Navy Destroyer tee boned by a Freighter?

[kthoennes]

Aside from the vigorous discussion about fault or at least lack of vigilance, etc. -- regardless of all that, in the back of my mind I keep thinking that one of the most electronically sophisticated vessels on earth was nearly sunk by a common container ship while the captain was literally asleep below. Heck, North Korea doesn't really need a navy apparently, all it needs is a dark night and to commandeer any rusty old container ship that at least works well enough to build up some momentum and it can take out an American destroyer. That's an utterly absurd situation, regardless of what the fault or sequence of events may have been here. Hundreds of billions spent on a navy, and yet all I need is a minimally operational container ship loaded with tennis shoes and Tickle Me Elmo's for Walmart to almost sink an American destroyer and render it functionally dead.

 

[psneeld]

Yeah, lets start a war...

I will be in tbe US Navy.....

And anyone else that wants to man merchantmen on the other side...lets rumble.

Something pretty drastically went wrong.

The facts arent out and all the guessing hasnt come up with a plausible explanation.

And some of you dont get that?

We have experiences pros and world traveling boaters here, you would think it is easy to figure out right?

Well after a turn as the USCGs senior aviation safety specialist, I know many accidents are hard to figure out and some are only resolved by guesses....forever.

So guess all you want, but thinking any old rustbucket can take out a Navy destroyer anytime it wants, based on this incident.....well have at it , would love to play paintball with you too...

 

[Bigsfish]

Would you rather be the US Nave or Air Force?

 

[psneeld]

Would you rather be the US Nave or Air Force?

As a Naval Aviator....like mentioned in the movie the "Right Stuff"...everyone should know aviators are a.cut above pilots (like in the Air Force), so I pick my source of wings.

Anyone can land on a land based, hard surface...try landing on something moving and usually trying to hide from everyone....

 

[Bigsfish]

I knew that. Our adopted son was a Navy pilot who landed jets on carriers now he works for Ft. Lauderdale P D. He likes living on the edge!

 

[Bigsfish]

You guys have a big pair.

 

[psneeld]

Lots of people have a pair....

I just got a pretty pair of wings to go along with them...for the most part, I am a scardy cat and thats why I am still here.

My crews liked me because they knew I would bring them home every night.

From the links that Flywright posted, and maybe others, sounds like at least one if not more guys on that destroyer made mine look like electrons on an oxygen molecule.

 

[O C Diver]

When it became clear that alternate action was required to avoid a collision, the freighter made a hard turn to stbd, which is the correct action to take. Sometime after that the ships collided..

There are too many versions floating in this thread. It was my understanding that the turn as seen on the AIS video came as a result of the collision and the freighter was on autopilot the whole time.

Btw, if the crew had made a hard turn to starboard, it wouldn't have registered on the AIS plot as these ships turn so slowly at cruising speed.

Ted

 

[Robin]

As a Naval Aviator....like mentioned in the movie the "Right Stuff"...everyone should know aviators are a.cut above pilots (like in the Air Force), so I pick my source of wings.

Anyone can land on a land based, hard surface...try landing on something moving and usually trying to hide from everyone....

in the Falklands conflict British pilots landed on....... container ships.

 

[Wxx3]

My crews liked me because they knew I would bring them home every night.

.

And that's the point isn't it. The Fitzgerald's CO didn't.

And as for the Navy's silence. In the last 20 years, operations that are classified above Top Secret are divulged by the Services within hours of completion when successful for PR purposes.

 

[psneeld]

I too have anded on some merchies....earned a medal for rescuing a Russian doctor off a freighter in a Bering Sea storm back during the cold war, the Russians were impressed with the USCG.

Oh OK, the couple of British pilots in the exchange program with the USCG were cool as shi*, knew their stuff, had big brass ones, and were great role models. One was fresh back from the Falklands, the other was livid he couldnt go.

Did I say that I thought I was shi* hot? Well if I didnt, no big deal as I had great role models, and 2 of the best were Brits. ...... they can be proud of their service.

 

[Bigsfish]

Wxx3

I don't know that for a fact but I do know this investigation is not finished yet.

 

[psneeld]

And that's the point isn't it. The Fitzgerald's CO didn't.

And as for the Navy's silence. In the last 20 years, operations that are classified above Top Secret are divulged by the Services within hours of completion when successful for PR purposes.

You might have the answer there. Crew was a toal shambles . Maybe not.

I have served on ships where the crew had no confidence in the ship surviving every night.

I checked aboard a cutter where a sr enlisted guy handed me a life jacket to hang on my bunk at night. Being a newnie, it rattled me a bit.

But we have no idea what caused this collision, so all we can do is wait until official reports come out or the preponerance of evidence slowly trickles out and paints the full picture.

 

[HiDHo]

The End

 

[BandB]

There are too many versions floating in this thread. It was my understanding that the turn as seen on the AIS video came as a result of the collision and the freighter was on autopilot the whole time.

Btw, if the crew had made a hard turn to starboard, it wouldn't have registered on the AIS plot as these ships turn so slowly at cruising speed.

Ted

Your understanding is the original report. However, the statements of the Captain contradict that report.

 

[Ski in NC]

AIS logged speed/course/heading about every three minutes. Ship had no deviations until the hard stbd turn at 0130. Sure does not look like he turned then hit, unless it occurred within a 3min window.

There was a 15deg change of course to port at 0115. Not to stbd.

BS detector beeping regarding ACX capt report....

 

[Benthic2]

If a Phillipino Capt hits a US Navy ship with a Japanese freighter in international waters.... where would he face criminal charges if they were to be brought ?

I was thinking of the Costa Concordia...since the accident happened in Italy, the Captain was tried in Italian court.

US sailers were killed on a US Flagged vessel...so would it be in the US Courts ?

Does 60 miles off Japan's coast mean they would have jurisdiction ?

If the captain is licensed by the Philipine Coast Guard.....would they prosecute ?

I'm not assuming, predicting or conjecturing that the freighter captain will face charges....I'm just curious about how jurisdiction would be decided IF he were.

 

[twistedtree]

There are too many versions floating in this thread. It was my understanding that the turn as seen on the AIS video came as a result of the collision and the freighter was on autopilot the whole time.

Btw, if the crew had made a hard turn to starboard, it wouldn't have registered on the AIS plot as these ships turn so slowly at cruising speed.

Ted

I was certainly among those who initially attributed the hard 90 turn to the collision, but that was when the only credible info was the AIS plot.

Since then we have a first hand account from the freighter crew/captain. They said they turned to avoid collision, then hit. I think they said it was a minute or so between the two start of the turn and the hit. So how much of the turn is from the rudder and how much is from the collision, who knows. It sure is a very sharp turn, but I haven't looked at it down to scale to see how tight it actually is, and I don't know how fast and hard a ship like that can turn.

I haven't seen any first hand info that says they were on auto pilot, and I frankly think it's immaterial if they were. You can alter course just as fast, if not faster on auto-pilot as without. I think people equate being on auto pilot with not paying attention, and that's just not a valid assumption. Except for actual docking maneuvers, I am ALWAYS on auto pilot. It's faster and more accurate to steer that way. And when docking I'm still using the auto pilot with a follow up control. The only time I have used the wheel to hand steer in the past 3 months has been the other day picking my way through ice.

And why wouldn't a crew-commanded turn have shown on AIS? I guess I don't follow what you are saying.

Actually, I just did a little research and found that an ABS classed boat (and it's approximately the same for an IMO boat) has to be able to make an emergency 90 deg turn in under 5 ship lengths. So a 700' ship making 15 kts can turn 90 degrees in 28 seconds. So I think these ships can turn a whole lot faster than many of us (including myself) thought.

 

[twistedtree]

AIS logged speed/course/heading about every three minutes. Ship had no deviations until the hard stbd turn at 0130. Sure does not look like he turned then hit, unless it occurred within a 3min window.

There was a 15deg change of course to port at 0115. Not to stbd.

BS detector beeping regarding ACX capt report....

Class A AIS transmits ever 2 seconds if you are running over 14kts, and every 3 seconds otherwise.

Maybe the marine traffic web site only records it every 3 minutes?

 

[SaltyDawg86]

There are too many versions floating in this thread. It was my understanding that the turn as seen on the AIS video came as a result of the collision and the freighter was on autopilot the whole time.

Btw, if the crew had made a hard turn to starboard, it wouldn't have registered on the AIS plot as these ships turn so slowly at cruising speed.

Ted

Lol I love the Auto Pilot argument! The ship just randomly made a U turn? A.I. decided to "ram" a Navy ship? (Yes, someone argued the auto pilot made the U turn and rammed the Navy ship. This was before it came out an hour had passed before the CG was notified of the accident)

As far as how fast the container ship can turn, you ever been on one? I've had to go hard over on a container ship at full sea speed and it was not a slow turn.

I'm waiting to hear from the Navy, but their silence speaks volumes! Navy ship hit on the STBD side, Merchant Ship has damage on Port Bow. At this point, the Rules will say the Navy ship caused the collision. Notice I didn't say at fault because the rules say the stand on vessel can maneuver to avoid an accident and clearly they didn't do that in time.

VDRs are an IMO requirement, I'd be very surprised if the merchant ship didn't have one. Once that info comes out, it will paint a picture of what happened.

 

[Wxx3]

So SaltyDawg,

Hard over rudder at full speed, what is the radius of the turn?

 

[Ski in NC]

Agree with SD about the Navy that "their silence speaks volumes!" They know full well at this point what happened and if there was some rational explanation, they would publish some preliminary findings. If the findings are embarrassing, they will sit on the findings until the public interest has waned. Likely years..

 

[psneeld]

One might think that the silence is troublesome....

But if everyone is in agreement that the destroyer was stopped and seemingly came up to speed near a large contact, doesnt that seem odd?

Enough to me theres more to the story than an entire destroyers bridge crew being incompetent....though possible....and either way cause for silence.

 

[SaltyDawg86]

So SaltyDawg,

Hard over rudder at full speed, what is the radius of the turn?

Just under a mile. Most of that was due to inertia (so your bow is turning but you're on your same initial path) but once the turn starts, hang on to your seat! A mile may seem like a lot, but it's really not. Usually the unwritten rule is to take action at 3nm which would give you time.

 

[twistedtree]

This ABS spec that I found is pretty interesting. It's titled "Vessel Maneuverability Guide" if you want to find it.

They describe the hard maneuver requirements in terms of Advance - how much further ahead the vessel advances after the turn is initiated, and Tactical Diameter - how far laterally the ship moves before it has completed a full 180. The Tactical Diameter is more than the turning radius because of the time it takes for the ship to get to it's full rate of turn.

Here's a quote from the document:

"IMO requires that the tactical diameter is to be less than 5 ship lengths and the advance is to be less than 4.5 ship lengths [IMO 2002a]:"

So for a 1000' ship, that just under a mile, exactly as SaltyDog said.

 

[CDreamer]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles...tzgerald-destroyer-as-investigation-continues

 

[BandB]

A couple of things I took away from the article. First, just the little slip of

There is no indication that the ship sounded a collision alarm, which would have alerted sleeping crew members to the looming catastrophe, prior to the collision. Those details, however, are the subject of an ongoing Navy investigation.​

Then the sad irony of combining that with the SPY-1 radar system and the millions of dollars of expensive gear and equipment. Having never been on a Navy vessel, that brings me to one question others of you might know more about. In creating and then operating a military battleship, a spy ship, a technological masterpiece in terms of military and war capabilities, are the basic ship safety and and operation sides of things given less attention. Even the question of whether crew is more trained on the military side of things than on the ship side of things?

I probably missed it somewhere in all the discussion of the size of the Crystal, but what was the size of the Fitzgerald? And can we please not name any more ships "Fitzgerald?"

 

[psneeld]

Never in real combat on a warship, but in less than combat, they are usually as paranoid about collisions or groundings as anyone else, maybe more so.

 

[Benthic2]

 

[Wxx3]

I sort of ignored the comment about the Fitzgerald being stopped.
Why? What would the ship be doing in busy traffic area, stopped, but with CO sleeping????????

Though as I think about it, it would explain why it was hard for the Crystal to avoid her.

Accelerating from a stop, the Crystal's radar would initially give no useful CPA data. They see a ship, the Fitz, off the port quarter seemingly moving closer, but at night, it so hard to get a good mental fix.
The radar is not helping as its calculation of CPA would be delayed. This would be further degraded as I think the radar would not deal with acceleration, but with instantaneous velocity.

And since there is no such thing as instantaneous velocity, we have the real world bumping into the laws of physics.

Thus the Crystal sees a boat off their port quarter, that initially they thought they were passing, but now she's moving.

Thus a turn to starboard is the only option.

Looking as the AIS track and from what Salty Dawg say, it looks like less than two minutes elapsed from the commence of that turn to the collision.

Therefore the collision adds to the momentum of the turn and the right angle pivot at 16:30Z

I wouldn't be surprised if when the facts come out (many months from now for reasons stated above) the Fitz was accelerating the entire time and never saw the Crystal.

That would explain:

• Why the CO was never called
• Why the collision alarm was not sounded
• Why is was so hard for the Crystal to avoid