Cruisers Forum
 


Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on Cruisers Forums. Advertise Here
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-09-2020, 15:45   #331
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,434
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
there is no worse situation than the one ASX Crystal's watchkeeper found herself in....
yea, very tough situation . . . . and to make it even a little worse . . . remember that Fitz has a reduced radar signature (and was not broadcasting AIS), so they probably thought (for a good while) it was a fishing vessel which they could have expected might do unexpected things but would ultimately avoid them.

I personally would have judged this more like 90/10 or 80/20 than 50/50. My understanding is that the Navy did pay for the (relatively small) repairs to the crystal.
Breaking Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2020, 15:49   #332
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breaking Waves View Post
My memory of the discussion years back is that there is a traffic lane (inbound and outbound lanes) there which Crystal was following, and that turn was part of the lane. You can see the Wan Hai made roughly the same turn.
One of the diagrams shown earlier in this thread suggests the collision occurred quite a bit east of the TSS, and that Crystal and Wan Hai were not "following" the lanes - if the reconstruction has shown the actual tracks, it would be nice that they show the TSS in relation.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2020, 16:26   #333
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,434
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
One of the diagrams shown earlier in this thread suggests the collision occurred quite a bit east of the TSS
A chart I am looking at has the text 'voluntary traffic separation zone' right where the incident occurred. But it does not have lanes drawn in, just the text. I agree there are more specific lanes further along the route (closer to the port). The Japanese Coast Guard report might have had more details on this. I guess it is quite likily they were turning to make an arc to line up with the more specific lanes, in a way/area that conformed to local common practices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockhead View Post
Well it looks like they were solving for Crystal's previous course, doesn't it?
Given what we know about the Fitz bridge and CIC - No, I doubt anyone believes they were ever 'solving' any course solutions. And the investigators could not find anyone who remembered any rational for this course change. Given what we know, I think it is more likely someone bumped a button or there was a hand-off which did not pick up the prior course exactly or some similar f&*kup.

I imagine myself on the Crystal Bridge - standon vessel, with other vessels on a parallel course to mine. I dont want to make unnecessary moves so I dont mess up the whole dance. And I expect this target, I am guessing a fishing vessel, will turn to starboard to make a good passing. The bridge should have manually acquired the target on ARPA (fitz's reduced radar profile was limiting the normal automatic acquisition) but Im not sure that information would have actually helped. The NTSB wants them to have sounded their horn, which would have been colreg compliant but I would think useless. There is also an indication NTSB thinks a VHF call should have been made, but that is US thinking and the Crystal bridge were likely trained to the MCA thinking that VHF in this situation more often confuse things and vessels should simply follow the colregs rather tha try to negotiate over the radio. The NTSB wants them to have taken avoidance action pretty much right after they observed no reaction to their light signal . . . and with 20/20 hindsight yes that would have been right . . . but there was still plenty of room for the fitz to avoid and the Crystal brodge was still thinking they would. Obviously their final starboard turn came too late, and with 20/20 hindsight they 'should have' made it earlier, but when exactly was a hard call to make at the time and Fitz going to flank speed would not have helped any judgements.
Breaking Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2020, 16:32   #334
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Pinguino View Post
As you and all other real ships' officers know there is no worse situation than the one ASX Crystal's watchkeeper found herself in....
The Crystal's watchkeeper got himself into that situation - if he had stood on as required, he would have passed about 1 mile ahead of Fitz. From the report:


Quote:

By 0115, the target signature was steady on each radar capture recorded by the
ACX Crystal’s VDR (about every 15 seconds). About 0119, the signature displayed radar trails as the ACX Crystal completed its course change to port to 069° per the ship’s voyage plan. After the ACX Crystal's course change, the Fitzgerald was about 6.5 miles away off the container ship’s port bow.

Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2020, 19:23   #335
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,434
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
The Crystal's watchkeeper got himself into that situation - if he had stood on as required, he would have passed about 1 mile ahead of Fitz.

hmmmm . . . I don't see this as consistent with the report's conclusions or findings.

Crystal made the turn at greater than 7nm distance from Fitz (they were 6.5nm separation at the conclusion of the 4-minute turn). And when they came on the new course, they still had an approx 1nm CPA, and the Fitz still looked like a fishing vessel (with only one green light showing and a small radar profile and no AIS). Following what we guess is a 'customary inbound pathing'. The report does not seem to find fault (that I can see) with that specific preplanned maneuver.

The direct 0 CPA collision situation was created 3 minutes after this turn was completed when the Fitz made its unexplained turn, and they did stand-on from that point - too long.
Breaking Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 06:53   #336
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breaking Waves View Post
hmmmm . . . I don't see this as consistent with the report's conclusions or findings.

Crystal made the turn at greater than 7nm distance from Fitz (they were 6.5nm separation at the conclusion of the 4-minute turn). And when they came on the new course, they still had an approx 1nm CPA, and the Fitz still looked like a fishing vessel (with only one green light showing and a small radar profile and no AIS). Following what we guess is a 'customary inbound pathing'. The report does not seem to find fault (that I can see) with that specific preplanned maneuver.

The direct 0 CPA collision situation was created 3 minutes after this turn was completed when the Fitz made its unexplained turn, and they did stand-on from that point - too long.

WTF does it matter if Fitz "looked like a fishing vessel"? For that matter, if as the Crystal's WKs claim only a green light was visible, why would they assume it was a fishing vessel. Curious the report doesn't go into any discussion about whether or not the masthead steaming light on Fitz was on? Regardless, Fitz was on Crystal's radar, they were visible, and they had not been tracked.
The fact is that Crystal turned towards a vessel ahead, that they had not determined the range, or movements of.
Given the closing speed and the fact that by the time they steadied up they were 6.5 miles and 11 mins away from a collision, the Crystal should have stood on. You can do the math yourself - if they hadn't turned 20º they would've passed a mile ahead of Fitz.

PS. The report is lacking in many respects - as well as not discussing the nav lt situation, there was no discussion of the voluntary TSS, which may or may not have been pertinent, but should have been discussed in the context.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 07:05   #337
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,434
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodesman View Post
Where did you get that it took 4 minutes to make the turn?

From the report . . .they list the starting and finish times.

Crystal should have stood on.

I will just comment that while both this report and the Japanese reports had some criticism of Crystal, neither report was critical of this manouver.

In terms of maneuvers leading to the collision, the Findings specifically fault the Fitz maneuver "4. The Fitzgerald’s unexplained small course change to starboard minutes before the collision put the vessel on a collision course with the ACX Crystal."

we can agree to disagree on your opinion here.

..........
Breaking Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 07:13   #338
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Angry Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breaking Waves View Post
..From the report . . .they list the starting and finish times........
I amended my comments while you were typing apparently - yes I saw it in the report:
Quote:

About 0115, the second officer on the
ACX Crystal began a scheduled course change
This is somewhat non-specific, and doesn't actually say when the rudder was put over and what amount of rudder was used. Notwithstanding my previous comments stand.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 07:33   #339
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
4. The Fitzgerald’s unexplained small course change to starboard minutes before the collision put the vessel on a collision course with the ACX Crystal.
Let's talk about this point - 6 minutes before collision, Fitz finished a 10º turn to stbd. That made about a 3 cable difference in position at the collision point, so while technically correct, the report overlooks the fact that the CPA was still close enough that it would have appeared that collision could have occurred - the actual CPA would have been about 300 yards on Fitz's quarter, but ARPA and even AIS might have it closer than that - assuming either crew bothered to check the equipment. Visually it would have been a highly misleading situation.
Both vessels would have still probably made last minute attempts to avoid, that would have brought them into contact nonetheless. It's playing "what if's" at this point.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 07:48   #340
Moderator
 
hpeer's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Between Caribbean and Canada
Boat: Murray 33-Chouette & Pape Steelmaid-44-Safara-both steel cutters
Posts: 8,913
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

I sometimes single hand.

I can not imagine what it would would be like to sail those waters in a sailboat with those big ships blasting through at such speed. Even with a crew, a husband and wife team. I have radar but trying to do course projections while steering would be near impossible. And I would be hard for the big boys to see visually or on radar.

I’m impressed that the commercial ships make regular transits at those speeds with no issue. I suspect there is a lot of “routine” going on here, not unlike 7:30am rush hour traffic. Everybody knows where they are going, done it a thousand times, it works. Until some out of towner, on vacation, never been, there comes along and screws up the pattern.

And thats the Navy, they are the odd ball who is doing something different. To some extent the onus is on them to realize they are the “out of towners”, not doing the “normal” thing. They need to change their mind set and world view to accommodate the idea their different needs and missions have to fit into a routine world.

None of us would drive on the freeway the way these navy ships drive on the seas. Evident in all 3 of the destroyer incidents.

To me this seems an obvious point, but i don't think it was discussed in the report.
hpeer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 07:56   #341
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,434
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

from the report, before the Fitz turn . . ."about 4 miles away, the destroyer’s ARPA provided a closest point of approach of 0.75 mile, with that vessel crossing astern of the Fitzgerald"

So there was clearance before the turn. OFC that's certainly closer than most would want the CPA to be (the crystal was standon by then for sure). But the Fitz then turned and made it 0 cpa.

On the 'small radar profile, only green light, and no AIS ' point . . . . This is one where I think you and Dock will not be sympathetic to the point while Ping and Pelagic will be . . . as it is hmmm . . . 'a practical and not colreg point' - the point is that the Crystal practically speaking when it has parallel shipping traffic and is in approach corridors and following a customary and expected path, will not change their pre-planned maneuvers for every little vessel that is 7nm away with a 1nm CPA.

The 'odd thing here' is that the Fitz is a damn destroyer, with all the maneuverability and all the speed and all the radars one could even dream of. With an even half way decent bridge they could have avoided this at almost any point in time easily.
Breaking Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 09:26   #342
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breaking Waves View Post
from the report, before the Fitz turn . . ."about 4 miles away, the destroyer’s ARPA provided a closest point of approach of 0.75 mile, with that vessel crossing astern of the Fitzgerald"

There are some inconsistencies in the NTSB's reconstruction - not least of which is that at the time of the collision Fitz was at 22.1 kts not 19.7. IIRC from one of the previous reports the OOD had increased speed with the course alteration. The report does mention throttle changes seconds before the impact, but I don't think those gave enough time to realize a 12% speed increase.The reference about a 0.75nm CPA was from the OOD's reading of the ARPA quite early in the interaction - possibly before it settled out. From the report: "
The study found that if the
Fitzgerald had not made the course change from 190° to 200° 8 minutes before the collision, the destroyer would have passed ahead of the ACX Crystal with a CPA of about 1,000 yards, or about 0.5 nautical mile. "

So there was clearance before the turn. OFC that's certainly closer than most would want the CPA to be (the crystal was standon by then for sure). But the Fitz then turned and made it 0 cpa.

On the 'small radar profile, only green light, and no AIS ' point . . . . This is one where I think you and Dock will not be sympathetic to the point while Ping and Pelagic will be . . . as it is hmmm . . . 'a practical and not colreg point' - the point is that the Crystal practically speaking when it has parallel shipping traffic and is in approach corridors and following a customary and expected path, will not change their pre-planned maneuvers for every little vessel that is 7nm away with a 1nm CPA.

Not sure why you think to presuppose my sympathies - and more than a little concerning that you think commercial vessels should follow the damn line on the chart without considering anti-collision.

The 'odd thing here' is that the Fitz is a damn destroyer, with all the maneuverability and all the speed and all the radars one could even dream of. With an even half way decent bridge they could have avoided this at almost any point in time easily.
Absolutely true. The Fitz was poorly managed, and the OOD was clearly out of her depth. But it took the mistakes on two ships to bring them together.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 10:11   #343
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: At the intersection of here & there
Boat: 47' Olympic Adventure
Posts: 4,892
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hpeer View Post
II’m impressed that the commercial ships make regular transits at those speeds with no issue. I suspect there is a lot of “routine” going on here, not unlike 7:30am rush hour traffic.

And thats the Navy, they are the odd ball who is doing something different.
None of us would drive on the freeway the way these navy ships drive on the seas. Evident in all 3 of the destroyer incidents.

To me this seems an obvious point, but i don't think it was discussed in the report.
I agree with you that the report should have covered this, even just as a consideration.

I disagree with you about the "odd ball" comment. The area is rife with fishing vessels, going every which way. In fact the commercial vessels (of every conceivable size and type) coming in and out of Tokyo et al, are going in all different directions. The JCA's voluntary TSSs are indicative of their attempts to bring some order to the chaos at certain chokepoints. I can not imagine any watchkeeper that plies those waters would make an assumption that all vessels will go the same direction there. If as the previous diagrams suggested, Crystal was going the "wrong" way in the TSS before the interaction, it would put paid to your argument about the commercial ship "routine."

The "rush hour" comment made me chuckle - I've been in and out of Yokosuka a couple times, and while most of the times were uneventful, my last time through the Uraga Suido was exactly like rush hour; it was the most shipping I've ever seen crammed together, all heading in the same direction at the same speed, just like a freeway. It was most unexpected and in the haze a little difficult to figure out from a distance - on radar it looked like a severe squall line. It was pre-AIS.
Lodesman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 11:29   #344
Moderator
 
Dockhead's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Denmark (Winter), Cruising North Sea and Baltic (Summer)
Boat: Cutter-Rigged Moody 54
Posts: 35,292
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Breaking Waves View Post
yea, very tough situation . . . . and to make it even a little worse . . . remember that Fitz has a reduced radar signature (and was not broadcasting AIS), so they probably thought (for a good while) it was a fishing vessel which they could have expected might do unexpected things but would ultimately avoid them.

I personally would have judged this more like 90/10 or 80/20 than 50/50. My understanding is that the Navy did pay for the (relatively small) repairs to the crystal.

I had forgotten about the no AIS.


But how can you call it 90/10 or even 80/20? Crystal totally failed its part of the obligations. Do you think that violation of Rule 16 is somehow more serious than violation of Rule 17? I think these Rules are equal, and that Crystal's obligation to avoid the collision was absolutely equal to Fitz's. The fact that Crystal's turn to maneuver was after Fitz's, does not, it seem to me, making failing to do so some how less egregious.


No AIS makes us understand on a human level how it happened, but does that somehow mitigate Crystal's obligations? I know it's human, but I don't think it's permissable to rely on AIS. My own experience with U.S. DDS's and DDG's is that they show up just fine, even on my little toy radar. I really don't think this is an excuse. Crystal bridge were obviously not watching the radar at all, and that is seriously egregious.
__________________
"You sea! I resign myself to you also . . . . I guess what you mean,
I behold from the beach your crooked inviting fingers,
I believe you refuse to go back without feeling of me;
We must have a turn together . . . . I undress . . . . hurry me out of sight of the land,
Cushion me soft . . . . rock me in billowy drowse,
Dash me with amorous wet . . . . I can repay you."
Walt Whitman
Dockhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2020, 12:53   #345
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 1,434
Re: USNavy Report on Fitzgerald Collision.

I dont see any reason to debate this . . . .

"the probable cause of the collision between US Navy Destroyer Fitzgerald and container ship ACX Crystal was the Fitzgerald’s bridge team’s failure to take early and substantial action to avoid collision as the give-way vessel in a crossing situation. Contributing was ineffective communication and cooperation among the Fitzgerald crew on the bridge and in the combat information center (CIC), and the Fitzgerald commanding officer’s (CO) insufficient planning for the hazards of the vessel’s intended transit. Also contributing was the Navy’s ineffective oversight of the Fitzgerald in the areas of operations scheduling, crew training, and fatigue mitigation. Also contributing to the accident was the ACX Crystal watch officer’s lack of early detection of the Navy vessel and insufficient actions to avoid collision once in doubt as to the destroyer’s intentions."

I will simply note that the official conclusion is not the sort one typically finds in a 50/50 incident
Breaking Waves is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
collision, navy

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald astokel Health, Safety & Related Gear 1 09-11-2015 19:01
'Ella's Pink Lady' Collision Report Is Out SvenG Seamanship & Boat Handling 32 18-06-2010 21:28
Report on Sub’ Collision GordMay Pacific & South China Sea 5 21-10-2005 21:48

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 18:49.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.