Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 338
  1. #76
    Thailand Expat Storekeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Jomtien
    Posts
    11,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    So I would go for culture,
    Yes, but possibly not the culture you're talking about. It could very well have been sheer arrogance and a game of chicken on the part of the US CO vs a ship that had no choice but to plough on, unable to evade.
    0230-0300 in the morning it's more likely the CO was an hour into his daily routine of 4-5 hours sleep per day.

  2. #77
    Thailand Expat Slick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    So I would go for culture,
    Yes, but possibly not the culture you're talking about. It could very well have been sheer arrogance and a game of chicken on the part of the US CO vs a ship that had no choice but to plough on, unable to evade.
    Highly doubt thats the case. Most likely a flat out case of negligence. As for who was traveling on what course and who had the theoretical right of way, dunno. Yet.

    Speaking on the US ship: The speed, maneuverability, & systems onboard + plus its extremely likely it was heavy on bridge crew, navigational officers, mates, etc... the fact that the AIS was apparently switched on & working for the container ship, and its a big fuckoff ship with an easy simple radar footprint (without AIS bfs), there really isn't a reason other than negligence on behalf of the US ship. Right of way be damned.

    Unless there was an Engineering malfunction or something that hasn't been reported.

    It really, on the surface, seems to be a solid case of asleep at the wheel.

  3. #78
    R.I.P.

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Last Online
    02-09-2018 @ 07:55 PM
    Posts
    2,532
    Given that the damage to the US ship is part way along the Port side :



    And the damage to the container ship is on the Port Bow, video post 25.

    Then the US ship must have been crossing the straight track (post 61) of the container ship on an angle from Starboard to Port. Or even at a right angle with the deviation in the container ship course an attempt to avoid a collision and still striking a glancing blow.

    Interesting to note the relative damage to each ship with a bit of paint scraped off and a bent fairing on the container ship and a fair bit of crumpling on the (armored) warship.

  4. #79
    . Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    21,241
    Quote Originally Posted by birding View Post
    Given that the damage to the US ship is part way along the Port side :

    That's the starboard side.

    See also: U.S. - Japan SAR efforts continue for 7 missing Fitzgerald Sailors > Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet > Display

    "The collision effected Fitzgerald's forward starboard side above and below the water line ... "

  5. #80
    Thailand Expat Storekeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Jomtien
    Posts
    11,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    So I would go for culture,
    Yes, but possibly not the culture you're talking about. It could very well have been sheer arrogance and a game of chicken on the part of the US CO vs a ship that had no choice but to plough on, unable to evade.
    Highly doubt thats the case. Most likely a flat out case of negligence. As for who was traveling on what course and who had the theoretical right of way, dunno. Yet.

    Speaking on the US ship: The speed, maneuverability, & systems onboard + plus its extremely likely it was heavy on bridge crew, navigational officers, mates, etc... the fact that the AIS was apparently switched on & working for the container ship, and its a big fuckoff ship with an easy simple radar footprint (without AIS bfs), there really isn't a reason other than negligence on behalf of the US ship. Right of way be damned.

    Unless there was an Engineering malfunction or something that hasn't been reported.

    It really, on the surface, seems to be a solid case of asleep at the wheel.
    Damage to our ship is on the starboard side. It's our fault. Somebody got that right once or twice earlier in this thread.

    Probably 5 Sailors on the bridge and 5 in ops.

    CO should have been called to the bridge when the other ship was within 2000 yards.
    Last edited by Storekeeper; 18-06-2017 at 06:52 PM.

  6. #81
    Thailand Expat Slick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Storekeeper
    CO should have been called to the bridge when the other ship was within 2000 yards.
    Yeah should have been but hell we are all assuming someone was there actually monitoring all this. The CPA on the AIS/radar should have been telling them (with alarms going off & blinking lights) that they were on a possible collision course or at least within the minimum CPA that they designated. And I'm just talking regular seamanship stuff, not navy vessels with presumably a bunch more nav systems.

    It really is just flat out ridiculous this happened.

  7. #82
    . Neverna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    21,241
    Could the CO have been "distracted" by a female sailor/petty officer? Or just sleeping (alone)? Or was there a search underway for the golden rivet?

  8. #83
    Thailand Expat Slick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna
    Could the CO have been "distracted" by a female sailor/petty officer? Or just sleeping (alone)? Or was there a search underway for the golden rivet?
    Been watching too many 80's era movies broseph

  9. #84
    fcuked off SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    39.2014 N, 85.9214 W
    Posts
    7,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna
    Or was there a search underway for the golden rivet?
    I think Storekeeper has that in his display case at home...

  10. #85
    R.I.P.

    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Last Online
    02-09-2018 @ 07:55 PM
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverna View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by birding View Post
    Given that the damage to the US ship is part way along the Port side :

    That's the starboard side.

    See also: U.S. - Japan SAR efforts continue for 7 missing Fitzgerald Sailors > Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet > Display

    "The collision effected Fitzgerald's forward starboard side above and below the water line ... "

    You are correct therefor it was traveling in roughly the same direction as the container ship and crossing its bow.

  11. #86
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Online
    01-08-2020 @ 05:35 AM
    Location
    east of sun west of moon
    Posts
    2,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Storekeeper
    CO should have been called to the bridge when the other ship was within 2000 yards.
    Yeah should have been but hell we are all assuming someone was there actually monitoring all this. The CPA on the AIS/radar should have been telling them (with alarms going off & blinking lights) that they were on a possible collision course or at least within the minimum CPA that they designated. And I'm just talking regular seamanship stuff, not navy vessels with presumably a bunch more nav systems.

    It really is just flat out ridiculous this happened.
    busy shipping lane this is
    "within 2000 yards" would probably mean that the CO would have to spend the night on the bridge, but thats OK, he is paid for that.

    not ridiculous but tragic - and: it will happen again
    I have no problem seeing how this could happen, negligence fair enough but
    gross musjudgement and lack of situation awareness are more probable causes
    Last edited by melvin; 18-06-2017 at 09:54 PM.

  12. #87
    A Cockless Wonder
    Looper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:30 PM
    Posts
    15,187
    ^This is a fairly modern Arleigh-Burke class destroyer.

    I thought they would have collision avoidance either as emergency alarms that cannot be ignored or even auto-pilot course re-setting.

  13. #88
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    02-08-2023 @ 03:20 PM
    Posts
    219
    I'm guessing a 'fast speed manoeuvre test' that went completly wrong.

    Possible power and or steering malfunction.

  14. #89
    fcuked off SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    39.2014 N, 85.9214 W
    Posts
    7,554
    Vice Adm. Aucoin holds press conference in front of USS Fitzgerald > Commander,U.S. 7th Fleet > Display

    The damage included a significant impact under the ship's pilothouse on the starboard side and a large puncture below the ship's waterline, opening the hull to the sea.

    The ship suffered severe damage rapidly flooding 3 large compartments that included 1 machinery room and 2 berthing areas for 116 crew. The Commanding Officer's cabin was also directly hit, trapping the CO inside.
    We owe it to our families and the Navy to understand what happened. Under my authority, I am initiating a JAGMAN investigation into this collision, and I will appoint a flag officer to lead that investigation. There will also be a Safety investigation.
    (edit) the video here:

    https://www.dvidshub.net//video/5329...ess-conference
    Last edited by SKkin; 19-06-2017 at 01:04 AM.

  15. #90
    fcuked off SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    39.2014 N, 85.9214 W
    Posts
    7,554
    If this is too large take it out mods...To my civi eye looks like it's riding mighty low in the water. To be expected I guess with that kind of damage.



    from: Navy News Service - Eye on the Fleet

    for comparison, undamaged Arleigh Burke destroyer:


  16. #91
    fcuked off SKkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    39.2014 N, 85.9214 W
    Posts
    7,554
    The "pull in" after collision...video from yesterday. Looks like a petty subdued bunch on board.

    https://www.dvidshub.net/video/53291...fter-collision

  17. #92
    Thailand Expat CaptainNemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    18-07-2020 @ 11:25 PM
    Location
    in t' naughty lass
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Storekeeper View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    So I would go for culture,
    Yes, but possibly not the culture you're talking about. It could very well have been sheer arrogance and a game of chicken on the part of the US CO vs a ship that had no choice but to plough on, unable to evade.
    0230-0300 in the morning it's more likely the CO was an hour into his daily routine of 4-5 hours sleep per day.
    To my mind, there is a reason why nobody wants to kick the CO out of bed in a crisis, and that is most likely to be fear of repercussions; though it could, I suppose, be someone deliberately trying to cause a problem - seems unlikely though. I appreciate there is a stereotype of Americans refusing to budge for another ship and issuing orders to it to move, but I struggle to imagine them being dumb and pigheaded enough to just sit there and wait to get t-boned, and risk lives of their crewmates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Maanaam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    So I would go for culture,
    Yes, but possibly not the culture you're talking about. It could very well have been sheer arrogance and a game of chicken on the part of the US CO vs a ship that had no choice but to plough on, unable to evade.
    Highly doubt thats the case. Most likely a flat out case of negligence. As for who was traveling on what course and who had the theoretical right of way, dunno. Yet.

    Speaking on the US ship: The speed, maneuverability, & systems onboard + plus its extremely likely it was heavy on bridge crew, navigational officers, mates, etc... the fact that the AIS was apparently switched on & working for the container ship, and its a big fuckoff ship with an easy simple radar footprint (without AIS bfs), there really isn't a reason other than negligence on behalf of the US ship. Right of way be damned.

    Unless there was an Engineering malfunction or something that hasn't been reported.

    It really, on the surface, seems to be a solid case of asleep at the wheel.
    An engineering fault that prevents a ship from moving only being discovered moments before a collision in open water seems highly improbable, if not an indication of lack of planned maintenance. Emergency steering gear exists, and in a dead ship scenario (which is what it'd have to be - loss of both engines; loss of all diesel generators etc...), that would be noticed and alerts sent out to all ships in the vicinity. I guess, at a stretch, it might be that, and the message was not received and understood by the oncoming ship?

    Quote Originally Posted by tj916 View Post
    I'm guessing a 'fast speed manoeuvre test' that went completly wrong.

    Possible power and or steering malfunction.
    ...at 3 in the morning? With a ship that might not know what you're planning on doing? Seems a stretch, don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by Slick View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Storekeeper
    CO should have been called to the bridge when the other ship was within 2000 yards.
    Yeah should have been but hell we are all assuming someone was there actually monitoring all this. The CPA on the AIS/radar should have been telling them (with alarms going off & blinking lights) that they were on a possible collision course or at least within the minimum CPA that they designated. And I'm just talking regular seamanship stuff, not navy vessels with presumably a bunch more nav systems.

    It really is just flat out ridiculous this happened.
    It is, but less so when you meet the average moron that gets to sit on the bridge during the graveyard shift. It is going to be someone junior. Perhaps someone falling asleep? Hitting accept on alarms, thinking nothing can happen far out at sea. I dunno, it's not something I can imagine happening on a merchant navy vessel; only on a military one...
    Last edited by CaptainNemo; 19-06-2017 at 02:39 AM.

  18. #93
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:22 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,901
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainNemo
    I dunno, it's not something I can imagine happening on a merchant navy vessel; only on a military one..
    Imagine again.
    Shipping Accidents Archives | Maritime Herald

  19. #94
    Thailand Expat Storekeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Jomtien
    Posts
    11,943
    U.S. Navy Identifies 7 Deceased Fitzgerald Sailors

    YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- "The remains of seven Sailors previously reported missing were located in flooded berthing compartments, after divers gained access to the spaces, June 18, that were damaged when USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) was involved in a collision with the Philippine-flagged merchant vessel ACX Crystal.

    The deceased are:

    - Gunner's Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia

    - Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego, California

    - Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Connecticut

    - Gunner's Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas

    - Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlos Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, California

    - Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Maryland

    - Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

    The incident is currently under investigation".

  20. #95
    Thailand Expat Storekeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Jomtien
    Posts
    11,943
    There is a lot we know -- and don't know -- about the USS Fitzgerald collision - CNN.com

    "There is -- at this writing -- a lot we do not know about how the destroyer USS Fitzgerald came to collide with a heavily-laden freighter in the waters off Japan in the middle of the night.We do not know whether the warship's radars were operating sufficiently. We do not know what decisions the men and women who were standing watch aboard the destroyer made -- or failed to make -- that could have averted the danger. We do not know what actions, if any, were taken by the crew of the freighter to either cause or avoid this tragedy.

    But this much we do know:

    First, we know the crew fought heroically to save their ship and the lives of their shipmates. We know that from early reports by Navy officials but also from the images that flashed across our screens, our tablets and our phones after the incident happened early Saturday.

    One look at the crushed, twisted starboard side, the hoses flaked about, the water being discharged, the frantic work being done tells you all you need to know about the stuff you can't see in those same images: a fiercely brave crew working together to staunch the flooding, to rescue their shipmates and to save their ship.

    You can be certain they ended up drenched, exhausted, scraped and bruised -- but not broken. They kept that ship from foundering for 16 brutal hours. And they brought her back into port.

    I don't care who you are, but you have to respect that kind of teamwork.

    Any sailor will tell you how long and how hard they train to get good at damage control. It's pounded into them from the time they set foot at boot camp or the Naval Academy or a hundred other schools they must attend throughout their career.

    Fire and flood are enemies at sea, same as an adversary's fleet. Except that fire and flood can be the results of accidents, mishaps or even your own mistakes.

    And that's the second thing we know for certain today: that the Navy is going to find out exactly what happened. The investigation has already begun. It will be thorough. It will be clear. It will be definitive.

    Investigators will document minute-by-minute how these two ships came to occupy the same piece of water -- how they approached one another, at what speeds, courses and angles. They will interview every possible witness, examine every relevant piece of equipment, pore over every kilobyte of recorded data.

    In the end, they will be able to reconstruct the entire event in time and space and determine precisely what lapses in judgment, seamanship and leadership occurred.

    And then they will make that investigation public. They will lay it out there for all to see and for all to learn from. Reporters won't have to submit Freedom of Information Act requests or rely on leakers to find out what investigators discover. The Navy will tell them. They'll probably even hold a news conference.

    After that, Navy leaders will incorporate the lessons they learn from this tragedy into those navigation, damage control and leadership courses, in the hopes that something like this doesn't happen again.

    The Navy will not be afraid to hold itself to account for this.

    That leads us to the third thing we can safely know: accountability. It won't be just the Navy that gets the lash here. Careers will be dashed. People will be punished. Short of battle at sea, Navy warships are not supposed to hit anything -- not the ground, not each other, and certainly not container ships in the middle of the night.

    The commanding officer, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, will almost certainly be the first to go.

    "Anyone who has ever commanded a ship knows that you are inescapably responsible for everything that happens on your watch," wrote my friend and colleague, Bryan McGrath, himself a former destroyer captain. "There is no such thing as 'I was asleep' or 'I was ashore.'"

    The Navy won't need to complete its findings to hold Cmdr. Benson responsible. He will surely lose his command forthwith. But there will no doubt be others whose performance during the incident will be found wanting, maybe even negligent. They will also be held to account. There may even be courts-martial that result.

    That's the way it's always been. It's the way it has to be. Because the American people must have trust and confidence in the men and women who command their sons and daughters, who lead them into harm's way. If they don't -- or they can't -- have that trust and confidence, well, we can't man the ships we put to sea. And the Navy can't defend the nation.

    In the same blog post, Bryan cited an editorial from The Wall Street Journal that was written after a 1952 collision between two US Navy warships, which resulted in the loss of 176 lives.
    It sums this whole ugly business up beautifully and mercilessly:

    "On the sea there is a tradition older even than the traditions of the country itself and wiser in its age than this new custom. It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority and with them both goes accountability."

    It continues: "It is cruel, this accountability of good and well-intentioned men. But the choice is that or an end of responsibility and finally as the cruel scene has taught, an end to the confidence and trust in the men who lead, for men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do.

    "And when men lose confidence and trust in those who lead, order disintegrates into chaos and purposeful ships into uncontrollable derelicts."

    I never commanded a ship, never fired a shot in anger or had one fired at me. I remain in awe of those who willingly assume the burden of command, the crushing weight of that responsibility. I am not their equal.

    Therefore, I am unqualified to hazard a guess at the personal distress Cmdr. Benson and the rest of his crew feel right now. Nor can I imagine the grief of the families now mourning the loss of the seven sailors.

    All I can do is offer my prayers and take some comfort in knowing that whatever more we learn about this tragedy, whatever wounds must yet heal, the Navy will not let this "cruel scene" diminish from our eyes without first holding itself and its people to account -- that it will not permit disintegration into chaos and that it will not shirk from its duty to preserve the trust and confidence placed in it by our elected leaders and the American people.

    Navy leaders sometimes fail. The Navy as an institution sometimes suffers as a result. But neither those leaders nor that institution will prove afraid and unwilling to answer for that".

  21. #96
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Online
    25-03-2021 @ 08:47 AM
    Posts
    36,437
    ^ Great report, SK...Cheers...

  22. #97
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    USS Fitzgerald crash: Seven navy crew missing off Japan - BBC News

    Follow this link to a map showing the route taken by the container ship. Is it possible the Navy vessel was dead in the water, and the container ship altered course to answer a distress call?

  23. #98
    Thailand Expat
    lob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    30-09-2023 @ 02:09 PM
    Posts
    2,170

  24. #99
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Online
    10-08-2020 @ 01:40 PM
    Posts
    2,000
    ^^^ Well written by John Kirby, a retired USN rear Admiral .
    Anchors away !

  25. #100
    Thailand Expat
    chassamui's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Bali
    Posts
    11,678
    Quote Originally Posted by lob
    quite a bit of naval bullsh
    Quote Originally Posted by PeeCoffee
    John Kirby, a retired USN rear Admiral
    Oh dear. That's two embarrassing posts on seagoing threads. Best stick to dry land eh. 555

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •