A Question for Sailors

[smstonypoint]

Randy,

Do the Canadian and Australian Navies have Quartermasters?

Steve

 

[dmccarty]

When my dad bought a sail boat decades ago the only thing navigation devices we had was a compass, depth sounder, VHF radio, binoculars, and Mark I eyeballs.

Now a days, radar, AIS, chart plotters, auto pilots, GPS, sat communication, etc., are very affordable. One should have at least two sets of charts, be that electric or paper, and most boats are using electric charts. It is easy and "cheap" to have a two different chart plotters since they can run on PCs as well as simple tablets not to mention dedicated navigation systems.

One of the key things to understand about this incident is chart plotters and AIS(Automatic Identification System).

Back in the old days you had paper charts and one had to take bearings when near shore to find your position or at sea shoot the stars, moon or the sun. A chart plotter is simply a computer that is displays a chart. What is really cool is that with GPS the computer can place the vessel on said chart. Simply think of a GPS in your car or cell phone. This is what a chart plotter does except it shows the vessel location and heading on a nautical chart. The chart plotter can also display the vessels speed and what the depth sounder is seeing as well.

Depending on what equipment one has bought, radar can be overlaid on the chart as well. The amount of information that can be displayed is amazing and helps maintain situation awareness on what is happening around the vessel. Radar can take some experience to figure out what is happening but some of the newer affordable radar sets are pretty easy to use. Now I am talking about radar on a boat that might only have one or two people on board, and best case, on watch, which is nothing compared to what the destroyer has on watch much less the quality of radar and sailors who know how to use said radar.

Lets add AIS(Automatic Identification System) to the situation. AIS is awesome because it shows vessel position, heading speed, and other information. AIS has two components, a transmitter and receiver that run on VHF. Ships are required to have both but private boats can be cheap and just buy the receiver. The receiver just picks up transmitted AIS signals so that the vessel can "see" other vessels but it can't be seen on AIS. For small boats, I think just having a receiver is nuts. Ships have a tough time seeing small vessels with radar or Mark I eyeballs so transmitting your vessel details on AIS is a good way to avoid getting run over by a ship. One can turn off the AIS transmitter so if you are in areas that are unsafe you can have the vessel go dark so to speak. Course, one should not be were there are pirates in the first place but that is another discussion.

But there is more to AIS than what I have said so far. The AIS data can be overlaid on the chart plotter. What this means is that other vessels transmitting on AIS show up on your chart plotter just like your own vessel. What you end up seeing is every vessel that can be picked up the AIS VHF antennae. Imagine your car or cell phone GPS application show your car AND every other car within 10-20 miles. This is what the chart plotter shows with AIS. But wait, there is more. :laughing::laughing::laughing:

I mentioned that AIS is transmitting vessel heading, speed, usually the ship name and other information. AIS can also transmit the vessels size and draft which can be helpful in certain situations. It also can transmit a unique ID which when linked to certain VHF radios allows one to push a button and have vessel to vessel communication. Basically you can directly "phone" the other vessel which makes it very easy to discuss one's intentions. You don't have to get on VHF and call up to the big ship on heading X near position Y and see if they answer. You can directly phone the vessel in question if both are using the latest equipment. Of course the radio has to be turned on and up per regulations and someone has to be on watch... But wait, there is more.

The chart plotter is a computer and computers can do some wonderful things. The chart plotter not only plots a vessel's location, it also takes the vessel course and speed to calculate where the vessel will BE say 15 minutes in the future. The chart plotters I have used draw a line in front of the vessels showing where the vessels will be in 15 minutes. If two lines cross then one needs to take care. But wait, there is more. :laughing::laughing::laughing:

The chart plotter/computer can calculate from the AIS data that a collision is likely and start flashing on the display that your vessel and vessel X are in danger. It is pretty obvious that one needs to do something. What to do might not be so easy to figure out if there is lots of nearby traffic and/or confined waters but it is pretty danged obvious that one has a situation that needs to be handled. But wait, there is more. :shocked:

Then there is the auto pilot. The chart plotter can also be tied to the auto pilot which will maintain a course. Speed is a function of the throttle, which on the boats I have seen, is not connected to the chart plotter. The auto pilot can be set to maintain a course or go to a given point(s). I have always used it to maintain a course. The chart plotter can be used to plot a route which in coastal waters may zig and zag this way and that. One could set way points along that route and let the vessel go from point to point but I have always seen the auto pilot used to follow the laid out route which I think is safer. If you need to change course to avoid a crab pot or another vessel, you don't have to turn the vessel's wheel, you can spin a dial or push some buttons to change the vessel heading by X number degrees and the auto pilot does the work. Eventually you correct the course to follow the laid out route.

Vessels with modern electronics are like space ships but operating on the ocean. The amount of information that one can have displayed on one or two monitors is amazing and frankly is magic. One does not have to have deep pockets to afford this stuff either.

This give you a hint of the technology available but people can still mess up even with this level of information.

Later,
Dan

 

[Wagtail]

Randy,

Do the Canadian and Australian Navies have Quartermasters?

Steve

Not as a 'trade'. The Quartermaster 'position' is the most experienced helmsman of a watch. The very best were then assigned as a Special Sea Duty Quartermaster for evolutions such as entering/leaving harbour or replenishment at sea (RAS).

I was good enough to be one, even though my trade (at the time) was a Firecontrolman [which was basically a 'Bos'n with a hobby']. Those days, the wheelhouse was 3 decks below and you steered by the gyro and the "feel" of the ship.

Typically, the rank of a quartermaster is a Leading Seaman... which is, roughly, an E5/6 in US parlance.

 

[k0ua]

Now I am talking about radar on a boat that might only have one or two people on board, and best case, on watch, which is nothing compared to what the destroyer has on watch much less the quality of radar and sailors who know how to use said radar.

Dan, you see I think the "on watch" is where this problem lies. I don't think the Merchantman had anyone on watch, and who knows what the guy or guys on watch for the destroyer were doing. Just nobody minding the store on either side.

 

[TCJatko]

That's going to look good on the Captains resume! Talk about a dereliction of duty...

This skipper's career is done; if he has 20 years in, he'd better put in his papers now. If not, he'll be skippering a desk for the balance of his time. The fault lies with the overnight watch on the Fitzgerald; there should have been someone on the bridge, particularly in such busy waters. It's not going to be pleasant for the guy who didn't show for his shift; heads will roll for many on board the Fitz that night.

 

[k0ua]

This skipper's career is done; if he has 20 years in, he'd better put in his papers now. If not, he'll be skippering a desk for the balance of his time. The fault lies with the overnight watch on the Fitzgerald; there should have been someone on the bridge, particularly in such busy waters. It's not going to be pleasant for the guy who didn't show for his shift; heads will roll for many on board the Fitz that night.

And they should. There are a lot of dead and injured as a result of this.

 

[RoyJackson]

I'm very curious as to how this happened too!

I figured the merchantman had a very limited night watch...but the Navy ship should have seen (visually or radar) the other ship approaching and taken evasive action (no matter who had the right-of-way.

I expect this to end up in a court-martial...

 

[dmccarty]

Dan, you see I think the "on watch" is where this problem lies. I don't think the Merchantman had anyone on watch, and who knows what the guy or guys on watch for the destroyer were doing. Just nobody minding the store on either side.

Yep, I don't think they had anyone on watch, or if they were on watch, they were asleep. This is not that uncommon if you talk to people out cruising. Back in the 80's my dad sailed over to the Bahamas and a freighter came close to them. Close enough for them to see into the bridge were there was not a person in site. You hear this from cruisers over and over and over.

I HOPE that the DDG tried to radio the cargo ship to communicate their intentions, but if they did, I bet there was no answer.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

This skipper's career is done; if he has 20 years in, he'd better put in his papers now. If not, he'll be skippering a desk for the balance of his time. The fault lies with the overnight watch on the Fitzgerald; there should have been someone on the bridge, particularly in such busy waters. It's not going to be pleasant for the guy who didn't show for his shift; heads will roll for many on board the Fitz that night.

Unless there is some VERY extreme circumstances we are not aware of, the USN will do a vertical chop through the leadership of the destroyer. The CO, XO and I suspect most, if not all, of the officers in CIC and on the bridge will canned in a manner that will end the career one way or another. I suspect some senior NCOs are going to get hit too.

My understanding of maritime law is that in accidents they assign blame to both parties. It is almost unheard of for one party to be 100% at fault. The COLREGS, and common sense, makes it both vessels responsibility to avoid a collision. Depending on the DDG course, it could very likely be that the Fitzgerald was mostly at fault. IF the Figzgerald was heading north, then the cargo vessel would be the stand on vessel meaning it should hold course and the DDG needs to stay out of it's way.

But I have not seen any information on the DDG's position, course or speed. The only data is from the AIS track of the cargo ship. There is a pretty sharp left hand turn in the cargo ships track. When I first saw that I thought that the ship made the sudden turn and then hit the DDG. This would explain how the DDG did not move out of the way. However, people with better access to the AIS data think that the collision occurred at the point of the left turn. Or to put it another way, the cargo ships left turn was because of the collision.

Because the cargo ship was transmitting on AIS, there is no excuse of the DDG to not know of the the ship position, course and speed.

Another piece of information that is missing is other ship's AIS tracks in the area of the collision. There is a website the tracks the AIS information from vessels and it would be interesting to see the other vessels in the area at the time of the collision. The DDG could have been focused on other ships that were on a collision course. We just do not know.

But in the end, unless there is some VERY extreme circumstances, it really does not matter, it was the duty and responsibility of both captains to avoid a collision. They did not.

Later,
Dan

 

[k0ua]

You know, we put men on Cargo vessels so that they can avoid collisions (and collusions ) , and keep the machinery in good order. The dang ship could pilot itself all the way across the pacific, as some of our drones have done, and it could come into port and dock itself too. But they ARE manned. Or supposed to be. Of course the stupid autopilot, when it hits something is just going to throw on more power because of the speed loss of pushing a DDG thru the water sideways. And of course it will resume the base course when it can.

 

[/pine]

This skipper's career is done; if he has 20 years in, he'd better put in his papers now. If not, he'll be skippering a desk for the balance of his time. The fault lies with the overnight watch on the Fitzgerald; there should have been someone on the bridge, particularly in such busy waters. It's not going to be pleasant for the guy who didn't show for his shift; heads will roll for many on board the Fitz that night.

Probably so...but not necessarily...the navy has a history of covering for favorite sons etc.,etc...* (see below)

IMO it's absurd to even consider that neither of the vessels had personnel on watch (let alone radar watch alarms)...IMO it's most likely a case of one or both of the watch crews assuming the other vessel was going to take evasive action...

*...as for the navy and history of cover ups...just ask john mccain...I had friends on the USS Forrestal...both survivors and fatalities...they know the truth and those still living will tell you about the big cover up that saved mccain's butt...BTW...my father was a POW for 3 years and I have NO respect for j. mccain...!

 

[PILOON]

Could it be that the navy vessel was 'electronically cloaked' and the merchant ship's radar did not see it?

Fighter aircraft have that feature and I understood some navy ships also have the capability.

 

[smstonypoint]

You know, we put men on Cargo vessels so that they can avoid collisions (and collusions ) , and keep the machinery in good order. The dang ship could pilot itself all the way across the pacific, as some of our drones have done, and it could come into port and dock itself too. But they ARE manned. Or supposed to be. Of course the stupid autopilot, when it hits something is just going to throw on more power because of the speed loss of pushing a DDG thru the water sideways. And of course it will resume the base course when it can.

pacific -- adjective -- peaceful or helping to cause peace

Pacific -- noun -- short for Pacific Ocean

Sincerely,

 

[k0ua]

pacific -- adjective -- peaceful or helping to cause peace

Pacific -- noun -- short for Pacific Ocean

Sincerely,
View attachment 513289

I should have know better than to spar with the master. mea maxima culpa

 

[smstonypoint]

I should have know better than to spar with the master.

As a result of my mistake yesterday, my auxiliary membership in POEM (Professional Organization of English Majors) has been suspended. I have appealed the decision and hope to improve my chances of winning my appeal by pointing out grammatical errors at every opportunity.


Steve

 

[k0ua]

As a result of my mistake yesterday, my auxiliary membership in POEM (Professional Organization of English Majors) has been suspended. I have appealed the decision and hope to improve my chances of winning my appeal by pointing out grammatical errors at every opportunity.


Steve

I am so sorry Steve. Being censured by one's own professional organization is a bitter pill to swallow. And being brought low by such a blatant offender such as myself is almost more than one can bear.

 

[3930dave]

This give you a hint of the technology available but people can still mess up even with this level of information.

Later,
Dan

I've posted in another thread about a parallel problem in commercial aviation. People have become used to automatic systems doing the "thinking", and planes have been flown into the ground or a vertical stall due to a relatively minor error in an automatic system. In an older, less "advanced" era, many of these crashes probably would have been avoided by a competent pilot.

There's also the problem of data "smog". With a blizzard of information coming at you, it can be easy for a critical piece of information (esp. one that the system hasn't been programmed to escalate appropriately) to be obscured.

A common expression is "being in the loop". A comment by a military commander about modern drone technology stuck in my mind - he said something to the effect "The tech is advancing fast enough that it is difficult to keep the human operators on the loop".

Modern tech systems can often routinely accomplish amazingly complex activities. One thing that concerns me as tech advances is people effectively abrogating responsibility, well, for pretty much everything.

In benign real-world situations, I'll often say "what did people blame things on, before computers were around.... ?". With fatalities involved, the question becomes even more important, IMO.

Most organizations are attracted to replacing human capital with tech, as much as possible. I haven't read about the weather conditions in this incident, but it's sad to think that even the most junior sailor on-board could have visually spotted the problem that the automatic systems apparently missed. (I'm assuming that both ships had navigation lights illuminated at the time of the collision).

My comments above concern a fault related to native bugs or lapses in control programming. If a hack was involved, that highlights the need for engaged human oversight even more.

Rgds, D.

 

[TCJatko]

I've posted in another thread about a parallel problem in commercial aviation. People have become used to automatic systems doing the "thinking", and planes have been flown into the ground or a vertical stall due to a relatively minor error in an automatic system. In an older, less "advanced" era, many of these crashes probably would have been avoided by a competent pilot.

There's also the problem of data "smog". With a blizzard of information coming at you, it can be easy for a critical piece of information (esp. one that the system hasn't been programmed to escalate appropriately) to be obscured.

A common expression is "being in the loop". A comment by a military commander about modern drone technology stuck in my mind - he said something to the effect "The tech is advancing fast enough that it is difficult to keep the human operators on the loop".

Modern tech systems can often routinely accomplish amazingly complex activities. One thing that concerns me as tech advances is people effectively abrogating responsibility, well, for pretty much everything.

In benign real-world situations, I'll often say "what did people blame things on, before computers were around.... ?". With fatalities involved, the question becomes even more important, IMO.

Most organizations are attracted to replacing human capital with tech, as much as possible. I haven't read about the weather conditions in this incident, but it's sad to think that even the most junior sailor on-board could have visually spotted the problem that the automatic systems apparently missed. (I'm assuming that both ships had navigation lights illuminated at the time of the collision).

My comments above concern a fault related to native bugs or lapses in control programming. If a hack was involved, that highlights the need for engaged human oversight even more.

Rgds, D.

Isn't this the truth; Air France 447 is a classic example. The pilots continued to attempt to climb with the aircraft in a full stall.

 

[TCJatko]

Probably so...but not necessarily...the navy has a history of covering for favorite sons etc.,etc...* (see below)

IMO it's absurd to even consider that neither of the vessels had personnel on watch (let alone radar watch alarms)...IMO it's most likely a case of one or both of the watch crews assuming the other vessel was going to take evasive action...

*...as for the navy and history of cover ups...just ask john mccain...I had friends on the USS Forrestal...both survivors and fatalities...they know the truth and those still living will tell you about the big cover up that saved mccain's butt...BTW...my father was a POW for 3 years and I have NO respect for j. mccain...!

There's too much at stake here: new SECDEF and President will be looking for real answers. I'd say the skipper will be very lucky to be able to retire in grade. Commander Benson isn't an academy grad; he's toast IMHO.

 

[rustydollar]

Probably so...but not necessarily...the navy has a history of covering for favorite sons etc.,etc...* (see below)

IMO it's absurd to even consider that neither of the vessels had personnel on watch (let alone radar watch alarms)...IMO it's most likely a case of one or both of the watch crews assuming the other vessel was going to take evasive action...

*...as for the navy and history of cover ups...just ask john mccain...I had friends on the USS Forrestal...both survivors and fatalities...they know the truth and those still living will tell you about the big cover up that saved mccain's butt...BTW...my father was a POW for 3 years and I have NO respect for j. mccain...!

Live video coverage of that tragic day the USS Forrestal caught fire

Trial by Fire: A Carrier Fights for Life : United States Navy : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive