: Fitzgerald Collision


eMacMan
Jun 18th, 2017, 08:48 PM
USS Fitzgerald: Missing US sailors found dead on board stricken destroyer after collision with cargo ship - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-18/missing-us-sailors-found-dead-on-board-navy-ship-after-collision/8628742)

Why does no-one ask the obvious questions: How can a ship with radar that can spot a mosquito miss a cargo ship? Was the entire watch asleep? Engaged in illicit activities?

If a destroyer cannot spot a container ship more than twice its size, what chance does it have against a sub?

Aurora
Jun 18th, 2017, 10:55 PM
I thought the same thing. That ship has the latest in detection gear. I am sure that the inquiry will prove very interesting. That is, if the public ever knows.

pm-r
Jun 19th, 2017, 12:21 AM
That is, if the public ever knows.


Doubtful it will be the real facts if and when any related info ever gets released. But sure hard to believe, even as a past recreational boater, how such a mishap could happen.

18m2
Jun 19th, 2017, 05:38 PM
The rules dictating right-of-way says a vessel is supposed to give way to another on its starboard side. The damage on the starboard side of the Fitzgerald is a pretty good indicator they were at fault. But there might be other circumstances that could override the obvious fault when it all goes to a maritime hearing.

I'd like to comment that a fully loaded container ship take many kilometres to effect a stop or a change in course. The Fitzgerald would be more maneuverable which again lead me to wonder who was in control on the bridge.

Investigators Seek Answers into Containership Collision with USS Fitzgerald – gCaptain (http://gcaptain.com/investigators-seek-answers-into-containerships-collision-with-uss-fitzgerald/)

pm-r
Jun 19th, 2017, 07:22 PM
The rules dictating right-of-way says a vessel is supposed to give way to another on its starboard side.


Even most recreational boaters know enough that one forgets the dang rules to save any collision. And especially when there's a HUGE larger ship involved, and several times the size of one's vessel.

And was anyone even watching or noticed that one HUGE freighter in the area and no doubt on the radar, made a complete U-turn??? And I thought most commercial ships had collision avoidance systems and alarms installed. And what about any radio contact???

All a bit bizarre but not uncommon it seems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXcoGPFEoY&ab_channel=HumansAtSea
6 Chilling Ship Accident Videos (http://www.marineinsight.com/videos/6-chilling-ship-accident-videos/)

eMacMan
Jun 19th, 2017, 09:36 PM
I can't help wondering if the Fitzgerald was equipped with some sort of stealth or jamming device that made it hard for the container ship to see it?

Again all that fancy equipment and they were unaware of a ship of that size on a collision course?

pm-r
Jun 19th, 2017, 11:11 PM
Again all that fancy equipment and they were unaware of a ship of that size on a collision course?

It sort of reminds me of the old Canadian lighthouse and US warship joke:

"The Lighthouse Joke"

The following is being transmitted around the Internet as an event that really took place, but it never happened. It is simply an old joke like those found in popular magazines:
Believe it or not...this is the transcript of an actual radio conversation between a US naval ship and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The Radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on Oct. 10, 1995.


US Ship: Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid a collision.

CND reply: Recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

US Ship: This is the Captain of a US Navy Ship. I say again, divert your course.

CND reply: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course!

US Ship: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS CORAL SEA*, WE ARE A LARGE WARSHIP OF THE US NAVY. DIVERT YOUR COURSE NOW!!

CND reply: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

polywog
Jun 20th, 2017, 07:34 AM
I remember the joke, though this version is the least convincing of all. I mean, to start with, it looks like they're both already heading south :)

Macfury
Jun 20th, 2017, 10:10 AM
I remember the joke, though this version is the least convincing of all. I mean, to start with, it looks like they're both already heading south :)

Even better, the Coral Sea was decommissioned in 1990!

eMacMan
Jun 20th, 2017, 10:25 AM
The lies seem to have already begun.

Big questions in US warship's collision with container ship | Colorado Springs Gazette, News (http://gazette.com/big-questions-in-us-warships-collision-with-container-ship/article/1605533)


...
Q. WHEN DID IT HAPPEN?
A. Japan's coast guard initially said the collision occurred at 2:20 a.m. Saturday; the container ship reported the crash at 2:25 a.m. But after interviewing the container ship's crewmembers, the coast guard now says the collision occurred around 1:30 a.m. The U.S. Navy continues to say the collision happened at 2:20 a.m.

Knowing the timing is essential to make sense of navigation tracking records that show movements of the commercial ship, but not those of the military vessel. The ACX Crystal made a sharp turn at 1:30 a.m., quickly resumed its previous heading and made a U-turn about half an hour later. Those movements are easier to understand if they occurred immediately after the collision than if they occurred before it.

Some experts say the container ship, which is nearly four times the weight of the destroyer, might have continued on without clear understanding of the collision, noticed some irregularity and returned to the collision site, reporting the collision when its crew noticed the destroyer for the first time.
...

The cargo ships version seems to make more sense.

18m2
Jun 20th, 2017, 12:14 PM
Hmmm ... the Colorado Springs Gazette, now there's a good source of expert opinion on maritime events. LOL

Here is an opinion with some credibility that goes on at some length to describe the many factors that could contribute to the cause of the collision. The American Navy is notorious for their privileged attitude when it comes to other ships.

The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why. – gCaptain (http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/)

pm-r
Jun 20th, 2017, 01:44 PM
The cargo ships version seems to make more sense


Agreed, but it seems a bit unusual that it would take almost an hour for the US crew on the bridge to wake up and respond to the accident.

But I would have thought the collision would have made a h*ll of a noise and make it hard to sleep through!!!

pm-r
Jun 20th, 2017, 01:49 PM
Hmmm ... the Colorado Springs Gazette, now there's a good source of expert opinion on maritime events. LOL


I wondered the same thing. :rolleyes: :D

But NASA does have a base there if they're at all related with any US Navy ship navigation.


EDIT:
I see the author John Konrad is certainly qualified to have written the article and covers some of the facts well and accurately.

eMacMan
Jun 20th, 2017, 03:22 PM
Hmmm ... the Colorado Springs Gazette, now there's a good source of expert opinion on maritime events. LOL

Here is an opinion with some credibility that goes on at some length to describe the many factors that could contribute to the cause of the collision. The American Navy is notorious for their privileged attitude when it comes to other ships.

The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why. – gCaptain (http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/)

The Gazette article was AP sourced and appeared throughout the lamestream.

The key is that the Fitzgerald course record is not in the public domain whereas that of the container ship is. The crew of the Krystal had only their own radar and communication with the Fitzgerald to rely on. Whereas the Fitzgerald also knew the course and location of the Cargo ship.

Would love to see the two courses/times overlaid but am betting that is not gonna happen.

pm-r
Jun 20th, 2017, 06:39 PM
Would love to see the two courses/times overlaid but am betting that is not gonna happen.


Yeah right!!

As you probably know, the course and tracking of the ACX Crystal is readily available from several of the ship tracking sites. For those that don't just google 'ship tracking sites'.

pm-r
Jun 26th, 2017, 03:37 PM
So it would seem

A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

Exclusive: U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning - container ship captain | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-exclusive-idUSKBN19H13C?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=408)

And surprise, surprise:
The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

It'll be curious as to what they finally come up with if there's ever any conclusion

The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

How many days has it been now??? :o :rolleyes:

18m2
Aug 17th, 2017, 10:56 PM
Blame has been assigned and the guilty are about to be punished.

USS Fitzgerald Officers to Be Relieved of Command – gCaptain (http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-officers-to-be-relieved-of-command/)