Woops! Us navy collision

Angele said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's baffling isn't it. Even with an ops room full of radar screens and operators I find it had to believe there aren't radar repeaters on the bridge or chart plotters with an AIS overlay. I suspect someone will serve time for this one.
 
Woodlouse said:
It's baffling isn't it. Even with an ops room full of radar screens and operators I find it had to believe there aren't radar repeaters on the bridge or chart plotters with an AIS overlay. I suspect someone will serve time for this one.
Click to expand...

Nah, this is only the preliminary finding. The full report will discover it was all down to a cook 5th class in the galley after all who will be personally sent to Gitmo by Twumpy for being 'of Mexican descent. This is the US Navy and they never make mistakes, it must have been Obama's fault or Hilary's.;)

RIP those unfortunates that were lost.
 
Angele said:
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?
Click to expand...


I'm guessing the freighter would have been tagged as not a threat and thereafter ignored by the guys downstairs as, as you say, their job is to look for the nasties. I would have thought that attitude would have changed somewhat in this day and age as it's so hard to tell what is a threat and what isn't. If I was a US warship captain I'd want to stay well away from anything that could be be full or explosives or even just hijacked and used to ram another vessel.
 
grumpy_o_g said:
I'm guessing the freighter would have been tagged as not a threat and thereafter ignored by the guys downstairs as, as you say, their job is to look for the nasties. I would have thought that attitude would have changed somewhat in this day and age as it's so hard to tell what is a threat and what isn't. If I was a US warship captain I'd want to stay well away from anything that could be be full or explosives or even just hijacked and used to ram another vessel.
Click to expand...
Whilst I understand your point it's hard to believe that those watching the radars are under instruction to disregard anything that is even remotely on a collision course. At the very least flag it and pass the info on to your immediate superior.
 
It is probable that the warship was operating under electronic silence, using only passive sensors, so the radars would not have been switched on. That said, I'd expect there to be an AIS display available on the navigating bridge which should have shown the freighter. I'd also expect that the 'normal' navigational radar displays would be on the bridge, as they are not part of the weapons systems controlled from the CIC (but if the ship was operating under electronic silence, they'd have been switched off as well).
Still can't understand how they managed to set up a t-bone collision with a well lit freighter which was transmitting an AIS signal....
 
These are very busy waters, full of commercial craft and fishing vessels of all sizes. The English Channel would not be an unfair comparison. It's not a sensible place in which to pretend that you are not there - but this wouldn't be the only example - a PLA Navy ship operating in that mode and with some "stealth" attributes was hit by a container ship in the Pearl River estuary.
 
It tends to support the assertion that commercial traffic tends to only monitor AIS these days, only using radar when in close proximity to land.
I was told this by a Merchant Navy navigator recently.
Even in poor vis, when off shore, he said the radar is very lightly used.
 
I've managed to cross the channel several times and avoid being T boned by a container vessel. With no AIS radar and other electronic gizmos I'm reliant on a decent pair of binoculars and open eyes.

What on earth was going on aboard that navy ship to allow such poor seamanship.
 
greggron said:
I've managed to cross the channel several times and avoid being T boned by a container vessel. With no AIS radar and other electronic gizmos I'm reliant on a decent pair of binoculars and open eyes.

What on earth was going on aboard that navy ship to allow such poor seamanship.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Questions all seem to be directed at commercial masters/OOWs. Apart from a few commercial skippers, not many of us here can answer: 8. When did you last work onboard a vessel professionally:
because there is no option for 'never'.
 
The Principal said:
[Appropriate time to take a Collission Regs Survey]

The survey will take about 10 mins.
Click to expand...

Opening page to survey says 30 mins.

In reality - can't be completed if you've never worked professionally, or don't have certification. And what about Q19? You have to say that every rule is most often violated or interpreted wrongly ? And as for question 31, where you want us to learn a 6-level taxonomy and apply it to 15 different rules - dream on!
 
Black Sheep said:
Opening page to survey says 30 mins.

In reality - can't be completed if you've never worked professionally, or don't have certification. And what about Q19? You have to say that every rule is most often violated or interpreted wrongly ? And as for question 31, where you want us to learn a 6-level taxonomy and apply it to 15 different rules - dream on!
Click to expand...

I did it but I probably screwed it up. Q 19 and Q 31 were not the only ones where I did not understand the question.
When in doubt It just picked the middle answer. Sort of like putting C on any multiple guess exam questions I don't understand.
I doubt the results will make any sense.

It looks to me. If you have an endorsed YM. or a 6 pack you meet the requirements.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top