US navy collision

Still not sure in my mind if this was a crossing or an overtaking situation.
 
quote:
Originally posted by PascalG

Colregs. 16 or 17 (not sure) : stand on vessel shall not turn to port

Click to expand...


Right - I get that, but was Fitz going to be able to pass w/o the Starboard turn. Not trying to blame Crystal as it seems they were stand on and in the right.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Radioactive

Still not sure in my mind if this was a crossing or an overtaking situation.

Click to expand...


I sort of agree, but if overtaking and turned starboard, how did they T-bone the Fritz
 
ok - pure speculation
what if Crystal approaching at 45 degree angle to Fitz course - 45 degree not over taking, but in front of Fitz. It is clear that Fitz will pass freely, but Crystal miscalcs and turns starboard. 10 minutes is a long time even for big ships. the starboard turn puts Crystal into t-bone course to Fitz. At 18 knots they go 3 nautical miles before collision.

Still doesn't make sense with AIS equipment.
 
At the moment, we have only the story from one side. The degree of accuracy of their statements is debatable.

We have no statements from the other side. And quite possibly, should we ever actually hear those statements, they will be "edited" for operational reasons.

We may never get the actual story.

---

A few observations regarding the available data.

AIS is not a continuous data stream. It only places a data point every XXX minutes. This means that the available AIS track, while it will show a vessel transiting from port A to port B, it does not give an accurate ground track. The ship could change course at any time between data points. Thus the track, in fine detail, is likely to be misleading.

The other is that ( in the cast of the Crystal ) if a large very heavy ship is hauled "hard-over", it is true that the direction the ship is pointing will moderately quickly move to the new heading; but the ship's ground track will continue mostly over the same ground track, and only slowly change to the direction the vessel is pointing. ( ie: it will do quite a bit of side-slipping before it actually alters it's path ).

IMHO, to date none of the data is conclusive of any definite conclusion, and the available testimony is fragmented, not confirmed fully by data, and from only one observer.

---

At this time, my only conclusion: through errors/failures in navigation/engineering/command, 7 mariners lost their lives in what was almost certainly an avoidable incident. May they rest in peace.
 
While there is a short lag in AIS it is not "xxx minutes". I forgot the xmission rate but it's at least every minute. any course change is reflected pretty quickly on AIS and instantly by the primary echo on the radar. In any case AIS isn't a tool to avoid a collision in the last minute
 
I understand that even a hard starboard turn will take time to change course on a large ship, but 10 minutes will have some effect. I see big ships maneuver in SF Bay all the time.

Like you said, we only have the statements from one side.
 
quote:
Originally posted by boatbum

quote:
Originally posted by November Charlie

quote:
Originally posted by boatbum

I don't know what they tried. All I know is that it did not work and that boat should have been able to dodge a tanker/freighter. I know I was not there, I know I did not walk the mile. But I do know that boat could have protected itself and its crew. I wish it was different.

Click to expand...


That can be said of ANY collision - doesn't matter who violated the COLREGS MORE than any other involved party - any vessel involved should have done things different and avoided being hit. It's not like motor vehicle insurance companies deciding who is at fault in a fender bender - if your vessel hits another, it is at fault. If your vessel is hit by another, you are at fault for allowing it to be hit. Rules are a bit different than they are on the highways.

All that aside, though, I'm biting my tongue and withholding any opinions on this incident out of respect for not only those 7 guys, but just as much for the men (or women, I don't know) that dogged zebra on those spaces knowing what it meant. That's some heavy stuff to live with, despite the indisputable fact they did the right thing.

Click to expand...


There is no argument or doubt that there were some very brave souls acting to save lives and keep the ship afloat.

I don't think I or we can imagine what it is like to wake up to massive amounts of water pouring into your quarters.

Click to expand...


Agreed, but I was thinking about the sailors that had to dog down those spaces (id est -the guys that sealed those flooding compartments knowing they were trading their shipmates lives for their ships survival.) That is some TREMENDOUSLY heavy sh$t those folks are going to live with. There is NO question, NO argument, NO doubt they did the right thing, but damn, that's some heavy stuff.
 
NC, those who you are talking about as as much casualties as any other. Their lives have changed completely. While it is good to know that it was the right action to take, it does not relieve the burden.
 
Simply to place the article in perspective:

It is a story about a CNN report.

That report is based on statements by two "unnamed officials".

It also includes an official statement:

-------------
n a Friday afternoon statement, Navy Chief of Information Rear Adm. Dawn Cutler said the investigation was still in its early stages and the Navy did not have any definitive information to release yet.

"It is premature to speculate on causation or any other issues," she said. "Once we have a detailed understanding of the facts and circumstances, we will share those findings with the Fitzgerald families, our Congressional oversight committees and the general public.
--------------

So, this article can be classified as speculative.

I'll wait for hard data.

But thanks for the heads up.
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/17/navy-fires-3-leaders-uss-fitzgerald-wake-deadly-collision.html ---

The commander of the destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the executive officer have been permanently detached from the ship and face non-judicial punishment

---------------
 
It's a shame. But I guess they did not instill proper procedures, protocols and or ethic?

Even in peace time service in the military is not the "sweet gig" some like to call it. Danger is always present.
 
Little hard to explain damage on the right side of the vessel when you have men standing watch and 300 million dollar radar system.
 
http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/USS%20Fitzgerald/Supplemental%20Inquiry%20USS%20Fitzgerald.pdf Actual report released to public.

Minimal redaction.
 
I find this amazing - they had no ability to communicate except for a personal cell phone?

Damage control parties fought the flooding for an hour before they could signal for help, since the collision had knocked out the ship’s long-range communications. The crew eventually sent out a distress call via a personal cell phone.
 
I am sure our enemies are taking note how easy it is to attack a US navy destroyer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top