US Navy destroyer collision

[TwoBlocked]

USS Fitzgerald: Investigate First, Blame Later

I guess I would ask Capt Phillips why we should expect to know what happened with the USS Fitzgerald if we were never told what happened to the USS Porter. He asks that we show respect "... for not only the investigation process, but also the sailors who died in service to their country and the family, friends and shipmates who are mourning them." Considering the USN's track record of withholding information obtained from investigations of the USS Porter, it is tyrannical to demand respect for this "investigative process". Furthermore, by demanding that the facts of the collision be made public as soon as practical we are showing the utmost respect for "... the sailors who died in service to their country and the family, friends and shipmates who are mourning them." Otherwise this tragedy could be swept under the rug and forgotten, a very disrespectful possibility!

Captain Philliip's article smacks of "The floggings will continue until moral improves."

[Alan Mighty]

NHK latest (24 June 2017):

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170624_03/

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

It sounds to me that this is a pretty simple case of overreliance on advanced technological gadgets and too little basic watchkeeping. The crew of both ships were essentially asleep at the wheel and it's almost irrelevant to me to learn details such as the exact geometry of the collision or which was the stand on vessel, etc. It's mere quibbling. Both ships crews were obligated to abide by Colreg 5 and obviously neither did, and people died. Unforgivable for both crews.

Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight as well as by hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

In the past, I've seen several frequent posters on this forum argue that it is acceptable to go to see so shorthanded that you are bound to become fatigued and that justifies the whole crew being asleep and they try to rationalize this by pointing to all the gadgets and alarms they have set before abandoning their legal obligation to keep a proper lookout (NOBODY can do that through their eyelids) and they claim that they've been doing it a long time and lots of other experienced sailors do it too and haven't ever hit anyone. Of course the Captains and crew of both the Crystal and the Fitzgerald could both have made that same claim of never having hit anyone up until they did. I wonder if this collision has "opened the eyes" of any of those who in the past have argued that it's OK to operate a moving vessel while asleep as long as you have lots of gadgets onboard and lots of alarms set? It seems to me that this collision, with both ships bridges loaded with all the latest electronic detection gadgets, provides about as good an illustration as we'll ever see that Colreg 5 must be taken literally by all vessels at sea. We ALL MUST keep a proper lookout at ALL times, period. Even the best gadgets can only be an aid to proper watchkeeping with the bottom line being that there has to be somebody on watch who is actively monitoring those gadgets as well as looking out the windows, at ALL times.
*

This arguement doesn't make sense to me, you are assuming the problem is over reliance on technology which is certainly a likely possibility, but it was also equally just as much a failure of mark 1 eyeball (lookout). Are you advocating for no AIS, and no Radar? No electronic charts. These are all just tools used by humans.. You could make the case that this was human error and the best way to eliminate this is to remove humans completely the error chain. I see a middle road being the best way with both automation and humans error checking each other.

Plenty of lookouts have failed as well, and plenty of collisions happened before radar came onto the scene. Any Single hander should at the very least be transmitting AIS when asleep offshore. The navy vessel was not doing this. And I wouldn't be surprised to find the Warships lights were off, hence the difficulty the Crystal had working out what the hell had happened. Prehaps Crystals lights were out as well? Why didn't the warship hail the crystal, or any other vessels in the area, surely a VHF must have been availible on the bridge. So many unanswered questions..

The rule 5 case for singlehanders has been tested more than once in court and found acceptable provided they follow good seamanship.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by TwoBlocked

USS Fitzgerald: Investigate First, Blame Later

I guess I would ask Capt Phillips why we should expect to know what happened with the USS Fitzgerald if we were never told what happened to the USS Porter. He asks that we show respect "... for not only the investigation process, but also the sailors who died in service to their country and the family, friends and shipmates who are mourning them." Considering the USN's track record of withholding information obtained from investigations of the USS Porter, it is tyrannical to demand respect for this "investigative process". Furthermore, by demanding that the facts of the collision be made public as soon as practical we are showing the utmost respect for "... the sailors who died in service to their country and the family, friends and shipmates who are mourning them." Otherwise this tragedy could be swept under the rug and forgotten, a very disrespectful possibility!

Captain Philliip's article smacks of "The floggings will continue until moral improves."

I guess I disagree with you both. For Captain Phillips to suggest that possibly a dozen watchstanders equipped with night vision goggles, etc. might have passively watched the collision happen without the Fitzgerald taking evasive action is absurd. Maybe that's the sort of diligent watchkeeping he experienced on ships he served on but he can't seriously believe that this collision could have happened if the Fitzgeralds watchkeepers were doing their jobs properly so it sounds to me like he's trying to mislead us and shift blame to the other ship. I think it's already pretty clear that everyone was surprised by this collision because they weren't paying attention to where they were going and what other ships were nearby. Maybe it will eventually come out exactly WHY both crews were neglecting their watchstanding obligations but it won't change the fact that BOTH crews and skippers were to blame. But using words like "tyrannical" is pretty over the top when you are using it mostly because the Navy hasn't satisfied your curiosity about a prior collision. You knowing all the intimate details won't change anything or accomplish anything. Captain Phillips is right that we will all have to wait to get all the details, but I'm pretty confident that the elephant in the room will remain BOTH crews failure to keep an adequate lookout and no details as to why will ameliorate the blame.

An old friend of mine was killed in an F-16 crash and there was an extensive investigation into finding out exactly why and the report was classified. I read it and since I was also an F-16 pilot at the time I feel like I could understand and possibly benefit from it. But unless you were currently flying that airplane, all the details of everything that contributed to his death wouldn't mean much to you and you had no need to know and you probably read nothing about it in the press and there's nothing wrong with that. But I can summarize what the report said. He was mentally fatigued and allowed himself to become distracted or allowed his priorities to be misplaced for a few moments and became confused. But can't the same be said about pretty much all accidents that are not caused by mechanical error?

If you're flying airplanes, don't let yourself get distracted or have misplaced priorities, and if you're driving boats, also always keep a proper lookout as the colregs require. But I think we all could figure that out without knowing all the little details that led those involved to get involved in accidents. Whatever reasons surface that explain just WHY the crews allowed this accident to occur will be different reasons than you and I might be exposed to on our little boats but the big picture reason that does apply to us all is already known to us. It's true that future accidents can often be avoided by analyzing the root causes or past accidents so we can avoid those pitfalls but I question the importance of the general public learning all the details of situations they will never encounter just to satisfy their curiosity. The important info that we can all learn from is already well known, neither crew was paying adequate attention to what was around them.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

This arguement doesn't make sense to me, you are assuming the problem is over reliance on technology which is certainly a likely possibility, but it was also equally just as much a failure of mark 1 eyeball (lookout). Are you advocating for no AIS, and no Radar? No electronic charts. These are all just tools used by humans.. You could make the case that this was human error and the best way to eliminate this is to remove humans completely the error chain. I see a middle road being the best way with both automation and humans error checking each other.

Plenty of lookouts have failed as well, and plenty of collisions happened before radar came onto the scene. Any Single hander should at the very least be transmitting AIS when asleep offshore. The navy vessel was not doing this. And I wouldn't be surprised to find the Warships lights were off, hence the difficulty the Crystal had working out what the hell had happened. Prehaps Crystals lights were out as well? Why didn't the warship hail the crystal, or any other vessels in the area, surely a VHF must have been availible on the bridge. So many unanswered questions..

The rule 5 case for singlehanders has been tested more than once in court and found acceptable provided they follow good seamanship.

Of course I'm not advocating for no AIS or radar or chartplotters but rather making the point that all of these modern gadgets are useless if nobody is looking at them and if you're asleep you're not looking at anything but the inside of your eyelids. You may feel that everybody should have AIS and I wouldn't disagree with that, but Colreg 5 focuses on you maintaining a proper lookout, not on you making yourself as visible as possible by using AIS or lighting or sound devices.

As for singlehanders using good seamanship, just like any other crew, if they are not keeping a proper lookout they are putting others at risk of being run into by their vessel and by definition aren't practicing good seamanship. I do realize that nobody is getting prosecuted for it in court. But consider that until about 5 years ago it wasn't illegal to drive while texting but that didn't reduce the risk to those who happened to find themselves being run over by texters. Lots of things that aren't illegal are still pretty dangerous and stupid things to do.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

.......neither crew was paying adequate attention to what was around them.

If you are the stand on ship with another ship coming at you on your port bow you can find yourself between a rock and a very hard place..... no matter how attentive you are.....

As I have stated before you can't alter to port and if you go to starboard you are most likely laying yourself across the other ship's bow.

By the time you realise that the give way ship isn't giving way you are going to be very lucky if any action you take will save you.

Nothing to do with lack of attention.

Any USN inquiry is essentially internal... the Japanese inquiry will be the important one.. they have no dog in the fight.

[Cormorant]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

NHK latest (24 June 2017):
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20170624_03/

I laughed out loud at first reading of the NHK article. Their headline:

Container vessel's bow likely hit warship

Uh, yeah!

But further down is this tidbit:
...
"The Coast Guard Office adds the crew of the vessel told them that they saw lights on board the warship before the collision.

Ships are required by law to set green, red, and white lights on both sides of the hull and at the stern to indicate the direction of travel.

The coast guard officers are looking into what color of lights were on at the time of the accident."

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^re the Porter - " The Navy has declined to release or discuss a pair of investigations into the incident"

I wonder how the bridge audio got out? It is certainly more damning than any report could be.

Here is a tragic example of human error on a similar navy ship.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...CPyXSDbO6JQPYQ

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._tried_to.html

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

.... It's true that future accidents can often be avoided by analyzing the root causes or past accidents so we can avoid those pitfalls but

I question the importance of the general public learning all the details of situations they will never encounter just to satisfy their curiosity. The important info that we can all learn from is already well known, neither crew was paying adequate attention to what was around them.

Hi jtsailjt,
I agree with your first quoted paragraph, but differ in the 2nd.

Without the complementary track of the Fitzgerald to complete the physical picture of the collision, we are totally in the dark and speculating.

Having both Tracks would show whether their was a series of small alterations that cancelled each other's efforts out.....OR NOTHING from either until it was too late.

That would indicate and free up endless speculation of the "basic cause" and we would happily wait to read the specific conclusions of the detailed investigations later.

At the moment, too many people in the public/marine community, are still shaking their head, trying to put the jigsaw puzzle back together when the USN will not show us the picture?

To me, that decision breeds fear and distrust, where there should be none and is a bad PR decision by the Officials in Japan.

[redsky49]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I wonder how the bridge audio got out? It is certainly more damning than any report could be.

Here is a tragic example of human error on a similar navy ship.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&s...CPyXSDbO6JQPYQ

The Vincennes’ downing of Iran Air Flight 655: The United States tried to cover up its own destruction of a passenger plane.

Thank you for posting both of these articles. Very interesting.

I wonder if the system deficiencies noted in the first article have truly been addressed?

[Lake-Effect]

This seems talked-out for the moment, there isn't too much to add til we get more of the facts.

The only thing I'll add is that, in this age, when autonomous self-driving automobiles seem to be just around the corner (I'm a tad skeptical there, but whatever)... one would think we should also be able to create a system that would keep two behemoths from colliding on the high seas.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi jtsailjt,
I agree with your first quoted paragraph, but differ in the 2nd.

Without the complementary track of the Fitzgerald to complete the physical picture of the collision, we are totally in the dark and speculating.

Having both Tracks would show whether their was a series of small alterations that cancelled each other's efforts out.....OR NOTHING from either until it was too late.

That would indicate and free up endless speculation of the "basic cause" and we would happily wait to read the specific conclusions of the detailed investigations later.

At the moment, too many people in the public/marine community, are still shaking their head, trying to put the jigsaw puzzle back together when the USN will not show us the picture?

To me, that decision breeds fear and distrust, where there should be none and is a bad PR decision by the Officials in Japan.

I will try one more time because jt made the effort. The public and the marine community can end the endless speculation any time they choose to but no, not going to happen.

Actually given the reaction of these groups to date the speculation will intensify with the release of raw track data. LOL

If any of you are in the loop you will be part of the process. If not then you have no standing so wait for the full picture like the rest of us. There are some serious egos at work here. Serious.

gcaptian jumped right in with a click bait titled opinion and is now surprised at the push back? Come on.

Why all the distrust of the navy? Have you ever known a CO at the minimum not to be fired after a collision? That will be the same result here at the minimum no matter the findings. Sailors died. The CO is toast.

Speaking of sailors there was some real herorism here. You ought to check it out.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

2. Why was the Captain not on the bridge during transit of such a problematic area?

Probably because he thought the xo couple handle it.

Your answers to the other questions were pretty much spot on, but this one, was a bit off; possibly due to something I wrote earlier. The CO and XO do not stand watches, spelling each other off. They are day workers, and are on call when not on the bridge - they are human, do need to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, work out, etc. The officer of the watch or officer of the deck (US term) has charge, acting in the CO's stead to effect the safe navigation and anti-collision of the ship. He/she will have standing and night orders that define how much latitude they have in manoeuvring and for which reasons they must call the CO. If they can't reach the CO (in the shower perhaps), they can call the XO, but in any case are expected to take action as necessary to avoid collision or navigational hazards.
Generally COs will be on the bridge for particularly challenging conditions, such as entering harbour, but otherwise it is left to the OOW/OOD; this is the same case on merchant ships. The area in question is not the entrance to a harbour, and is not surprising to me that the CO was not on the bridge.
In busy waters it would be expected that the CO would not get a lot of sleep, either being on the bridge or responding to many calls from the OOW/OOD. If the CO feels that his/her judgment might be compromised from fatigue (only human after all), then control of the ship might be passed to the XO, who will act in the CO's place in the same manner as the CO - only on the bridge if necessary, and reachable by phone/squawkbox with the OOW/OOD keeping the ship safe.

[Pelagic]

Hi Sailpower, sorry to reply within your quote with Full Caps, but I can't figure out how change text color with the phone App.

I think on this one, we will just have to agree to disagree [emoji111]

Originally Posted by sailpower

I will try one more time because jt made the effort. The public and the marine community can end the endless speculation any time they choose to but no, not going to happen.

I BELIEVE SHOWING BOTH TRACKS WOULD END 80% OF THE SPECULATION

Actually given the reaction of these groups to date the speculation will intensify with the release of raw track data. LOL
WE DISAGREE ON THAT POINT

If any of you are in the loop you will be part of the process. If not then you have no standing so wait for the full picture like the rest of us. There are some serious egos at work here. Serious.

SORRY, WE SHARE THE SAME OCEAN AND HAVE A VESTED AND PROFESSIONAL INTEREST IN ANY MAJOR COLLISSION, BUT I AGREE THE MILITARY'S REVIEW SHOULD BE INTERNAL

gcaptian jumped right in with a click bait titled opinion and is now surprised at the push back? Come on.
THE REAL QUESTION IS...WHY THE PUSHBACK WHEN ALL THE WORLDS COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY IS ASKING FOR IS TRACK TRANSPARENCY ?

Why all the distrust of the navy? Have you ever known a CO at the minimum not to be fired after a collision? That will be the same result here at the minimum no matter the findings. Sailors died. The CO is toast.

WHAT THE INTERNAL ACTIONS ARE, IS NOT MY BUSSINESS

EVERY OTHER SHIP/ PLANE/ CAR FATALITY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WITHOLD THE TRACK OF THIER CASULTY.

YOU CANNOT SAY, "ONLY MY PEOPLE DIED, SO IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS....AND YOU DONT NEED TO KNOW!

Speaking of sailors there was some real herorism here. You ought to check it out.
PLEASE DONT USE THE SAME MCCARTHYISM TACTIC OF QUESTIONING MY LOYALTY OR APRECIATION OF OUR DEFENSE FORCES, I HAVE MANY FRIENDS THERE.

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Hi Sailpower, sorry to reply within your quote with Full Caps, but I can't figure out how change text color with the phone App.

I think on this one, we will just have to agree to disagree [emoji111]

Clearly we do disagree. So be it. At the end of the day the lessons learned might simply be don't do this **** again. Many CO's/OOD's will be saying there but for the grace of God......

I was not questioning anyone's patriotism. I was pointing out that there is another, human aspect to this that I haven't seen mentioned here. For example, a 37 yo petty officer died while saving his "kids". He had got some out of berthing but went back knowing that the compartment would be sealed because he wouldn't leave them while there was even a slight chance. BZ