Woops! Us navy collision

Many years ago I heard an exchange between a US warship and CROSS on Channel 16. The gist of it was:

"Who are you?"
"Won't say."
"Where are you going?"
"Can't say."
"You are not complying with the TSS Rules."
"Don't care."

I assume this predated this from the MCA
"Guidance
Dover Strait crossings: channel navigation information service (CNIS)"
(...)
"Naval vessels
Whatever their nationality, naval vessels are also exempt from reporting, although most comply with the scheme, mainly to advise the CNIS that they are on passage. No other details are requested."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pye_End said:
I wonder why the merchant did a U-turn well before the collision, and whether it is relevant.
Click to expand...
Hard to guess without the warship track but that U turn looks like a confused collision avoidance attempt, perhaps even both of them?
 
C08 said:
Hard to guess without the warship track but that U turn looks like a confused collision avoidance attempt, perhaps even both of them?
Click to expand...

I assumed the U turn was made after the collision to return to assist recovery etc ???
 
Unfortunately the 7 missing sailer were found in their flooded berthing compartment
I presume this means they were in their bunks down bellow when the accident happened
I can't think of a more frightening experience

Probably youngsters in the prime of life serving their country and hoping for some exotic travel interesting experiences and the possibility of college education

Very sad
 
VicS said:
I assumed the U turn was made after the collision to return to assist recovery etc ???
Click to expand...

Pye_End said:
According to the Beeb the collision happened 25 minutes after the U turn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40317341
Click to expand...

Never underesimate the ability of today's media to report speculation by an "expert" as fact. I guess we'll find out but note the earlier sharp turn to starboard in the area the ship went back to. I wouldn't discount VicS's supposition.
 
The timing of the collision can be found, independent of ship's clocks, etc., and even if the impact did not register on the VCR, although it almost certainly did, by looking at the print out of the current draw by the container ship's impressed current system. She will have lost bottom paint (sudden spike in current graph) at the moment of impact.
 
Daydreamer said:
This link gives much more information.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...dodge-a-cargo-ship/ar-BBD67t6?ocid=spartanntp

I had picked up the information that the U turn had occurred before the collision which didn.t seem to make any sense.
Click to expand...
Not a bad report that, though some of their experts are a bit suspect, just as the guy diagnosing the 'automated course'. The delay in the ship turning back after the collision could probably be accounted for by the crew being roused and then checking over themselves and their ship before taking further action.
 
Woodlouse said:
Not a bad report that, though some of their experts are a bit suspect, just as the guy diagnosing the 'automated course'. The delay in the ship turning back after the collision could probably be accounted for by the crew being roused and then checking over themselves and their ship before taking further action.
Click to expand...

in the US everyone who has ever been in or near the navy even as an enlisted galley spud peeler has an 'informed' theory, mostly blaming the container ship or terrorism, although as the commentator's previous navy rank trends up it trends more towards suspecting negligence or cockup on the destroyer's part.
 
Unashamedly plagarised from Cruiser's Forum:

Quote:

Here's a link to the Japanese-language article on the Reuters Japan website:

https://jp.reuters.com/article/fitzgerald-idJPKBN19H12U

And here's my own (entirely unauthorized) quick translation of it. I make my living as a translator from Japanese, but I give no guarantees as to absence of errors, and in any case, there are always any number of ways a given Japanese sentence can be rendered in English. Here I tried to be as literal as possible, though. The article also (as is often the case in Japanese) does not clearly differentiate between quotations and the rest of the article. The first paragraph is basically a summary, and the second and third paragraphs are descriptions of the content of the report. From "In this collision" onwards, it's back to Reuters' journalistic writing.
----------
Container ship tried to warn U.S. vessel Fitzgerald by light signals

[Tokyo, June 26, Reuters] The content of a report submitted by the captain of the container ship that collided with an Aegis class destroyer of the U.S. Navy off the Izu peninsula to the owners of the container ship has come to light. The container ship spotted the Aegis vessel on its port side and tried to attract its attention by means of flashing a light, but the U.S. ship maintained its course. The container vessel then tried to turn to the right to avoid a collision, but there was not enough time.

According to the report, the Philippine-flagged container ship ACX Crystal was heading towards Tokyo Bay at a speed of 18 knots (about 33 km/h). At 01:15 a.m. on June 17, two lookouts spotted the Aegis class vessel Fitzgerald at 40 degrees off the port side at a distance of 3 nm (about 5.6 km).

About 5 minutes later, the Aegis vessel "suddenly" moved [from the Japanese it is not clear whether this was a move from a stationary condition or a change in movement, i.e. a course change]. Because a collision seemed likely on this course, the container ship, while manually steering, tried to attract the attention of the other ship by flashing a light. However, the American vessel seemed to maintain its course. The container ship therefore turned the rudder hard to starboard, but at 01:30 a.m. the two ships collided.

In this collision, seven members of the crew of the Aegis vessel lost their lives, making it the worst tragedy for a U.S. navy vessel since the bomb attack on an Aegis class vessel in Yemen in 2000. The captain of the Fitzgerald was wounded in his own quarters, which suggests the possibility that no warning was sounded prior to the collision.

The owners of the ACX Crystal, Dainichi-Invest Corporation (based in Kobe, Hyogo Pref.) declined to respond to inquiries by Reuters, saying that they could not provide any comment in relation to an ongoing investigation. The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard which are investigating the accident also declined to comment.
 
Same article on G Captain.. as well as an editorial today implying the navy is at fault because they put process over results. The article draws attention to thefact the captain was asleep in his bunk and implies no one on the bridge was competent to stand as OOW.
 
I rarely visit G captain. I can count on 1 hand my total posts there until yesterday.
I've read the first editorial and had to call BS.
This editorial article. BS again.
I cant say I know a lot about the US Navy. But I call BS again. all these two editorials do is damage the credibility of G Captain.

Lots of BS based on absolutely nothing. By some loudmouth on soapbox.

All forums have loudmouths I may even be just another loudmouth. The loudmouths don't run this forum. right now I have much more respect for this forum than G Captain.
 
I beg to differ and agree with Mr Carr retired.

When on watch you have but one job: to make decisions about safe navigation. This applies when you a sailing with your wife as much as the bridge of a flat top. If you get hit or hit someone (or something) you got it wrong. There is no alternative explanation. All he is saying is you must work out what happened and not repeat the same mistake. Othwse it will happen again. Indeed look at the photos of the USS Porter!

I accept there is an implication in the article the navy is seeking to avoid accepting responsibility. Of course the US military has form in such matters. When a US pilot flew into a cable car wire at an Italian ski resort about ten years back, the inquiry managed to find the pilot was not responsible for killing a lot of innocent people. It is quite likely the USN is trying to work out how to pin the blame on the merchant ship. And just pehaps there is a movement to avoid such a happening. Time will tell.
 
Can someone who knows how these things are meant to work on a warship explain what connection there is (if any) between those people whose job it is to watch radar for incoming nasties (enemy aircraft/boats) and the passing on of information that the bridge crew need to navigate the ship safely?

Hitting (or getting hit by) another ship is one issue. But, apparently being unaware of its existence not only implies a poor lookout, but to me suggests some serious failings in the ship's defences. If a ship can get through without setting off a few alarms, what about an enemy?
 
A lot of the problems on bridges, both merchant and warship, can be summed up by the failure to just look out of the window now and again.

It is often as simple as that.

Over reliance on the Ops Room spotting and reporting a problem and team goofing about.

The bridge voice recording tape should prove most enlightening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top