US Navy destroyer collision

[estarzinger]

two colreg questions.

(1) "RULE 11 Application: Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another" . . . does "in sight" include by radar and AIS, or (only) by the mk1 eyeball.

If "in sight" means only optically - then the Fitzgerald running blacked out might never be 'in sight' until real real close?

If it includes AIS and Radar can/does rule 13 then start at 100nm away? Eg you now have to give way to every action of a vessel 100nm in front forever, no matter their maneuvers, until you are past and clear?

(2) What is the formal definition of "past and clear". If Vessel B turns 180 degrees to starboard and heads right at A - is A "past and clear"? What about a 90 degree turn to starboard, directly crossing A's path (and A is in front of a perpendicular line from B's bow - eg in front of B)? What about if both A and B anchor - is overtaking turned off?

[Lakepapa]

What a tragedy. I do hope the findings of the investigation are ultimately made public. Very interested in the chain of events, communication, timeline etc. etc. To me it's still astonishing to hear that one of the most sophisticated naval vessels on planet earth could collide with a container ship. Human error yes, but how? What did they see (or thought they saw), who was making decisions? what were the orders given (or not)?

I presume the investigation will take several months and can't remember if preliminary findings are released prior to the conclusion of the investigation.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

May I ask, sir, since you where a hull tech, whether the destroyer would actually have been lost without extensive damage control. There is no doubt in my mind that the DC crews did a fantastic job considering they entered port with only 5 degrees of list after loosing 2 compartments to the sea. It seemed they were down by the head, which is understandable. I know merchant ships are designed to remain seaworthy after such damage. Would this destroyer have been? Please take this as a benign, professional question, sir.

Yes I could very well have been lost with that damage without immediate action . They were most likely under condition yankee which means some spaces that are not normally accessed would have been sealed . However as I have learned from various sources they sustained severe damage to a berthing space and at least one machinery room being ( open to the sea) .
That in and of its self would cause the ship to display the down by the head and the list.
Without sealing the compartments that are open to the sea they would have definately lost the ship. Imho ( Thankfully it has been many years since I have had to use my skills in that respect)

[estarzinger]

Ah, answer to the first of my above colregs question :

"In accordance with Rule 3 (k) (General definitions) vessels shall be deemed to be in sight of one another only when one can be observed visually from the other.
Comments:The term observed visually means that the other vessel is observed by naked eye or binoculars."

Implies that if the destroyer was running dark (we don't know it was) it probably has no colreg standing at all.

Still curious if anyone can answer my second question above.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi sail power, I think all the speculation of the interaction between the two vessels is precisely because the US Navy has not released the track history of what happened TWO days ago.

Of course they have that info as does the Japanese Marine Authority, but it is arrogant that the Navy still acts stealthily..... AFTER THE FACTS!

Why is it important to get this information out now?

I can think of reasons why the navy would be more interested in investigating what will be a legal proceeding rather than immediately satisfying the casual curiosity of those who will have zero influence on any subsequent determination.

IMO the arrogance is commenters who weren't there jumping to unfounded conclusions and judging people who were there.

At this point, any internet sentence that contains "I don't know" or "I think" has no reason to be completed.

Let people do their jobs.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

May I ask, sir, since you where a hull tech, whether the destroyer would actually have been lost without extensive damage control. There is no doubt in my mind that the DC crews did a fantastic job considering they entered port with only 5 degrees of list after loosing 2 compartments to the sea. It seemed they were down by the head, which is understandable. I know merchant ships are designed to remain seaworthy after such damage. Would this destroyer have been? Please take this as a benign, professional question, sir.

Imo the cs would likely been lost.with similar damage and open to the sea condition below the waterline of a main machinery space. As a shipfitter I would want to know what series of vessel the cs is and see some ships drawings to make a more definative answer to your query concerning civilian shipping vessels.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by sailpower

Why is it important to get this information out now?

I can think of reasons why the navy would be more interested in investigating what will be a legal proceeding rather than immediately satisfying the casual curiosity of those who will have zero influence on any subsequent determination.

IMO the arrogance is commenters who weren't there jumping to unfounded conclusions and judging people who were there.

At this point, any internet sentence that contains "I don't know" or "I think" has no reason to be completed.

Let people do their jobs.

Fair amount of truth here though it's natural to want figure this out because it seems so unlikely.

[Pelagic]

[QUOTE=sailpower;2417732]Why is it important to get this information out now?

I can think of reasons why the navy would be more interested in investigating what will be a legal proceeding...QUOTE]

This is how I see it .....

Navies are allowed to decide what rules they shall follow (AIS)(VHF-Contact) in the interest of security.
OK....I can accept that..... but it also follows that they should be held to a higher standard of watch keeping and alertness, if they are in dark mode

They Failed and Failed terribly to keep out of PADS! (Planned Areas of Danger)

Why does the public deserve to know the readily available track of Fitzgerald, before the Naval Lawyers do their internals?

1 It could have been them hitting a smaller vessel with loss of life

2 Friends and Family of those lost deserve to know immediately how the collision happened.

3 The Crew of the CS are being blasted by the US media

4 There would be a good chance that Nations will now demand that Naval Ships broadcast AIS in certain high traffic areas

If the report of Fitzgerald's physical track is withheld for a few months, the impetus to change that broadcast condition will be much delayed and it could happen again.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

two colreg questions.

(1) "RULE 11 Application: Rules in this section apply to vessels in sight of one another" . . . does "in sight" include by radar and AIS, or (only) by the mk1 eyeball.

If "in sight" means only optically - then the Fitzgerald running blacked out might never be 'in sight' until real real close?

If it includes AIS and Radar can/does rule 13 then start at 100nm away? Eg you now have to give way to every action of a vessel 100nm in front forever, no matter their maneuvers, until you are past and clear?

(2) What is the formal definition of "past and clear". If Vessel B turns 180 degrees to starboard and heads right at A - is A "past and clear"? What about a 90 degree turn to starboard, directly crossing A's path (and A is in front of a perpendicular line from B's bow - eg in front of B)? What about if both A and B anchor - is overtaking turned off?

Yes "in sight" means visually or with binocular aid.

"Past and clear" means when the risk of collision no longer exists. Not particularly as black and white as many people would like but much of COLREGS are that way and over time clarity has been provided by court decisions.

Your and others assertions​ that Fitzgerald was "running dark" or in some kind of stealth mode isn't within the realm of reality. They just don't do it.

My background is sailing 2nd mate with a 3000 ton license and sailing grey ships virtually everywhere.

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Randy

"Past and clear" means when the risk of collision no longer exists.

if the lead vessel turns 180 degrees the "risk of collision" still exists, but you are saying the the prior overtaking vessel (before the turn) still is give way, the 180 of the other vessel does not clear 13?

Your and others assertions​ that Fitzgerald was "running dark" or in some kind of stealth mode isn't within the realm of reality. They just don't do it

i was not asserting that, but your statement is false. We ourselves have twice encounter navy vessels running dark (we could see them on radar). One was on drug interdiction duty off the Colombian coast, and I believe the other was runnng a drill..

.........

[Randy]

4 There would be a good chance that Nations will now demand that Naval Ships broadcast AIS in certain high traffic areas


US Navy does often transmit AIS when approaching and departing ports to do what AIS is intended to do - facilitate bridge to bridge communication.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

.........

You're correct on that, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. they'll alter lighting for operations.

[Pelagic]

Hi Randy,
Yes I know they do, but it seems to be discretionary.

At the moment, 100,000 commercial captains are probably wondering what physically happened and how it can be avoided in the future?

I am not so much interested in the Navie's internal assessment of what broke down on the Fitzgerald's navigation team

What their track would show is if they made any last minute panic evasion, or tried to out speed the CPA, or if they were just caught napping.

If the latter, then it is a solid argument for mandatory AIS in non combat waters for IMO to consider.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi Randy,
Yes I know they do, but it seems to be discretionary.

At the moment, 100,000 commercial captains are probably wondering what physically happened and how it can be avoided in the future?

I am not so much interested in the Navie's internal assessment of what broke down on the Fitzgerald's navigation team

What their track would show is if they made any last minute panic evasion, or tried to out speed the CPA, or if they were just caught napping.

If the latter, then it is a solid argument for mandatory AIS in non combat waters for IMO to consider.

Clearly there was "napping"!
Just how much each party was napping is the question. The Navy isn't going to be hiding aspects with this widely documented event.

I agree with some people that assuming Fitzgerald was principally at fault; it would be a mistake to simply blame the shipboard environment even though the guilt for this particular incident would rightly be there.

The Navy has let basic safe navigation slide in priority. A Jr officer arriving onboard within months has to be on top of incredibly complex weapons systems, damage control systems and many other interdiction scenarios. The shoreside Admirals bear responsibility for creating this culture.

[Jim Cate]

US Navy does often transmit AIS when approaching and departing ports to do what AIS is intended to do - facilitate bridge to bridge communication.

"Often" does not seem to be enough. If they had been broadcasting AIS, this collision is very unlikely to have happened. To my non-professional eye, this area qualifies as a heavy traffic zone, and AIS would have been appropriate. I do not know if it meets your definition of "approaching port". From what others have said, vessels in the area are setting up their approaches to various destinations, so course and speed changes should not be surprising

I would be interested in the logic that says that their broadcasting would materially reduce their mission effectiveness in such an area. Attack by a foreign power is unlikely in a state of peace, such an attack would be unlikely to depend upon AIS info, and they were a bit far offshore to worry about a terrorist in an explosive laden inflatable.

This is all outside my personal expertise, and I too am most interested in following the developments as they unfold. I hope to learn from this unfortunate accident.

As a cruising sailor who occasionally traverses port entrances and other heavy traffic zones, I'm glad that I am broadcasting AIS, and place some trust that large vessels in the area are doing the same.

Jim