USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

[transmitterdan]

The minesweeper ran into a reef in the Philippines as I recall.

I am sure, based on personal experience, that the entire US Navy is not incompetent as some here suggest. Let’s leave the broad brush assertions aside shall we?

Even though some might try to find a common fault that explains all these incidents I don’t think there is one. Almost all accidents are the result of multiple failures usually of people and equipment. It would be hard to find a single explanation for all of these accidents.

Obviously there can be improvement in training and continuous testing of skills. But to say the whole Navy is filled with dunderheads is a bit of a stretch.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

The minesweeper ran into a reef in the Philippines as I recall.

I am sure, based on personal experience, that the entire US Navy is not incompetent as some here suggest. Let’s leave the broad brush assertions aside shall we?

Even though some might try to find a common fault that explains all these incidents I don’t think there is one. Almost all accidents are the result of multiple failures usually of people and equipment. It would be hard to find a single explanation for all of these accidents.

Obviously there can be improvement in training and continuous testing of skills. But to say the whole Navy is filled with dunderheads is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think most people said anything like that. I think someone said something like -- "it's all easy and you don't particularly need to know anything, therefore they were all really stupid", but I strongly disagree with that, and I don't think that is a widely shared view.


On the contrary, what most people have been saying is that it's a failure of leadership and organization, and I think that is manifestly the case. A good organization -- an organization with clearly defined goals and with processes well-designed to achieve those goals -- and under competent leadership, can get good performance out of almost anyone. There is no reason at all to believe that the sailors and watchstanders were "dunderheads". They were simply not taught, what they needed to know, and were not properly led.

[SaltyMetals]

A lot of interesting stuff (good & bad) on training and USN politics but can we get back to basic navigation? On my sailing boat i have both AIS & radar but i would not wish to be sailing at night if my radar was not working properly (which in the case of the Fitz was clearly not working properly yet they were storming along at 20 knots in the dark and not transmitting on AIS and noone thought to question the fact that there seemed to be no targets showing on their fancy radar system while in the middle of very busy shipping lane). I would not take my boat out in the dark even at 6 knots. The other item which bothers me in this collision is the lack of knowledge of COLREGS, they went to port nearing a collision situation when we all know they shld hv gone to starboard, as indeed the Crystal went to starboard. Thirdly, why guess from a visual lookout? Did no one know how to use a handbearing compass? I think not. A catalogue of horrors!

[auruguay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

On the contrary, what most people have been saying is that it's a failure of leadership and organization, and I think that is manifestly the case. A good organization -- an organization with clearly defined goals and with processes well-designed to achieve those goals -- and under competent leadership, can get good performance out of almost anyone. There is no reason at all to believe that the sailors and watchstanders were "dunderheads". They were simply not taught, what they needed to know, and were not properly led.

Exactly!!!!

I'm just a "dreamer-to-be-a-Sailor", and a retired Air Force Colonel, Maritime Patrol Pilot, and C4ISR Systems Engineer.

My two cents:

1. Once you're a MILITARY, in theory, if you're assigned a mission to detect and engage ballistic missiles outbound from North Korea, and you have only a damned canoe, you better hurry up and get your rows. Many times I had to depart with an aircraft not fully OK. Many times I saw colleagues ferrying aircraft to other Air Force bases in very limiting conditions. The are mínima set of equipments for flight safety but, once you're a MILITARY, and this minimum set is there, you WILL act to accomplish your MISSION;

2. Nonetheless, if you are aware that your equipment has serious problems, that your crew is not OK, and that your mission has critical phases, how could a Commander leave a junior officer alone to lead the ship during what (I guess) is one such critical phase, the crossing of a busy ship lane? The fact that both the Commander, the XO and the Navigator just made the choice to SLEEP is totally unacceptable for me!!!!

PS.: I read some guys here also have experience from flying. I have a strong belief that maritime cruising safety could benefit a lot from mixing the experiences and knowledge from the Aviation, both from an Operational as also from an Engineering point of view. Maybe this could justify a separate post, you tell me.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by SaltyMetals

The other item which bothers me in this collision is the lack of knowledge of COLREGS, they went to port nearing a collision situation when we all know they shld hv gone to starboard, as indeed the Crystal went to starboard.

Rule 15 says crossing ahead should be avoided if the circumstances permit - so it is not always the best choice to turn to starboard. In this case, the OOD initially ordered a turn to stbd, then changed her mind - at this point the Crystal was extremely close and the best reaction would probably have been a full speed astern, rather than turning either direction.

Thirdly, why guess from a visual lookout? Did no one know how to use a handbearing compass? I think not. A catalogue of horrors!

They don't typically use HBCs on naval vessels, as they have gyro-compass repeaters for taking bearings. In the report they refer to them as 'alidades', although I think the appropriate term is pelorus. IIRC, on that class these repeaters are on articulated arms on either side of the bridge, so that they can be manoeuvred around to afford a clear view in all directions.

There was so much wrong with the way the bridge watch was being run - visual bearings should have been checked on every vessel in sight. These should have been aligned with the radar picture and vessels of concern hooked. Reports on these vessels should have been expected from the CIC, and when not received, the OOD should have reported them to CIC.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by auruguay

2. Nonetheless, if you are aware that your equipment has serious problems, that your crew is not OK, and that your mission has critical phases, how could a Commander leave a junior officer alone to lead the ship during what (I guess) is one such critical phase, the crossing of a busy ship lane? The fact that both the Commander, the XO and the Navigator just made the choice to SLEEP is totally unacceptable for me!!!!

This is coastal steaming, and the traffic level was fairly light. There is no reason that a competent OOD would need to be babysat by the CO. I don't imagine the COs of any of the merchant vessels was on the bridge either - the mates would have the watch. That said, the OOD should have been reporting to the CO in accordance with his standing and night orders, and if she was overwhelmed, should have called for help.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Retired military are given jobs within the Defense Industry to reward past favoritism and ensure future favoritism of active duty military. Generally they are given a coloring book with a box of crayons and put in the corner.

BS. Bitter BS.

[kmacdonald]

The Navy didn't start operations yesterday. They have been in business for a while. How many billions of dollars of damage, lives lost, and ships wrecked before you wake up and see the Navy has multiple deep rooted problems at all levels. If they used to be able to operates ships (questionable) what changed? Training goes so far but the knowledge needs to be executed and the navy personnel haven't been able to do so. Why? It's easy to through more money at it but you can't fix stupid at any price. There is just too much to gain monetarily for the upper level navy to correct the problem they created. The more I think about the harder I find it plausible that all those crashes were mistakes. You really have to try hard to get it that wrong that many times.

[El Pinguino]

An interesting point of view...

'A top official in the U.S. military, Admiral Philip Davidson, tried to defend the branch over two deadly Navy destroyer collisions that killed a combined 17 sailors. Davidson, head of the U.S.Indo-Pacific Command, was questioned before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, during which he asserted that despite the collisions that killed a total of 17 sailors, 280 other ships “weren’t having collisions,” The Washington Post reported. “We can’t forget one other thing,” said Davidson during his testimony. “These two collisions were a tragedy, there’s no doubt about it. And all of the senior leadership of the Navy feels an immense amount of accountability for that, I’ll come back to it. But the fact of the matter is 280-odd other ships weren’t having collisions.” “Admiral, I’m sorry,” Sen. King interjected. “Airplanes are landing all over America and just because they aren’t all crashing doesn’t mean they don’t all need a high level of maintenance. To tell me that isn’t very convincing.” “I think it was 40 years since we’ve had collisions of this nature,” King continued. “Are you saying that there were no failures that led to these collisions because there were 280 ships that didn’t have collisions? Isn’t that the standard? No collisions?” King asked. “Yes sir, no collisions is the standard,”

Full report here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.2e22304ddbc5

[kmacdonald]

Sen King needs to ask what the accident rate per mile of navy ships is compared to the merchant marine. How many of those 280 ship were active? How many were in the water? Looks like the Admiral is being coy and is actually belittling the Senator, playing him for stupid. The Admiral has no business being in a uniform. It wasn't "just" two destroyers that crashed, there were 6 or 7 accidents.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by Adelie

Apparently the merchant ship carried enough responsibility in the collision that the owners coughed up $26.7M to the USNavy but admitted no wrongdoing which is as expected.
........

Back to the OP... as you know it is almost unknown for one ship to be absolved entirely of blame.... in this case it probably went 70/30.... $100,000,000 of damages ( including a paint job on the merchant ship ) so merchant ship cops $30,000,000.

Blame atributable to merchant ship? Didn't blow hooter, didn't flash lights, didn't call on VHF, took evasive action too late.... usual stuff.

Even if at anchor you may be found partly responsible but not in this case...
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-r...ters/M90_8.pdf

Seems the CO was an aviator.... and after a pretty impressive career ...

" He was selected for a major afloat command as CO of the USS NIAGARA FALLS (AFS 31), a deep draft combat stores and underway replenishment ship. En route to that assignment, Captain Beck attended various Navy training courses, including a two-day practical shiphandling course, a four-day course in navigation rules of the road, and five days of ship control simulator training. "

Golly.

I think the USN should do what the RN was doing 2 or 300 years ago.... its how James Cook got his start... the gentlemen fought the ship... the sailing master sailed the ship.

Offer academy trained merchant service officers short service commissions ... send 3 to each ship... job sorted

Doesn't sound to difficult.

I was quite impressed by SailRedemptions post about US academy training ... who pays for that?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Even if at anchor you may be found partly responsible but not in this case...
https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-r...ters/M90_8.pdf

The navy tried to blame it on an unmarked anchorage even though they had the anchored ship in sight for over 30 minutes, were told of the anchored ship, and had who knows how many tugs for assistance. More navy smoke. Time for a lesson in accountability.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

Seems the CO was an aviator.... and after a pretty impressive career ...

" He was selected for a major afloat command as CO of the USS NIAGARA FALLS (AFS 31), a deep draft combat stores and underway replenishment ship. En route to that assignment, Captain Beck attended various Navy training courses, including a two-day practical shiphandling course, a four-day course in navigation rules of the road, and five days of ship control simulator training. "

Quite an investment in training don't you think. Just about ready to command the Pacific Fleet. The Navy claims bringing back celestial navigation to the classroom at the Naval Academy will solve any "ship handling" deficiencies they may have.

[jmorrison146]

Kmacdonald - All done with this thread, you're comments are all,that are left. Any large organization had the good, bad, and ugly. I've sailed on over a dozen USN ships and found them to be well trained with excellent leadership, almost up to USCG standards. Part of the USN problem is the turnover that the organization has bought into. The baseline is a three-year tour indicating about 30% turnover but 10% or so promote off the ship and another 10% or so simply leave the service. The real turnover number is about 50% meaning training should be that much more intensive.

To say that senior officers are indirectly causing collisions and killing sailors for personal gain is ludicrous and offensive, as is stating that a man you know nothing about "doesn't belong in uniform". Out here.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Kmacdonald - All done with this thread, you're comments are all,that are left. Any large organization had the good, bad, and ugly. I've sailed on over a dozen USN ships and found them to be well trained with excellent leadership, almost up to USCG standards. Part of the USN problem is the turnover that the organization has bought into. The baseline is a three-year tour indicating about 30% turnover but 10% or so promote off the ship and another 10% or so simply leave the service. The real turnover number is about 50% meaning training should be that much more intensive.

To say that senior officers are indirectly causing collisions and killing sailors for personal gain is ludicrous and offensive, as is stating that a man you know nothing about "doesn't belong in uniform". Out here.

What's offensive is the poor leadership of the Navy. If turnover is such that they can't field a competent crew they should park the ship until leadership that is able to field a team is found. The turnover is so high because of the poor leadership, at least that's what a lot of sailors have told me. Don't try an stick up for an obviously dysfunctional Navy. By the way, the missile systems onboard are operated by the companies that made them. They are called "trainers" but they have been trying to train navy personnel for 30 years without success. The navy couldn't launch a missile to save your life without them.