US Navy destroyer collision

[Paul Elliott]

Originally Posted by Uplander

Do US warships use AIS? My guess is that they would receive but not transmit.

In my experience they *can* transmit, but very seldom do so. Yes, they receive.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by UAEguy

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

When the Tor Bay T boned the HMS Southhampton (who had just overtaken them then cut accross the Tor Bays bow too close). The damage to the Tor Bay was minimal, mostly just paint. Compamy legend has it she hit the officers wardroom and when they pulled out they had all sorts of souvineers left on her foredeck. I believe she continued the rest of her run without any repairs. The southhampton was an economic write off, the whole ship was bent in half. She was repaired so they didnt have to classify her as a casuality. Ironic since the Tor Bay was one if the few very rare British ships in the area. Friendly fire!

Looks to me like the CS was in a standard slowdown pattern. UMS enginerooms, economisers, shaft generators, and grumpy engineers mean slowing the main engine is not the best option.

If the Ais track is true it shows nothing particularly erratic about the CS's movements from a colregs POV. There appears to be a very slight alteration of course to port by the CS at some stage. This will hurt them if its a standard crossing situation.

I think the point about no AIS on the warship is a good one, if it came through as a small radar target with no AIS the CS OOW might have assumed a small vessel. If he even was watching the arpa carefully enough to notice it. Without AIS you are almost invisible these days to a less than diligent watchkeeper used to seeing everything big pop up as an AIS target.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Crude look at angle of impact.

looking at the navy vessel . . . . I would guess from this the commercial vessel was coming from forward of the beam. 50 degrees off reciprocal/40 degrees off T bone. I think it is pretty clearly not a hit from behind the beam - both lining up the damage, and looking at the withdrawal tear away area.

Attachment 150052

But I am not sure how that is consistent with the apparent commercial vessel damage more on the port side of their bow. . . . which seems like more of an aft approach.

Good Analysis, my take would be more of a direct "T" impact , but with both ships moving. The CS would have swung around. I think this is where the port bulwarks would have been damaged. This would also have wrenched the port anchor through the warships plating explaining the tear out marks and anchor damage.

The CS propeller would likely have been in ahead for a time after the impact. An engine that size doesn't just stop.

Thoughts go out to the missing crew and there family. Tragic.

[Pelagic]

Would the Fitzgerald be equipped with FLIR or Starlight mast cameras and recording equipment?

[sv zazen]

My be this can be the cause of the incident.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvRY...ature=youtu.be

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by nigel1

I blame Pu Rondo for not altering course.[emoji2]

Worked out well for me, I was skipper on one of the salvage tugs which refloated the Kowloon Bay.

On the Kowloon Bay, if I remember correctly, it was her skippers last trip before retirement, and it was a bit of a party trip. OOW the worse for wear and asleep, and the look out was absent from the bridge.

Strange but true, the OOW ended up getting a job with the salvage company, and promptly ran aground the first tug he was given command of.

Thanks for this info Nigel, I had often wondered about that rumour about that second mate. It seemed very far fetched, but hearing it from outside the company is very interesting. I have heard plenty of gossip about this incident over the years. Its hard to know whats true. The best two stories are that the OOW and watchkeeper were both alseep, and the ship sat there engines full ahead until (depending on who tells the story) the light from the lighthouse wakes the captain. Or an engine room alarm wakes the duty enginner (high EGT with overloaded engines, Or bilge alarm?)and he can't raise the bridge so wanders up to see whats going on, and finds the ship hard aground, engines churning away...

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Thanks for this info Nigel, I had often wondered about that rumour about that second mate. It seemed very far fetched, but hearing it from outside the company is very interesting. I have heard plenty of gossip about this incident over the years. Its hard to know whats true. The best two stories are that the OOW and watchkeeper were both alseep, and the ship sat there engines full ahead until (depending on who tells the story) the light from the lighthouse wakes the captain. Or an engine room alarm wakes the duty enginner (high EGT with overloaded engines, Or bilge alarm?)and he can't raise the bridge so wanders up to see whats going on, and finds the ship hard aground, engines churning away...

Watchkeeper was asleep.... lookout just kept on looking out.... duh.... I think it was the engineer and the overloaded engine...

Memorable comment from man in charge of inquiry 'the only alcohol they didn't have on board was light beer......

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Aww, that'll buff right out, Frank! Absolute wonder that she was still afloat.

Jim

That's why big ships have collision bulkheads....

That ship, 'Stockholm' was built in 1948, the photo was taken in 1956.. and she was still going strong about 5 years ago...maybe still is....

The ship she hit, "Andrea Dorea', sank

[El Pinguino]

You can find the pdf of the full enquiry here.... https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...85/mair/mair8/

Seems it wasn't even the engineer....

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Yea, the ASX Crystal sure shows a hit with it's port side bow, which would indicate a track from behind the beam.

I cannot square the two photos.

It is possible that the Crystal photos have been (accidentally) flipped left/right - I'v seen that happen in the media. Short of that, I am puzzled.

The Fitzgerald photo is correct (I believe) because it is consistent with video of the vessel.

Attachment 150053

Seems relatively straightforward - the horizontal cut in the CSX bow is where it impacted Fitz's gunwhale (the deck/hull joint at the forecastle just forward of the superstructure); the raised part of the hull and superstructure then slammed into the portside of CSX's bow. If CSX had managed to get it's engines going astern the bow would have been slewing to stbd. The actual approach angle prior to collision cannot be determined from the damage, and will have to be determined from radar, AIS/CCS/SINS reconstruction.

Not likely that the Fitz would have lookouts on the wings - radhaz. My WAG given time of day, would be Fitz was running some sort of internal drill, some sort of battle scenario for CIC and bridge watches; maybe including engineering drills (think electrical power failure, possible steering gear failure) and the officer of the deck lost the situational bubble.
From CSX's point of view - no AIS from Fitz, possibly no nav lights and (from experience) possibly no or very small radar paint.
Condolences to the sailors' families.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

Two questions for those with direct experience:

Likely Navy manning: 4 on bridge, 4 in CiC, 2 watch keepers on wings?

Automatic alerts/alarms when small cpa - ais and multiple bands of radar?

I was in 30 yrs ago but manning is likely similar with 7 on the bridge, Port, stbd, stern lookouts. CIC is probably around 4.
Alarms are not active on radar since they are assumed to be continually monitored.

We see multiple layers of cross checking BRM failures here.

[hpeer]

Reuters....sad news

Bodies of missing sailors found in flooded compartments of U.S destroyer | Reuters

Bodies of missing sailors found in flooded compartments of U.S destroyer

Sat Jun 17, 2017 | 10:44 PM EDT

By Tim Kelly | YOKOSUKA, Japan

The bodies of a number of sailors who were missing after the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship were found in flooded compartments of the damaged ship, the U.S. Seventh Fleet said in a statement on Sunday.
. . .
(Reporting by Tim Kelly and Linda Sieg; Editing by Paul Tait)

[nautitrix]

The photos don't show all of the damage as there is damage below the waterline to the Warship. It is possible that the bow wave bulb on the CS. hit the Warship at or close to "T" and the bulwark damage is the result of angle of incidence changing with momentum.
My heart goes out to all of the families and crew who are suffering as a result of this event.

[Three Sisters]

Another angle of the CS

[Pelagic]

That angle seems to support more of an almost T-bone collision where the tear in the CS bow bow lines up with the crushed structural weather deck of the Fitzgerald.
The bow flare crushed in the CO's quarters where he was sleeping and the ratings below the waterline got hit and flooded by the bulbous bow.

Such a tragedy to die that way.

We really need to know the speed, direction and aspect of the Fitzgerald to understand how this could have happened to such a sophisticated and defensively manned warship