A Question for Sailors

[smstonypoint]

Seriously, what are the chances?.. I am not much of a conspiracy kind of guy, but this is getting ridiculous.

What are the chances?

This reminds me of a quote from I. J. Good.

"I arrived in the seventh hour of the seventh day of the seventh month of year seven of the seventh decade, and I was put in apartment 7 of block 7, all by chance. I seem to have had more than my fair share of coincidences. I have an idea that God provides more coincidences the more one doubts Her existence, thereby providing one with evidence without forcing one to believe. When I believe that theory, the coincidences will presumably stop."

Jack Good: Cryptographer whose work with Alan Turing at Bletchley Park was crucial to the War effort | The Independent

Sreve

 

[3930dave]

Seriously, what are the chances?.. I am not much of a conspiracy kind of guy, but this is getting ridiculous.

Pretty much what I was thinking.....

After the thread title incident happened, I'd expect that a top-level Get Your "Act" Together NOW order went out to all ships at sea. I definitely wouldn't want to be a senior officer on that second ship about now.....

Rgds, D.

 

[Wagtail]

Oh my.

US destroyer collides with merchant ship near Singapore - CNN

Steve

Oh my, indeed.

Local time 0524 (almost 1.5 hours into the Morning watch), in a very constricted area of water with merchant traffic. I'm unsure of when sunrise would exactly be, but it was close... certainly dawn. They were on their way to 'Singers', but I reckon that Special Sea Dutymen had yet to be called for entering harbour; therefore a minimum manned watch.

Similar circumstances/scenario to the FITZGERALD.

My suspicions again go to minimum manning (lack of personnel to act as physical Lookouts - people with binoculars in their hands) and reliance on modern technology to make up for it.

Because of this, the OOW has his/her eyes 'down and looking' trying to be aware of the 'situation', with no one available to bring a potential problem to their attention.

 

[Leejohn]

Oh my, indeed.

Local time 0524 (almost 1.5 hours into the Morning watch), in a very constricted area of water with merchant traffic. I'm unsure of when sunrise would exactly be, but it was close... certainly dawn. They were on their way to 'Singers', but I reckon that Special Sea Dutymen had yet to be called for entering harbour; therefore a minimum manned watch.



Similar circumstances/scenario to the FITZGERALD.

My suspicions again go to minimum manning (lack of personnel to act as physical Lookouts - people with binoculars in their hands) and reliance on modern technology to make up for it.

Because of this, the OOW has his/her eyes 'down and looking' trying to be aware of the 'situation', with no one available to bring a potential problem to their attention.

You are right. A 40+knots ship and can turn within less then a mile hitting a 10 to 15 knot ship that takes a mile or 2 to turn, It's nuts.

 

[bcp]

An article like this makes you wonder if...

From:
How hackers are targeting the shipping industry - BBC News

Seizing the controls

Crucial navigation systems such as the Electronic Chart Display (Ecdis) have also been hit. One such incident is recalled by Brendan Saunders, maritime technical lead at cyber-security firm NCC Group.

This also concerned a ship at an Asian port, but this time it was a large tanker weighing 80,000 tonnes.

One of the crew had brought a USB stick on board with some paperwork that needed to be printed. That was how the malware got into the ship's computers in the first instance. But it was when a second crew member went to update the ship's charts before sailing, also via USB, that the navigation systems were infected.

Departure was consequently delayed and an investigation launched.

"Ecdis systems pretty much never have anti-virus," says Mr Saunders, pointing out the vulnerability. "I don't think I've ever encountered a merchant ship Ecdis unit that had anti-virus on it."

These incidents are hugely disruptive to maritime businesses, but truly catastrophic scenarios might involve a hacker attempting to sabotage or even destroy a ship itself, through targeted manipulation of its systems.

Could that happen? Could, for example, a determined and well-resourced attacker alter a vessel's systems to provoke a collision?

"It's perfectly feasible," says Mr Saunders. "We've demonstrated proof-of-concept that that could happen."

 

[Wagtail]

bcp, that's certainly feasible. Particularly in the 'cost savings' (minimum wage & cut to the bone merchant navy).

As I've stated, my large warship days are long behind me... that being said, paper charts were not only carried but always used on the bridge. As modern technology improved, they became more of a 'back-up' but the course & position of the ship was always recorded (in pencil) and maintained. Sure GPS is employed and, if available, DGPS. The OOW and his/her assistant (which could be a PO or chart Yeoman) where regularly taking sightings via the Polaris IOT verify the ship's position. Heck, they still shot the noon-day sun with a sextant just to 'keep their hand in'.

Today? :confused3: I don't think that 'they' have the available personnel to continue the Old School methods. These minimum manned ships actually don't have the bunks installed to carry the extra people to perform these 'old' tasks.

 

[bcp]

I'm thinking it would apply to the merchant ship, not the navy one.

I can "imagine" a navigational virus that does nothing until a Navy ship is very near, then turns toward it.

Bruce

 

[RoyJackson]

2 Navy ships involved in collisions...this is incredible!

If this was Navair, there would be an immediate safety stand-down.

 

[bindian]

I'm thinking it would apply to the merchant ship, not the navy one.

I can "imagine" a navigational virus that does nothing until a Navy ship is very near, then turns toward it.

Bruce

A friend sent me this just now............... I am willing to entertain the notion that there are IC chips in
critical equipment that may have malicious software in them, and
the armed services need to conduct a through check of their
electronics to determine it. This issue came up several years back
when contractors, having certified the chips in their equipment
wasn't of Chinese manufacture. found the Navy rather miffed when
PRC IC chips =were= used in making components for DoD use.
hugs, Brandi

 

[riptides]

I'm thinking it would apply to the merchant ship, not the navy one.

I can "imagine" a navigational virus that does nothing until a Navy ship is very near, then turns toward it.

Bruce

IMHO, these type of viruses, malware, trojan and/or hacks are not something to be tested or actually used unless in time of great strife or war. Exposure means mitigation can be undertaken. Which makes use thereof, rather difficult.

The US of A is pretty good at figuring stuff out on computers. Even if we don't own and operate them.

 

[smstonypoint]

Selected items from How could a US warship have collided with a tanker? Yahoo7 News.

Commercial vessels use standard marine radar and must also have an Automatic Identification System (AIS), which connects to satellites for vessel tracking and displays the location of other ships.

However navy vessels often fail to turn on these AIS systems, which can create problems for commercial shipping when their military counterparts use busy waterways, according to Claudia Norrgren, an associate director of VesselsValue which provides data about shipping.


Analysts say an investigation must be carried out before firm conclusions can be drawn but some suggested that the US Navy ship may not have stuck to the rules for ships in the Strait of Singapore

Ridzwan Rahmat, a naval expert from Jane's by IHS Markit, said the accident happened on the eastern approach to the busy strait, in an area governed by a system that separates shipping into two lanes.

Initial indications suggest the tanker, the Alnic MC, was following the rules but the USS John S. McCain may not have been in a proper position as it entered the waterway, he said.

He said it might be a sign of crew fatigue among the US Navy in the Pacific and there could be "a rethink on the kind of operations that the US Navy will be conducting moving forward, especially the freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea".

There are well-established rules for vessels navigating waterways around Singapore, such as a mandatory reporting system for vessels over a certain size, said Jayendu Krishna, director of Drewry Maritime Advisors.

All ships are equipped with navigational safety equipment, and naval ships are likely to have even better and more high-tech systems, he added.

There are currently 268 cargo vessels in the Singapore Strait of the same type and size of the Alnic MC, said Norrgren of VesselsValue.

WOW -- 268 vessels!!!

The buoy tender I served on was stationed in Portsmouth, VA and most of my "sea duty" took place in the Chesapeake Bay and Hampton Roads. At the time, I thought that was a busy place for maritime activity, both commercial and naval. I finished my service on a Dangerous Cargo Inspection Team in Baltimore. At that time, shipping agents had to notify the Captain of the Port in advance of the arrival of merchant vessels. It has been almost 50 years and my memory may be playing tricks on me, but a busy day would have involved fewer than 25 arrivals.

WOW -- 268 vessels!!!

Steve

 

[dmccarty]

2 Navy ships involved in collisions...this is incredible!

If this was Navair, there would be an immediate safety stand-down.

Yep, that is what I was thinking when I saw the news last night. The USMC just grounded their air units because of a couple of mishaps.

The USN has had some pretty spectacular accidents over the years, a ship running aground off of Hawaii, the sub that surfaced and hit a Japanese fishing school ship off of Hawaii, a sub hitting another USN ship in the Persian Gulf, the mine sweeper running up a on a reef of the PI, another sub ran into a sea mount at speed, and now these two incidents.

Granted the USN spends a huge amount of time at sea, more than any other navy but, there is a problem. Some these accidents were from crews not following procedures and that points straight to the CO. But I wonder if more than that is happening.

I do wonder if the ship's crews have too many other responsibilities that are keeping them tired and not as aware of their navigational duties as they should be. From what I have read the Navy is following the US business world of doing more with less which is simply bovine scat. One can't really do more with the less. After the "fat" has been removed from an organization, when you have less people and/or money, then less gets done. Not more.

The USN LCS ships, which just seem like over priced, very fast targets for any decent threat, were first manned with 50ish or so sailors to cut operation costs. Eventually the navy raised the number of sailors to 75ish because 50ish sailors just could not operate the ships effectively for any period of time.

Recent USN veterans have mentioned that their regular duties as well as educational requirements kept them sleep deprived. The USN was worried about the number and length of deployments affecting the readiness of both the crew and ship/aircraft. Deployments and time at sea are supposed to have gone down in the last few years but have the crews been pushed too far and are taking short cuts due to fatigue as they do more with less?

One some of the boating forums the Fitz accident has been a hot topic of discussion that has not ended. Some people think that the USN will cover up what has happened. I think they are right and wrong. They USN will blame the CO, XO, and down the chain as they see fit. That will not be covered up. However, if the ship crews are being pushed too hard, that might get short shift.

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

...
WOW -- 268 vessels!!!
...
Steve

Both the McCain and the Fitz were in very busy, constricted areas when they had their accidents and I don't think that is a coincidence. Crews really have to be aware of what is happening around them in that heavy traffic which makes me wonder about crew fatigue and/or a break down in crew communication.

Later,
Dan

 

[k0ua]

Both the McCain and the Fitz were in very busy, constricted areas when they had their accidents and I don't think that is a coincidence. Crews really have to be aware of what is happening around them in that heavy traffic which makes me wonder about crew fatigue and/or a break down in crew communication.

Later,
Dan

I really don't understand it. Of course I am NOT a sailor, but what ever happened to "radar contact 2 miles, bearing 090 and closing fast". Can't anyone read a radar PPI anymore?. Can't the operators that are the "eyes" of the ship communicate to the helmsman? If you can't trust the "ratings" to conn the ship, why in heck are they left by themselves to do so? "Something is very very wrong here!" and we need to get to the root causes of these apparent personnel failures. Or do we need to park all of our warships at night when the CO goes to bed?:confused3:

 

[Sigarms]

A little off topic, apologies...

Reading about all the electronics (and what can go wrong when you don't know the "basics") on this post made me think of a story I can relate to when people rely upon electronics blindly...(that at, at this point, I'm guessing no one knows if following a screen blindly was the actual cause)

GPS Mix-Up Brings Wrong Turn, and Celebrity, to an American in Iceland - The New York Times

Personally, I thought the guy in the article was an idiot.

My fear is when my sons are adults, hardly anyone in thier generation may be able to read a map because they never had to (they still don't have cell phones, but pretty all their classmates do). That said, my boys are picking up pretty good on what direction we're going due to the time/location of the sun. We spent two weeks on that in cub scouts:laughing:

 

[dmccarty]

The Wall Street Journal just reported that the USN is having a operational pause, Navy to Pause Operations, Review Collisions, With 1 Missing - WSJ

The U.S. Navy announced an 登perational pause and has begun a broad investigation after the destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with a merchant vessel, leaving 10 sailors still missing, the second such incident in as many months.

The response by the U.S. military signals the Navy believes it needs to examine whether there may be institutional problems behind the deadly collisions.

Navy Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, made the announcement about the operational pause during a nearly four-minute video message posted on Facebook Monday morning. Adm. Richardson said he also ordered a broader investigation.

的 directed an operational pause be taken in all of our fleets around the world, Adm. Richardson said. 的 want our fleet commanders to get together with their leaders and their commands to ensure that we are taking all appropriate immediate actions to ensure safe and effective operations around the world.

Adm. Richardson also said there would be a comprehensive investigation would look at operational tempo, personnel, maintenance, equipment and training, suggesting a confluence of factors was behind the collisions.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis first announced the investigation while speaking to reporters traveling with him to Amman.

典he chief of naval operations broader inquiry will look at all related accidents at sea, that sort of thing. He is going to look at all factors, not just the immediate ones, Mr. Mattis said.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Monday he agreed on the need to look behind the recent collisions.

的 agree with Adm. Richardson that more forceful action is urgently needed to identify and correct the causes of the recent ship collisions, Sen. McCain said. 的 expect full transparency and accountability from the Navy leaders as they conduct the associated investigations and reviews.納

I don't remember the USN ever having an operational pause before for their ships. Does anyone remember a pause being ordered for ships?

Later,
Dan

 

[dmccarty]

I really don't understand it. Of course I am NOT a sailor, but what ever happened to "radar contact 2 miles, bearing 090 and closing fast". Can't anyone read a radar PPI anymore?. Can't the operators that are the "eyes" of the ship communicate to the helmsman? If you can't trust the "ratings" to conn the ship, why in heck are they left by themselves to do so? "Something is very very wrong here!" and we need to get to the root causes of these apparent personnel failures. Or do we need to park all of our warships at night when the CO goes to bed?:confused3:

With the navigation aides of today, it is more than just radar, AIS as I mentioned in earlier posts is sooooo danged helpful. The USN often turns off AIS, which makes sense, but they would/should be picking up ships on AIS as well as radar. The technology is there...

From a crew perspective, the USN should have more than enough sailors to handle navigation but given the recent failures, one has to suppose fatigue, training, leadership and/or procedures are at fault. Frankly, I would be shocked if the procedures are at fault. The crew NOT following procedures because of fatigue or poor leadership seems more likely. Failure in training would sorta surprise me, but if that is case, does that point at the CO or the USN?

Later,
Dan

 

[smstonypoint]

This makes sense to me.

Source: Twitter

Steve

 

[ch1ch2]

I know the military will cover up issues they want to be kept secret.
So I am not holding out for the truth.
I have hear the navy has equipment that works best if the ship is at anchor.
The ship may not have had time to pull up anchor and get out of the way.

Wasn't the previous destroyer hit by a ship manned by people from the Philippines?

 

[dmccarty]

This makes sense to me.

Source: Twitter

Steve

I have read similar statements regarding USN surface warfare officers in other places. I have subscribed for many decades to the USNI Proceedings magazine which is the public professional journal for the USN and USMC. I suspect I have read similar comments in the Proceedings and I know I have read these criticisms in other places. Given that the comments were made by officers in the USN and/or merchant marine, their statements are pretty damning.

I might have mentioned it earlier in the thread, but on one of the boating forums there is a member who is a graduate of Annapolis and served as an officer in the fleet. He received very good ship handling skills at Annapolis which many more senior officers on his ship lacked. His CO would call him to the bridge during critical moments when his skills were needed irregardless of what he was doing or if there was a more senior officer available. The CO simply did not trust some of the other officer's ship handling skills. This is simply shocking but seems to be the heart of the problem. There have been too many navigation related issues over the recent years.

Later,
Dan