US Navy destroyer collision

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

]

I suspect that the order was disregarded in order to try to avoid a collision. Proactive enough? I guess not... I bet you could have cut the tension in the air with a knife. An order was given and ignored (or argued against?) for 2 minutes probably by "individual members of the watch teams [that] identified incorrect information or mistakes by others" until the Bosun took the controls. Then a minute later is the collision, and that was with the container ship turning away.

I bet the audio will be a classic.

Makes you wonder how often this happens and is not reported.

[donradcliffe]

Read the full version and find out why "if its grey, stay away"

https://news.usni.org/2017/11/02/doc...surface-forces

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Makes you wonder how often this happens and is not reported.

For it to happen once is too often. That said, I don't think it is frequent, but not unheard of either. The USN is generally very capable of fulfilling their missions.

But lets give credit where credit is due. I didn't think the USN would ever say what happened on the bridge of those destroyers. Kudos to them for putting it out in the open. Still, I am sure they toned down what happened. Reading between the lines, I think there was a fair amount of panic and stupid things going on - that is how panic works and is not something we control very well when it happens.

These incidents affect me deeply, imagining what it must have felt like to be there. Trying to get into the head of those officers making decisions, it seems they were acting like they were driving a car in some ways. Hard to explain, but like they knew they were maneuvering a ship (not very well...), but everyone else was driving on a road or something. Huh, I was rowing, canoeing, and sailing long before I started to drive...

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

These incidents affect me deeply, imagining what it must have felt like to be there. ..

Me to!
There was nothing in either of those incidents that was not a normal piloting task within a simple and organized traffic arrangement.

Yet they seemed to act like a confused wasp amongst some honey bees.

[hpeer]

Two blocked,

You say “it seems like they were driving a car”

In the report, in at least one place, they said they were “driving” the ship.

So, yeah, that appears to be the Navy way.

I tell ya, words matter.

[GordMay]

... In several instances, individual members of the watch teams identified incorrect information or mistakes by others, yet failed to proactively and forcefully take corrective action, or otherwise highlight or communicate their individual concerns"...

Reminds me of the science of crew resources management (cockpit culture), that has become virtually a compulsory program for the world's leading airlines.
Perhaps the Navy’s bridge culture needs a similar review and update.

[transmitterdan]

In my experience the word "driving" is often used by US Navy sailors. Mostly I have heard the term used by sub drivers. But it's not uncommon to hear the term used by surface ship captains. It does not indicate any lack of appreciation for what they are actually doing.

I too commend the Navy for releasing as many details as they have. It explains the recent shuffling of staff in the Pacific as well as the emphasis on crew competence evaluation and training over simply putting ships to sea. These men and women are serving at a time when world events are rapidly evolving along unpredictable paths. For example, a few days ago a ballistic missile was reportedly launched against the Saudi capital city airport.

It appears that all of these navigation incidents are rooted in a lack of training or lack of knowledge retention by the officers. That's a really hard problem to solve.

[transmitterdan]

It's also noteworthy i think that as many as 60 US Navy admirals are under investigation for corruption. Nearly all of them served in the Pacific and were associated with one service provider headed by the so-called "Fat Leonard" character. I can't help but sense a connection between that and these events. If true it makes these accidents all the more troubling. The Navy has some real challenges ahead to get itself back in shape.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Reminds me of the science of crew resources management (cockpit culture), that has become virtually a compulsory program for the world's leading airlines.
Perhaps the Navy’s bridge culture needs a similar review and update.

Yes, we touched on this much earlier during this Topic. Unfortunately the way this is implemented during the compulsory bridge resource management training, at least when I went through it, was by dividing up all the different navigational, maneuvering, and communication tasks in order to produce a "synergistic effect" (they actually used that specific term) enabling the bridge team to do what could not be done by any single member. They said this idea came from the flight deck, but I did not buy it. I asked how many pilots it takes to fly a plane, and of course the answer is one. If it took more than one, there would be two co-pilots, of course.

What they were really doing was finding ways to show off their fancy simulator. Over and over again something would be missed by one of the team members, or there was a miscommunication between them and we would crash. We were being put into situations which we should never have been put into - unfamiliar pilot waters with a crew unfamiliar with each other and as often as not a 3rd or 2nd mate acting as Captain. Not too far from what I read about the destroyer collisions.

But granted, yes, it is a cultural problem. The Navy stated that their cultural problem is one of "Can Do" regardless of the task, circumstances or resources. I think that is a result of a deeper cultural problem of a prideful, leader-follower model. There is a book I saw online called "Turn the Ship Around". Here is an outline of the leader-leader model by the author:

https://srinathramakrishnan.files.wo...hip-around.pdf

[Snowpetrel]

Most merchant ships don't play with the speed during collision aviodance. Just adjusting the course is amost always enough. Likewise in a car we are constrained by the road. In effect we only really have a speed control.

A warship can play with course, and speed. Prehaps this extra freedom of action, coupled with the lag between ordered control and action really effects the humans ability to cope in heavy traffic.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Most merchant ships don't play with the speed during collision aviodance. Just adjusting the course is amost always enough. Likewise in a car we are constrained by the road. In effect we only really have a speed control.

A warship can play with course, and speed. Prehaps this extra freedom of action, coupled with the lag between ordered control and action really effects the humans ability to cope in heavy traffic.

Very true. I have served on vessels where maneuvering with the engines was part of a typical day but would not have thought much about it in the case of these destroyers except that they HAD been using their engines, just not to best effect.

Also found in the longer recommendation report that on the Fitz the delay in the execution of the order to come left and go ahead at flank speed was due to the helmsman freezing up while the OOD and Conning Officer were yelling at him. Perhaps those 2 minutes would have made the difference, but panic ruled the moment. The helsman on the Exxon Valdez delayed executing a rudder command too...

Heavy traffic... Try dragging two - 3 mile long seismic cables around the fairways leading to Houston. You learn to think FAR ahead and to figure out what is important and not worry about the rest. You also learn to keep your options in mind and open.

[double u]

"...helmsman freezing up while the OOD and Conning Officer were yelling at him..."
there goes my belief in the "always-combat-ready-elite"...

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

Most merchant ships don't play with the speed during collision aviodance. Just adjusting the course is amost always enough.

A warship can play with course, and speed. Prehaps this extra freedom of action, coupled with the lag between ordered control and action really effects the humans ability to cope in heavy traffic.

Professional Mariners are taught that a significant alteration of Course is preferred over Speed, as it is more readily apparent to the other Vessel's.

That is the whole point of collision avoidance......to let the other guy know your intentions

Warships, just like to play!

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

Also found in the longer recommendation report that on the Fitz the delay in the execution of the order to come left and go ahead at flank speed was due to the helmsman freezing up while the OOD and Conning Officer were yelling at him. Perhaps those 2 minutes would have made the difference, but panic ruled the moment.

From what I read, it was the Conning officer who '"froze" in the moment', and then the report inexplicably says the OOD and Conn shouted orders to the helm. I didn't see where the length of delay was stated - where did you get 2 minutes?

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Professional Mariners are taught that a significant alteration of Course is preferred over Speed, as it is more readily apparent to the other Vessel's.

Where is that taught? I would think most mariners are familiar with rule 8(c), but I would also think they are conversant with rule 8(e)

That is the whole point of collision avoidance......to let the other guy know your intentions

Surely the whole point of collision avoidance is to avoid collisions, whether or not the other guy does anything.

Warships, just like to play!

What an asinine comment. What do you know about what warships do?