US Navy destroyer collision

[Snowpetrel]

^^ We do teach it exactly as the collregs and pelagic says. An A/C is in most cases much better than an alteration of speed. Speeding up to avoid a collision was part of the cause of both the porter and the fitzgerald incidents.

Arpa's and AIS really struggle to accurately deal with gradual speed changes, but a bold course change is pretty obvious, and accuracy returns pretty quickly afterwards.

Whilst engaged in a manouver your own arpa and ais can loose significant accuracy during the change, and for a few minutes afterwards in yhe case of arpa. Since it takes much longer to change speed accuracy is effected for longer.

[TwoBlocked]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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?

I had to piece together the two different documents. Here is part of the timeline from one of them, which I posted before:

"0125 The Officer of the Deck noticed CRYSTAL rapidly getting closer and considered a turn to 240T.

0127 The Officer of the Deck ordered course to the right to course 240T, but rescinded the order within a minute. Instead, the Officer of the Deck ordered an increase to full speed and a rapid turn to the left (port). These orders were not carried out.

0129 The Bosun Mate of the Watch, a more senior supervisor on the bridge, took over the helm and executed the orders.

As of 0130 Neither FITZGERALD nor CRYSTAL made an attempt to establish radio communications or sound the danger signal.

As of 0130 FITZGERALD had not sounded the collision alarm.

0130:34 CRYSTAL’s bow struck FITZGERALD at approximately frame 160 on the right (starboard) side above the waterline and CRYSTAL’s bulbous bow struck at approximately frame 138 below the waterline.”

The official "review" is the one that mentioned the Helmsman froze and eventually the BMOW executed the helm and engine orders. Maybe he was on the bridge wing and it took a while for him to realize he had better get inside or something.

[TwoBlocked]

I mentioned about using the engines to alter course in the case of the Fitz and to maintain course in the case of the McCain. Certainly it would also affect the speed, especially backing one screw, but with the Fitz, why not do a crash stop? I think they can stop in a ship's length, or something. Ah, but they were ship "drivers" not ship "handlers". I have read about ship handling, but not ship driving.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

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

I admit to only being on the receiving end of trying to fathom the piloting intentions of Warships as the master of small cruise ships and super yachts.

They often zoom up, take a quick look and then play a shadowing game practicing who knows what??

I have no problem once they identify themselves and I can understand their intentions, but as per these last two incidents in waters I ply frequently, they often make a simple avoidance maneuver very difficult due to reliance on horsepower, rather than stable vectors.

I think Snowpetrel clarified what is taught to professional mariners.

Sea police obviously have a different set of priorities

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

^^ We do teach it exactly as the collregs and pelagic says. An A/C is in most cases much better than an alteration of speed.

It doesn't have to be one or the other - particularly when the freedom to manoeuvre is limited an a/c and slowing down significantly is likely the best approach.

Speeding up to avoid a collision was part of the cause of both the porter and the fitzgerald incidents.

Not up on the Porter incident, but with the Fitz it seemed the "turn left, speed up" was not surprisingly a stupid move. The Fitz was honking along at a pretty good clip prior to, so the speed hadn't changed all that much before the bump.

Arpa's and AIS really struggle to accurately deal with gradual speed changes, but a bold course change is pretty obvious, and accuracy returns pretty quickly afterwards.

AIS should be able to keep up with the change registered by GPS - which IMO, is reasonably quick. I take your point about speed changing gradually, but anyone who does a close quarters avoidance and then immediately looks to ARPA for information is a moron - they'd be better off deleting and rehooking all the tracks.

Whilst engaged in a manouver your own arpa and ais can loose significant accuracy during the change, and for a few minutes afterwards in yhe case of arpa. Since it takes much longer to change speed accuracy is effected for longer.

Depends again on the handling characteristics of the ship - warships, ferries and a lot of small commercial vessels can change speed quite rapidly, and a large speed change at a reasonable range can be obvious. Certainly an alteration of course is more easily seen visually.

[Alan Mighty]

SHIZUOKA, Japan (Kyodo) -- The coast guard said Thursday it has referred to prosecutors two crewmen, one from the U.S. Navy's Aegis missile defense system-equipped destroyer Fitzgerald and one from a Philippine-flagged container ship, over a fatal collision between the two vessels in June.

The Shimoda office of the Japan Coast Guard allege the two, who were in charge of keeping watch at the time, failed to take steps to avoid the accident in the south of Tokyo Bay early on June 17, resulting in the deaths of seven U.S. sailors and injuries to three others from the destroyer.

But prosecutors are likely to drop the charge against the crewman from the Fitzgerald, as early as this month, because under the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, the United States has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction when an offense is deemed to have been committed while on duty, sources close to the matter said.

The crewman from the container ship is also likely not to be indicted as the extent of fault on its side is small, the sources said.

The collision between the 8,315-ton Fitzgerald and the 29,060-ton container ship ACX Crystal, operated by Japanese shipping firm Nippon Yusen K.K., occurred at 1:30 a.m. on June 17 about 20 kilometers southeast of the Izu Peninsula in Shizuoka Prefecture.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles...4000c#cxrecs_s

[Alan Mighty]

And concerning USS John S McCain:

SINGAPORE - An accident involving a United States warship and an oil tanker, which occurred in Singapore waters last August and left 10 people dead, was brought on by a “sudden turn” made by the warship.

Less than three minutes later, the American guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with oil tanker Alnic MC as they were transiting through the Singapore Strait.

The warship was in the path of the oil tanker, said the Transport Safety Investigation Bureau (TSIB) – a unit under the Transport Ministry – which released its investigation report on Thursday (March 8).

Ten American sailors on board the McCain died in the accident, which occurred at about 5.24am near Pedra Branca – situated at the eastern entrance to the Singapore Strait.

In a 35-page report made public yesterday which gave a blow-by-blow account of what happened, TSIB said that the action by the US warship resulted from a series of missteps that took place after a transfer of propulsion controls.

Instead of one crew member managing both speed and steering, the US commanding officer had ordered another member to take over managing speed minutes before the accident.

Inadvertently, along with speed, the steering operations on the US warship also got transferred to the second crew member.

The sailor who was originally in charge of steering reported a loss of steering. Alternative steering kicked in, while speed was reduced ...

see the rest at:

'Sudden turn' by warship USS John S. McCain caused collision which killed 10 sailors: Singapore investigation , Transport News & Top Stories - The Straits Times

and

Safety changes made after the collision, Transport News & Top Stories - The Straits Times

[SailOar]

Officer of the deck during fatal Fitzgerald collision pleads guilty at court-martial | Navy Times

...A junior officer who oversaw navigation of the destroyer Fitzgerald when it collided with a hulking merchant vessel on June 17, killing seven sailors, pleaded guilty to a dereliction of duty charge during a special court-martial Tuesday...

The Navy has also refused to make public any of its investigations into the disaster, but a review released last fall found the OOD to have made no attempt to contact the commercial ACX Crystal via radio, and did not attempt to maneuver to avoid the Crystal until a minute before the collision...

The ship’s captain, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, was asleep, and the Crystal’s bow punched into his quarters. He was injured and rescued by crew members as he clung to the side of the ship. He faces an Article 32 hearing to determine if he will be court-martialed later this month.

Two juniors officers will face their own Article 32 relating to the Fitz disaster on Wednesday at the Navy Yard in Washington.

[Drew13440]

Question for you Navy guys. Is it normal for a Lt. j.g. to serve as Officer on Deck?


'Tis quite a responsibility.

[Pete7]

Sadly with cut backs in many of the Navies of the world the opportunity for young officers to lean how to command a small ship, then progress on to something slightly larger like a mine hunter etc are no longer available. So young officers have to learn on larger ships. Whether it was the right decision to allow junior officers to be in charge near one of the busiest waterways in the world would be an interesting discussion point. Also the US Navies decision to teach navigation by dishing out 21 CDs and expecting individuals to watch them and teach themselves might be questioned in light of the two incidents.

Pete

[Pelagic]

Pete, for clarity's sake, a watchkeeping officer is NOT in command of a ship, the captain is.

I dont think the failure of the Lieutenant to be paying attention to major traffic lanes and to call the captain in time, is because of budget restraints.

It goes much deeper into the arrogant psyche of someone in an organization that is trained as a warrior.

Positive Proof of their mindset is how quickly the policy changed towards the obvious benefits of broadcasting AIS in busy coastal zones.

Negative proof is that the collision details are still being
kept from the marine community and the public

[willpower1]

Having delt with the US Navy as an Anti-terrorism contractor for almost 20 years there is one rule to understand with the USN. The USN will never fall on the sword for you. Someone down the chain will be blamed and will be crucified and destroyed bank on it.
That said I have no clue what happened why the ship hit the other one. Why a LTJG was the office on watch is above my pay grade and I don't know the grey navy business .

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Pete7

Sadly with cut backs in many of the Navies of the world the opportunity for young officers to lean how to command a small ship, then progress on to something slightly larger like a mine hunter etc are no longer available. So young officers have to learn on larger ships. Whether it was the right decision to allow junior officers to be in charge near one of the busiest waterways in the world would be an interesting discussion point. Also the US Navies decision to teach navigation by dishing out 21 CDs and expecting individuals to watch them and teach themselves might be questioned in light of the two incidents.

Pete

I seriously doubt the USN suffers cutbacks.. Obamacare, Veteran Aid etc maybe.. but the active military is a sacred cow from what I can make out.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Drew13440

Question for you Navy guys. Is it normal for a Lt. j.g. to serve as Officer on Deck?


'Tis quite a responsibility.

Yes.

And yes it is.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I seriously doubt the USN suffers cutbacks.. Obamacare, Veteran Aid etc maybe.. but the active military is a sacred cow from what I can make out.

The US Navy has spent a ton of money on ships that don’t work. They launched a new carrier that could not catapult a fighter off the deck a few years back. It cost a huge sum to make that right. So they have spent a lot of money but not on the basics.