A Question for Sailors

dodge man · Jul 22, 2017

Disabled and rammed? Talk about a conspiracy theory that's off the wall.

A cover up for John McCain on the Forrestal? He was sitting in his plane when hit by our own ordinance. What was he suppose to do different? Sorry all these conspiracies don't really have anything to do with it.

My take on the question at hand, that's why they call it an accident. Something could have been done to prevent it. Tough for me to say, I'll wait for the official version. Even though I'm not a big conspiracy theory person, I will admit the entire truth may not come out.

gwstang · Jul 22, 2017

What we know about Navy destroyer'''s deadly collision with a container ship off Japan

Take a look at the course the tanker took. Bumble bees fly better.

Wagtail · Jul 23, 2017

smstonypoint said:
Any idea of the number of people manning the bridge of a modern destroyer while it is underway?

Steve

Not anymore... and my destroyer/frigate days are long in the past. We had plenty of people onboard to man a full Watch back then:

OOW (typically a Lieutenant)
Assistant OOW (junior officer under training; Sub-Lieutenant)
QM (in charge of the Helm; Leading Seaman) + 2x on the Engine Room Telegraphs (Able Seaman[AB]/Ordinary Seaman[OD])
BM (ship's log & any pipes to be made; AB/OD)
2x Bridge lookouts (AB/OD)
Lifebouy Sentry (After Man-overboard Sentry; AB/OD)
+ usually one or two spare hands to plug into the rotation of one hour in each position (except for the QM).

Today? They've probably eliminated the Lookouts, Lifebouy Sentry and ER Telegraph positions... and there'd be no 'spare hands'. Plus the OOW would be it on a minimum crewed ship.

Spanner · Jul 23, 2017

gwstang said:
What we know about Navy destroyer'''s deadly collision with a container ship off Japan

Take a look at the course the tanker took. Bumble bees fly better.

I'm only following this incident up to now via the general news channels, and having just read this thread, I appreciate the input of you ex-service and maritime personnel.

On the chart above, where exactly did the collision occur? or was it off the map??

I'm minded of the recent incident in my country (2011) when the MV Rena (a freighter) ran full-speed onto a well charted reef. Allegations at the time suggested the crew were 'celebrating' the captains birthday below decks. Criminal charges and imprisonment resulted.

Wikipedia - Rena_oil_spill

Criminal charges[edit]
On 12 October 2011, the captain of Rena appeared in the Tauranga District Court charged with operating a vessel causing unnecessary danger or risk to a person or property. He was granted name suppression and remanded on bail.[11] If convicted he faced a fine of up to $10,000 or up to 12 months imprisonment.[54] The ship's second officer, who was responsible for navigation at the time of the accident, was subsequently charged and appeared in court on 13 October.[55]

The two men, both Filipino, pleaded guilty to 11 charges between them, including attempting to pervert the course of justice (based on alleged alteration of navigational documents after the collision).[56] The sentencing for both men was scheduled for 25 May 2012.[57]

The (New Zealand) Transport Accident Investigation Commission released an interim report into the grounding on 8 March 2012. The report states only what happened but not why, and does not apportion blame. It states that Rena arrived at the port of Napier and began unloading cargo, but was forced to stand off in the harbour when a ship with priority booking arrived. Rena was therefore delayed 13 hours in leaving Napier. On making the run toward Tauranga, the captain was under pressure to make up time and to arrive at the port's pilot station by 3:00 am, and the ship's charts showed that a more direct course than usual had been set that took Rena toward Astrolabe Reef. An intermittent radar echo first noticed at 2:05 am was ignored when nothing was seen through binoculars, and at 2:14 Rena struck the reef.[58][59]

On 25 May 2012, the captain and navigation officer appeared in Tauranga District Court for sentencing. Each was sentenced to 7 months imprisonment.[60]

Kyle_in_Tex · Jul 23, 2017

gwstang said:
What we know about Navy destroyer'''s deadly collision with a container ship off Japan

Take a look at the course the tanker took. Bumble bees fly better.

If that is true, it's pretty damning.

dmccarty · Jul 23, 2017

Wagtail said:
Not anymore... and my destroyer/frigate days are long in the past. We had plenty of people onboard to man a full Watch back then:

OOW (typically a Lieutenant)
Assistant OOW (junior officer under training; Sub-Lieutenant)
QM (in charge of the Helm; Leading Seaman) + 2x on the Engine Room Telegraphs (Able Seaman[AB]/Ordinary Seaman[OD])
BM (ship's log & any pipes to be made; AB/OD)
2x Bridge lookouts (AB/OD)
Lifebouy Sentry (After Man-overboard Sentry; AB/OD)
+ usually one or two spare hands to plug into the rotation of one hour in each position (except for the QM).

Today? They've probably eliminated the Lookouts, Lifebouy Sentry and ER Telegraph positions... and there'd be no 'spare hands'. Plus the OOW would be it on a minimum crewed ship.

From what I have read from people who have served on USN ships similar to the DDG, and not too long ago, is that the manning is similar to what you describe with the addition of more people in the CIC. CIC should have been tracking the cargo ship. Obviously someone messed up. The DDG would have more people on watch than the cargo ship.

One thing that that might be important when thinking about the incident is that this was at night, in an area full of ships, AND close to land. Did shore lights and/or other ships hinder seeing the cargo ship lights? The DDG had the cargo ship on AIS, or should have, and the cargo ship should have been on radar, so even if the could not see the cargo ship, they should have known it's course and speed via AIS and radar. The report will dig into these things.

I have read that the crew might have been doing drills which had them distracted and/or tired. One would think/hope they would not have been running drills in that location due to the traffic.

The cargo ship's AIS track is interesting but I have yet to see a definitive statement as to where the collision happened. Some interpretations of the track would have given the DDG very little time to react to the cargo ships sudden turn. But I have seen multiple statements on where the collision occurred in the AIS track but I have yet to see the course and speed of the DDG much less have it's track laid out along with the cargo ship. The other thing that might be important is the track of other ships in the area.

The DDG will share the blame of the collision with the cargo ship. The question is which ship has the great responsibility for the collision.

Later,
Dan

Midniteoyl · Jul 23, 2017

Pre-face: I'm a US Navy vet, Radar and IFF tech..

Looking at the damage, it is clear that the Crystal was an 'over-taking' vessel on the Fitzgerald's starboard quarter (like the picture below). If the Crystal was like the lower pic, the Fitzgerald should have been the one to give-way. If it was like the top pic, ie: Crystal coming in at 22*, the Crystal should have given way.

We already know that the Crystal's crew where not on the bridge.

Here's a kinda chilling little article about just such an over-taking written 4yrs ago. I believe this is exactly what happened (ie: 22*): Overtaking or crossing? Don’t assume what other ship will do - Professional Mariner - August 213

As you read it, think about there being some confusion about the Crystals true speed and heading. She was too close in to be tracked by radar (sea scatter) and relied on a look-out for that estimation (which is in the rules just for this reason by the way) and that since there was likely no one on the Crystals bridge, no way for the Fitzgerald to contact the Crystal and warn her of the danger and that she must, as per the rules, give way. The only reason I can think of for the Fitzgerald not eventually changing course herself in light of the danger is 1) the OOD (Captain was NOT on the bridge, it seems) thought they were in fact going to miss due to some misconception (size, shape, lights dim or out, etc,), or 2) he's a stubborn SOB (which I doubt). Given that the OOD seems not to have contacted the Captain about a close ship crossing (which is pretty much SOP), I have to believe #1.

Anyway, with what we know about over-taking vessels on their starboard quarter, then looking at the damage of both vessels, I believe this is what happened.

Either way, the OOD screwed up, royally.. And the Captain is screwed.

RIP Sailors...

Midniteoyl · Jul 23, 2017

Double

Wagtail · Jul 23, 2017

dmccarty said:
From what I have read from people who have served on USN ships similar to the DDG, and not too long ago, is that the manning is similar to what you describe with the addition of more people in the CIC. CIC should have been tracking the cargo ship. Obviously someone messed up. The DDG would have more people on watch than the cargo ship...

Later,
Dan

Yes, there are more personnel on 'Watch' than I described in different areas/positions on a warship. I responded to a question regarding the "Bridge" Watch only, plus I kept the number of positions manned for the Dogs/First/Middle/Morning Watches.

An OPS Room (Operations Room/CIC) would be manned, the Engine Room would be manned, etc...

Back in 'my day', the OPS Room would've had two or three Radar Operators plus a couple of 'plotters', plus a Senior Sailor [Petty Officer (PO) = E7-8 equiv.]. Today, with today's technology, that may be reduced to a PO and 1-2 operators leaving all of the tracking up to the computer(s).

Most of the time, everything works great. But, you get one 'glitch' at 0215 (which seems to be the time that major 'faults' always seemed to happen :laughing

and things can go to custard quickly.

Note: As an Electronics Technician rating, I was typically shaken at 0215 to come to the Bridge to fix a 'fault'. Usually, a "finger-fault" by the OOW attempting to adjust the picture on the radar display.

3930dave · Aug 19, 2017

Part way through this, I was thinking "Bringing a knife to a gunfight....."

How hackers are targeting the shipping industry - BBC News

Upon reflection, that might be overestimating how the commercial-shipping industry has armed themselves....

Rgds, D.

turnkey4099 · Aug 20, 2017

Saw an article in the paper the other day. The Captain and Exec were both relieved of command. Rather odd that the powers that be waited so long to do it.

smstonypoint · Aug 20, 2017

turnkey4099 said:
Saw an article in the paper the other day. The Captain and Exec were both relieved of command. Rather odd that the powers that be waited so long to do it.

The recent reports that I have seen have dealt with the aftermath of the collision and don't have much detail on how the collision occurred. Here's some info from one report: (USS Fitzgerald's leadership removed from their duties over June collision - CNNPolitics)

The Fitzgerald's commanding officer, Cdr. Bryce Benson, and the executive officer, Cdr. Sean Babbiit, were both sleeping, and the master chief petty officer, Brice Baldwin, were not on the bridge at the time of the collision, according to the Navy.

<snip>

"The collision was avoidable and both ships demonstrated poor seamanship. Within Fitzgerald, flawed watch stander teamwork and inadequate leadership contributed to the collision that claimed the lives of seven Fitzgerald sailors, injured injured three more, and damaged both ships," the 7th Fleet said in a statement.

I am especially interested in details as to why/how the collision occurred.

Steve

RoyJackson · Aug 20, 2017

smstonypoint said:
The recent reports that I have seen have dealt with the aftermath of the collision and don't have much detail on how the collision occurred. Here's some info from one report: (USS Fitzgerald's leadership removed from their duties over June collision - CNNPolitics)

I am especially interested in details as to why/how the collision occurred.

Steve

I'm quite curious who was in charge on the bridge. Although I'm surprised the MCPO wasn't, he may have had to deal with an issue elsewhere on the ship.

At least in my day (1969-1978 active duty), there was always an Officer of the Watch. However, this may differ on a smaller ship.

3930dave · Aug 20, 2017

smstonypoint said:
I am especially interested in details as to why/how the collision occurred.

Steve

When a BC Ferry hit a very large island and sank in the middle of the night a few years ago, it wasn't until a court proceeding happened that many of the details became public.

Given that a military vessel was involved, the critical-cause information may be delayed for quite a while/indefinitely.

Rgds, D.

smstonypoint · Aug 20, 2017

RoyJackson said:
I'm quite curious who was in charge on the bridge. Although I'm surprised the MCPO wasn't, he may have had to deal with an issue elsewhere on the ship.

At least in my day (1969-1978 active duty), there was always an Officer of the Watch. However, this may differ on a smaller ship.

I was on an even smaller ship, a 180 ft. Coast Guard buoy tender, from 1967-68. The officers consisted of the CO (a Lt. Commander), the XO (a Lieutenant), two junior officers (usually a lieutenant junior grade and an ensign), and a Warrant Officer. An officer was always on the bridge when underway.

Steve

k0ua · Aug 20, 2017

So no officer on the bridge at all, and who the heck was left manning the helm was goofing off too. A real black eye for the Navy. The merchant ship you can kind of have low expectations for competency. But a warship?, not to mention a US Navy warship, well, they should have done better. We may never know what "really" happened and the why.