A Question for Sailors

/ A Question for Sailors #303  
Wagtail said:
No... but it does set a legal precedent. ;)
Click to expand...

And in the Fat Lenard case(s), it is deserved. It is really shocking that senior Naval officers, over many years, were bribed with dinner, hotel rooms, booze, and prostitutes to give business to one company. If these "officers" can be bribed with so little, what would they sell for real money?

That this criminal activity lasted for so long, and was known by so many, it is really a dam...ning situation for the USN. Heads should be rolling. Literally.

Since they won't get a trip up to the yard arm by their neck, how about a keel hauling? The USS Constitution would be a fitting place of punishment.

Later,
Dan
 
/ A Question for Sailors #305  
At first report this one at least appears the navy is not at fault...although seems they werre perhaps too close to the tow.
 
/ A Question for Sailors #309  
/ A Question for Sailors #310  
dragoneggs said:
It is hard to 'fathom' how either of these two accidents occurred. I don't have much of a vested interest other than an American and taxpayer, but I sure would like to know the details of how each happened. I don't believe I heard a decent explanation to date.
Click to expand...

I'll try and be to the point.

1) Crew members overworked and not provided with sufficient rest.
2) Crew and officers not properly trained in charge of underway operations in high traffic waters
3) Captains of both vessels not on bridge prior to extremis situation
4) U.S Navy policy of not using AIS in congested waters gave other vessels in area no indication said naval vessels were in area.

The automatic identification system (AIS) is an automatic tracking system used on ships and by vessel traffic services (VTS). When satellites are used to detect AIS signatures, the term Satellite-AIS (S-AIS) is used.

Both situations occurred during night, with no moonlight. Naval ships as these are designed to be "stealth" and difficult to observe by other vessels. They often run without lights, as these ships did at times of accidents.

Bottom line in my opinion, both captains are derelict in their duty as commanders of the vessels.
 
/ A Question for Sailors #311  
I see retribution is forthcoming this morning regarding the captain and several officers. Bob
 
/ A Question for Sailors #312  
I wondered if our vessels were attacked electronically to cause the collisions.
 
/ A Question for Sailors #313  
Some people have said that only the Captains and others on the ship would take the blame for the accidents, but that this would not go any farther. Well, the accidents have taken out the chain of command to very high levels, as it should. BUT, the bottom line in all of this is that the USN has been tasked to do too much, with too little, for too long. The USN, like many organizations that have been told to do more with less for years, gets it done. But as they continue to do more with less, and are continually asked to do more with less, eventually the organization fails. The USN has had a few very bad incidents that should NOT have happened and most of them are due to being asked to do too much, with too little, for too long.

While the chain of command shares the blames in this, the real fault lies in the White House for asking the USN to do too much, not that there is much choice, and Congress failing to pay to have a fleet large enough to handle what the USN has been tasked to do. Careers have been ruined and people have died because Congress refused to pay to have enough ships and TRAINED sailors on those ships.

Later,
Dan
 
/ A Question for Sailors #314  
Wakey said:
I wondered if our vessels were attacked electronically to cause the collisions.
Click to expand...

No, the ships were not attacked. The accidents happened simply because of poor seamanship by the USN crews. Poor seamanship should not be the cause of accidents by USN ships.

Later,
Dan
 
/ A Question for Sailors #315  
Wakey said:
I wondered if our vessels were attacked electronically to cause the collisions.
Click to expand...

Couldn't help but chime-in, I retired from the Navy/Navy Reserve in '97 as an Operations Specialist (OS) Senior Chief after 27 years. Back in the 80s I taught a Surface Maneuvering Course at the Fleet Combat Training Center Atlantic Dam Neck located very close to Virginia Beach, Va. In that course we stressed the redundancy of recommending Course and Speed changes to the Bridge to open the distance to ANY Surface Contacts for safety. My Rating as it's referred to (OS) manned the Combat Information Center (CIC) or Combat Direction Center (CDC) depending on the type of ship. A typical Standing Order from the Captain to both CIC and the Bridge was to notify the Captain when Surface Contacts (in the open sea) were calculated coming closer than say 5 Nautical Miles or 10,000 yards......... Apparently both of the standard practices were not followed.

Also, in instances where very close & precise Maneuvering was required, say entering a Port or Channel the Officer of the Deck on the Bridge would activate the Special Sea and Anchor Detail bringing more people to the Bridge and CIC with specific duties to continually send recommend Course and Speed Changes to avoid shipping in those areas while maintaining the Rules of the Road (Worldwide navigation rules while out at sea, who does what when). Appears the accident summary report said there was a complete breakdown of the practices I mentioned above.

Our Navy has a serious problem | Opinion
 
/ A Question for Sailors #316  
dmccarty said:
Some people have said that only the Captains and others on the ship would take the blame for the accidents, but that this would not go any farther. Well, the accidents have taken out the chain of command to very high levels, as it should. BUT, the bottom line in all of this is that the USN has been tasked to do too much, with too little, for too long. The USN, like many organizations that have been told to do more with less for years, gets it done. But as they continue to do more with less, and are continually asked to do more with less, eventually the organization fails. The USN has had a few very bad incidents that should NOT have happened and most of them are due to being asked to do too much, with too little, for too long.

While the chain of command shares the blames in this, the real fault lies in the White House for asking the USN to do too much, not that there is much choice, and Congress failing to pay to have a fleet large enough to handle what the USN has been tasked to do. Careers have been ruined and people have died because Congress refused to pay to have enough ships and TRAINED sailors on those ships.

Later,
Dan
Click to expand...

You are most correct Dan.
 
/ A Question for Sailors #317  
A Navsea ship inspector today telling me that all the controls on these Arleigh Burke class destroyers are different from one ship to the next and these sailers dont get enough time and or practise to adjust to them, he said these sailors are constantly being swap around.

So in short if USS Fitzgerald has the clutch on the port side and the gas petal on the stbd side, then next week the sailor goes on the USS Mccain where the clutch is on stbd and the gas petal is on the port side, these teenage sailors might get confused in time of an emergency.

USS Fitzgerald update In the Gulf of Mexico now - YouTube
 
/ A Question for Sailors #319  
PILOON said:
"3) Captains of both vessels not on bridge prior to extremis situation"

So, all captains should never sleep?
Click to expand...
I think just a fact, not a reason. Sounds to me like training is the underlying issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
 

Footer Links 1

Top