan Marine Traffic Authority already has a Radar Track history of all vessels in their coastal waters

Synchronizing Fitz:s radar target with AIS will have produced a similar animation.
...But this has been withheld...?
Why?...... Again all I can think of is Naval bullying.

Failure of crew or companies to cooperate in a marine enquiry/inquest is rare and contemptible, but it happens....
Suppressing track history, which should be public knowledge, takes a wholly different level of arrogance.