US navy collision

Yes they definitely turned around. Actually the AIS shows a 90 degree turn south likely at the collision point followed by a 90 dog turn east to resume their route and later a 180 heading back.

So either somebody on the bridge turned the ship back east on its original heading Instead of returning to the collision site
 
some of the pix make it look like the keel is broken on the Fitz. The sheer line makes it look like the ship is bent midships.
 
quote:
Originally posted by j-d

This sounds so much like the USS PORTER collision in 2012. Here's a pic of PORTER
USS-Porter-2.jpeg

As I mentioned above, point of impact within a few yards of FITZGERALD, and again Starboard side. PORTER was more fortunate. No injuries, and the ship that hit them was a big Tanker, 315000 tons! Taking local time into account, collisions were within an hour or so of each other.
I'd like to know how their watches were organized. If they had CIC up, as well as the bridge watch, I don't know how they could NOT have been aware Something Was Out There. PORTER had CO on the bridge, and the OOD was the one who spotted the tanker.

Click to expand...


http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/
 
Damage to PORTER was north of a Hundred Million. USN stopped using aluminum superstructure after the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates. Damage to STARK from missile attack was enough to show the vulnerability more than offset the weight saving.

STARK "should" have been lost. Same for COLE in the Yemen bombing, and very possibly now, FITZGERALD. Our Navy crews really pulled together for damage control.

I've listened to PORTER bridge audio a hundred times. I don't hear talk involving CIC or even bridge lookouts. At the beginning, you hear where they had just cut across another ship. OOD wants to kick the stern away. That's CLOSE! Then they go to do it again and OOD is countermanded when he wants to turn to stbd for port/port meeting. If that CO HAD been in his cabin, bridge watch would have made it through the encounter.

We'll probably get to hear the FITZGERALD audio and read the investigation. I coach teamwork for USCG and one of the things I've said is "This would be funny if nobody died."
 
The audio is very telling, there seem to be a complete disconnect between the various people on the bridge and the captain. It's like there is a massive bureaucracy, and possibly some fear from junior officers, which results in delays making a decision.

If these guys can't get out of the way of slow tankers and container ships, how can they avoid torpedoes or enemy vessels? You got to wonder.

Nowadays with AIS you don't even need to plot or calculate CPAs... even on our small boats the system does it for you and when a vessel isn't transmitting its position, clicking on primary targets starts automatic plots.
 
Woww that is telling. Chaos on the bridge. GQ not sounded until after the collision, no prepare for collision sounded either. I think they slowed then called for flank at the last moment. Someone had the sense to sound five blasts.

In both cases the destroyers seem to have been crossing ship traffic lanes. To me that would be a time for extra vigilance.
 
Extra vigilance ... especially in the straights of ormuz close to Iran. They don't see a super tanker, how would they spot an Iranian small boat??
 
Anything less than 1 nautical mile separation is a Close Quarters Situation, which should always be avoided. Always make the radio call and ask the other vessel his/her/other's intentions and vocalize your intentions, even if the other vessel never responds you will be on the Data Recorders making the call. If you can get a US Navy vessel to come up on the Vhf, you will not be talking with a watch officer, most likely you will be speaking with a 3rd Class radio dude who just passes along what he hears. In the commercial world the mate on watch will most likely directly respond to your radio call and he/she/other will be the one that makes the decisions for the bridge watch so there is no filter or passing along the information. When crossing shipping lanes you have to be on your "A" game. Modern container ships run in the 20 knot plus speed range and they close on you very fast. In a 6 minute rapid radar plot a ship traveling at 15 knots will close a 1.5 mile gap and hit you before you can look up from the radar display. Modern radar will do the math for you and give you the CPA, but a Prudent Mariner will be ahead of that game and make decisions before the issue becomes critical. I earned the nickname "Charlie Tuna" because I was the chicken of the sea and would ALWAYS turn early and turn often to avoid other traffic. In a crossing situation ducking for cover and turning behind the vessel passing ahead may delay you by 10 minutes or so but it beats filling out all the forms and attending all the hearings after an incident at sea.
 
http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Gcaptain+%28gCaptain.com%29
 
quote:
Originally posted by j-d

Damage to PORTER was north of a Hundred Million. USN stopped using aluminum superstructure after the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigates. Damage to STARK from missile attack was enough to show the vulnerability more than offset the weight saving.

STARK "should" have been lost. Same for COLE in the Yemen bombing, and very possibly now, FITZGERALD. Our Navy crews really pulled together for damage control.

I've listened to PORTER bridge audio a hundred times. I don't hear talk involving CIC or even bridge lookouts. At the beginning, you hear where they had just cut across another ship. OOD wants to kick the stern away. That's CLOSE! Then they go to do it again and OOD is countermanded when he wants to turn to stbd for port/port meeting. If that CO HAD been in his cabin, bridge watch would have made it through the encounter.

We'll probably get to hear the FITZGERALD audio and read the investigation. I coach teamwork for USCG and one of the things I've said is "This would be funny if nobody died."

Click to expand...


They did pull together and did damage control as they were trained, and anyone who does not understand damage control most likely does not know what that means as it relates to those 7 guys in the berthing spaces. I hope the poor guys who dogged those doors find peace someday in knowing they did the RIGHT thing and did what they HAD to do.
 
quote:
Originally posted by PascalG

The audio is very telling, there seem to be a complete disconnect between the various people on the bridge and the captain. It's like there is a massive bureaucracy, and possibly some fear from junior officers, which results in delays making a decision.

If these guys can't get out of the way of slow tankers and container ships, how can they avoid torpedoes or enemy vessels? You got to wonder.

Nowadays with AIS you don't even need to plot or calculate CPAs... even on our small boats the system does it for you and when a vessel isn't transmitting its position, clicking on primary targets starts automatic plots.

Click to expand...


I would say there was a lot more than SOME fear from the JO's on that bridge. That poor kid sounded terrified and far more concerned with proper military courtesies than with not getting his ass run over by heavy tonnage. These courtesies cannot be abandoned on the bridge of a military vessel, but in my humble senior enlisted opinion, can NOT be allowed to deter people from speaking up when they have a valid concern. J-D can expound on that theory (it's one of the core tenets of the TCT course he mentions).

The boats I run are orders of magnitude LESS complicated than running a warship like that. My crew is normally a half dozen or less - but if I'm good at my job (and I am REAL good) there is no question in anyone's mind who is in charge of that boat, and it's not a result of emphasizing rank and title. When we are operating 'for score', I would rather cut out titles and ranks because they are wasted words, wasted time to use the words, can obscure the information that needs to be communicated, and can inhibit open communications as in the Porter audio. I don't want my Engineer to address me by title, request permission to pass important navigational information, then apologize for informing me we're standing into danger. I want him to call out "Mike, look out for that ####ing rock, 010, 20 yards!" There is a time for formalities, and there is a time for plain and bare business.

Like I said, far, FAR less going on on my bridge than a large warship, but some of the core principles are the same. If people are afraid to speak up and their input is dismissed out of hand without considering the validity of their input, bad stuff is going to happen. If you're not going to listen to them, why are they there? And if THEY know you won't listen to them, they won't bother, and for a vital position, that is not okay.

I train up and comers in my job to defend their decisions. Not because they need to defend their decisions to their crew, but because if someone points something out they missed, or points out a flaw in their plan, they need to weigh FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES in making the decision, not titles and positions. If they can't defend a decision, even silently in their own head, then they are probably making it on the wrong basis. Discouraging input from the people who are there FOR THE VERY PURPOSE of providing you input is dumb.
 
NC, very well said. FWIW, that applies in most all walks of life even if the danger is not the physical type.
 
I am not presumptuous enough to have an opinion on the actual cause of the aforementioned incident but some of the above comments reminded me of a cable TV show that covered airplane crash causes that mentioned Crew Resource Management (CRM) which is explained in the embedded FAA video on this link.

https://www.faa.gov/tv/?mediaId=447
 
Good post Mike.

Remember the San Francisco crash a few years ago, some Asian airlines where the guy in the right hand seat was worried about challenging is senior captain about the rate of descent and they ended up leaving their landing gear on the sea wall? Not much different here

I don't care if it s a warship, a tanker, a yacht or a USCG boat... the principles to avoid a collision are the same. Look outside, look at the radar and AIS and make the decision
 
http://www.marinemec.com/news/view,opinion-container-shipwarship-crash-was-the-iacx-crystali-bridge-unmanned_48175.htm
 
So a single point of impact kills communications for an hour preventing the crew from sending a mayday??? And it takes then an hour to turn on a back up sat phone?

The Chinese must be laughing right now.
 
There is just way too much speculation going on with very little real knowledge of actual happenings. Seems that by now there would be something more in solid information available.

The basic question in my mind is why did not the Fitsgerald avoid the container ship? Regardless of whether or not there were personnel on the cargo ship bridge.

George
 
From what I saw looking at the AIS, the crew on the bridge should have known the course and speed of the container ship and plotted the point of impact LONG before it occurred. As was stated before, the container ship does not as easily change speed and direction, which seems to show on the AIS plots to be the case. The OOD of the Fitzgerald should have known the vessels in his close proximity and their threat status, collision or otherwise. But this is just my armchair quarterback play calling here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top