Navy Destroyer tee boned by a Freighter?

[Benthic2]

That just seems impossible with 3 human lookouts, 2 radar systems, a fully manned bridge and a combat information center.

 

[twistedtree]

That just seems impossible with 3 human lookouts, 2 radar systems, a fully manned bridge and a combat information center.

To me, this will be the interesting part of the investigation, but also the part we may never hear about. Accidents like this are pretty much always the result of compound failures. Exactly what those failures were is where we can learn.

But it wouldn't surprise me if all we hear about are the externally visible miss deeds of the fitz, and that the navy does not disclose the on-board issues that lead to the miss deeds.

And Richard, I completely agree with your assessment. It explains why the fitz was not a concert to the crystal, then very quickly became a big concern.

 

[CDreamer]

Per posts #296, 299 and #300.

I don't know if Fitzgerald was stopped then began moving. I only know Crystal's course/speed. Being stopped in that high-traffic area seems odd but anything's possible.
Let's assume Fitz was stopped and then got underway.
The Fitz is 500' feet long. The collision was about 1/3rd back from the Fitz' starboard bow. It would seem that if the Crystal was on manual steering on these converging collision courses at 1 mile out it would have been better to turn Crystal hard port and (maybe) pass to the stern of Fitz, as that would only require about 400 feet of actual lateral correction over several of Crystal's ship lengths to miss Fitz astern - and much less than 400' if Fitz was began moving forward at all.(I'm assuming no reduction of Crystal's speed.) Is a 400' foot change do-able in 3/4 mile? Based on the port bow damage to Crystal, why would they choose a turn to starboard, especially if Fitz was also moving forward? If this were a car situation, and no brakes, wouldn't you try to go behind the other car?
Maybe Fitz slowed down and thus didn't cross ahead of Crystal.

All that said, I don't think Crystal even saw them at 1 mile out as I believe the ship was on AP, despite the "We flashed a warning light" statement.
(No way to prove they did that, while there would be a record of radio calls)
I know, I know - all sheer conjecture. We will see, if the real story is ever made public. Truth is often stranger than fiction.

 

[twistedtree]

Per posts #296, 299 and #300.

I don't know if Fitzgerald was stopped then began moving. I only know Crystal's course/speed. Being stopped in that high-traffic area seems odd but anything's possible.
Let's assume Fitz was stopped and then got underway.
The Fitz is 500' feet long. The collision was about 1/3rd back from the Fitz' starboard bow. It would seem that if the Crystal was on manual steering on these converging collision courses at 1 mile out it would have been better to turn Crystal hard port and (maybe) pass to the stern of Fitz, as that would only require about 400 feet of actual lateral correction over several of Crystal's ship lengths to miss Fitz astern - and much less than 400' if Fitz was began moving forward at all.(I'm assuming no reduction of Crystal's speed.) Is a 400' foot change do-able in 3/4 mile? Based on the port bow damage to Crystal, why would they choose a turn to starboard, especially if Fitz was also moving forward? If this were a car situation, and no brakes, wouldn't you try to go behind the other car?
Maybe Fitz slowed down and thus didn't cross ahead of Crystal.

All that said, I don't think Crystal even saw them at 1 mile out as I believe the ship was on AP, despite the "We flashed a warning light" statement.
(No way to prove they did that, while there would be a record of radio calls)
I know, I know - all sheer conjecture. We will see, if the real story is ever made public. Truth is often stranger than fiction.

As I recall the rules, under such a situation both boats are supposed to turn to stbd. It's to create predictable moves by both boats, jus like stand on and give way duties. If both boats decide independently how to turn, they have a 50/50 change of turning into each other and making matters even worse.

 

[CDreamer]

But Crystal was approaching Fitz at an angle from AFT of Fitz' starboard beam - not bow on. (based on the port side damage to Crystals bow and starboard side for Fitz) so that would not apply.

 

[twistedtree]

But Crystal was approaching Fitz at an angle from AFT of Fitz' starboard beam - not bow on. (based on the port side damage to Crystals bow and starboard side for Fitz) so that would not apply.

I don't think we know what the approach angle was leading up to the collision, only the contact points on the two boats.

 

[McGillicuddy]

If you are the stand on vessel and there is a risk of collision from a vessel approaching on the port side in a crossing situation, you should NEVER make a turn to port to avoid the collision. It should always be to starboard. The reason is that the burdened vessel may realize his mistake at the last moment and make his proscribed turn to starboard late, in which case both vessels are turning into each other, increasing the risk of collision and decreasing the time until collision.

A timely turn to starboard increases the time until collision and presents a much smaller target (the stern) to the burdened vessel and reduces the risk of collision. This was drilled into the navigation cadets in nautical college.

Obviously, the turn to starboard by the Crystal was not initiated in a timely manner as her damage was sustained to the bow and not the stern. This is where the Crystal's liability lies.

I believe liability will likely end up being a 70/30 split with the Fitz taking the lions share.

 

[Benthic2]

if the Crystal was overtaking the Fitz, wouldn't the Crystal have been the burdened vessel ? Which rule would take precedence in that case.....the port vs starboard rule would give the right of way to the Crystal, but the overtaking rule would give the right of way to the Fitz ??

 

[CDreamer]

From the damage we can see, the collision course suggests that Crystal was approaching Fitz from an angle, something aft of directly abeam. Does that mean Crystal was overtaking Fitz? We don't know for sure but if so, it would seem that Crystal was burdened. In that situation a correction of a few degrees to port (at a mile away) would have been one solution to avoid Fitz.

 

[McGillicuddy]

CD. There is no way the Fitz outdoors be abaft the beam and the Crystal be the overtaking vessel. Given the collision damage on the Crystal is on the port bow and her track shows no turn to port, just a hold steady course, then the overtaking vessel was the Fitz, starting abaft of the Crystal and ending in a collision at its bow. To me its a crossing situation without doubt.

 

[McGillicuddy]

I have a theory that might sound a little crazy but I will put it out there.

We know that the US Navy was conducting Joint exercises in the Sea of Japan in relation to North Korean threats of missile practice. I cannot recall if the US had one carrier group or two however I recall that the Japanese and Indian navies were also involved.

I would presume that the Fitz was part of the carrier group and engaged in anti submarine warfare as its primary function. I didn't hear of any navy vessel coming to the aid of the Fitz after the collision so my first assumption is that it was working some distance from the fleet.

My second assumption is that it was tracking a submarine and had been for some time. We know that N. Korea has a substantial diesel submarine fleet and given tensions in the area I think it is safe to assume the N Koreans had sent out a few to spy on the fleet.

I think the Fitz was sitting on top of or close by a submarine and that submarine knew it had been detected and was in all stop silent mode. If they had been tracking for several days it would be safe to assume that the commander of the Fitz had left a night order entry to continue the tracking over night while he was off watch for some sleep.

The submarine commander was looking for a way to shake off the DDG. The Crystal provided that opportunity. The sub headed for the container ship in order to get below it and travel in its "shadow". The Fitz fired up and went screaming after it and somehow in close proximity to the Crystal lost its situational awareness. This could have been caused by an alteration in course by the sub or the Crystal. In any case they misjudged badly and the collision ensued.

I have a little knowledge of this technique used by subs when I was on a ship that unwisely wandered in to an exercise area off the coast of Australia. We had missed the warning notice back in the day when we had a Sparky and messages were Morse code. Anyway, a sub immediately took cover under us and a P-3 Orion knew it was there and started making low pass runs over us dropping flares left and right. We maintained our course and speed for a few hours until we exited the area.

 

[Benthic2]

Can you be on converging paths and still be considered "overtaking" Using a clock face for reference... IF the Crystal approached the Fitz from the Fitz's 4:00 position and was moving faster than the Fitz.....would that be considered "overtaking" ?

For example:

 

[psneeld]

Depends on where they were 5 minutes ago, cant tell from thst static picture.

 

[alormaria]

Hey, Mcgillicuddy!
There's a book/movie plot in there somewhere!
Hollywood!
Movie stars!
Swimming pools!

 

[McGillicuddy]

Can you be on converging paths and still be considered "overtaking" Using a clock face for reference... IF the Crystal approached the Fitz from the Fitz's 4:00 position and was moving faster than the Fitz.....would that be considered "overtaking" ?



For example:

That only depends on what the Crystal saw when she first approached the Fitz. Rule 13b "a vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5* abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking that at night she would be able to see only the stern light of that vessel but neither of her sidelights."

The Crystal's Captain in his statement said that he first saw the vessel on radar and never mentions the destroyers navigation lights.
His actions are commensurate with a vessel that believes they are the 'stand on' vessel..

 

[BruceK]

I have a theory...I think the Fitz was sitting on top of or close by a submarine...
I have a little knowledge of this technique used by subs when I was on a ship that unwisely wandered in to an exercise area off the coast of Australia. We had missed the warning notice back in the day when we had a Sparky and messages were Morse code. Anyway, a sub immediately took cover under us and a P-3 Orion knew it was there and started making low pass runs over us dropping flares left and right. We maintained our course and speed for a few hours until we exited the area.

Some of our venerable P3s are currently in use in Philippines helping deal with the insurgents on Mindanao. Just last night I saw news of our new P8 built on a B737 platform. Some of our subs were noisy, no surprise you knew it was there.
And, interesting theory. Unusual circumstances>unusual events.

 

[Wxx3]

I have a theory that might sound a little crazy but I will put it out there.

...

I must say, that this theory would make most of the facts fit. In fact, fitting very well.
Now, if my boat was sitting on top of a North Korean sub, I would not be sleeping. How could I?
I never saw the CO sleeping in "Run Silent, Run Deep" or "Das Boot"

But still. It gives a plausible explanation for what has been killing all of us, how a USN boat in foreign waters let's itself get run over.

 

[twistedtree]

If you find yourself with a sub under you, I'd say it's time to pump out.

 

[Bigsfish]

Funny story. In the '70 I was fishing out of Key West in my 20' open fisherman at the Tail End about 40 miles from key west when there was this tremendous roar and an unmarked sub surfaced about 100 feet away. My fishing buddy grabbed his 38 special revolver ( like it wound do any good) I took off towards shallower water. I don't think the sub had a clue we were there. I wasn't sure if it was ours or theirs and didn't want to find out.

 

[psneeld]

Irv....Hope it was a snub nose....the sub might have thought youz guys had connections to organized crime and would never dare attack....

Either that or it was a Russian with a nuclear leak and you guys got zapped.

 

[Bigsfish]

It was SS four or five inch barrel. I told him to put it away and don't them off. [emoji15]. I have no idea what he was thinking but the roar of the sub surfacing scared me senseless. I waited until we were far away before I called it in to the Coasties who asked did it have a number. It was black and not a mark on it. This was when we all had great radios that could reach out not the short range VHF of today. It's fun now!!!!

 

[Ski in NC]

Funny story. In the '70 I was fishing out of Key West in my 20' open fisherman at the Tail End about 40 miles from key west when there was this tremendous roar and an unmarked sub surfaced about 100 feet away. My fishing buddy grabbed his 38 special revolver ( like it wound do any good) I took off towards shallower water. I don't think the sub had a clue we were there. I wasn't sure if it was ours or theirs and didn't want to find out.

Most subs have very good directional sonar so in all likelihood they listened prior to surface and knew exactly where you were, and what type of boat you were. Especially if your engine was running.

Attack boats have the really good sonar, and they are the ones that get to play games. Missile boats (boomers) have less capable sonar, but their mission is different: Go hide and wait to launch. They don't get to chase things and have fun like the attack boats. This refers to 30-40yr old sub tech, so things may be different now.

Crew probably said something like: "Lets go wake those dudes up!!"

 

[twistedtree]

It was Capt Schepetti. Here, watch this...

 

[McGillicuddy]

Most subs have very good directional sonar so in all likelihood they listened prior to surface and knew exactly where you were, and what type of boat you were. Especially if your engine was running.

Attack boats have the really good sonar, and they are the ones that get to play games. Missile boats (boomers) have less capable sonar, but their mission is different: Go hide and wait to launch. They don't get to chase things and have fun like the attack boats. This refers to 30-40yr old sub tech, so things may be different now.

Crew probably said something like: "Lets go wake those dudes up!!"

The USN sub guys in Hawaii didn't make good use of it them when they surfaced under that Japanese fishing boat, capsizing and sinking it with loss of all on board if memory serves correctly.

 

[Wxx3]

Most subs have very good directional sonar so in all likelihood they listened prior to surface and knew exactly where you were, and what type of boat you were. Especially if your engine was running.

Attack boats have the really good sonar, and they are the ones that get to play games. Missile boats (boomers) have less capable sonar, but their mission is different: Go hide and wait to launch. They don't get to chase things and have fun like the attack boats. This refers to 30-40yr old sub tech, so things may be different now.

Crew probably said something like: "Lets go wake those dudes up!!"

I think it was in the 80's when a sub surfaced and sank a Japanese? Fishing boat.

only then were procedures changed before surfacing.

 

[Bigsfish]

Ski

20' open fisherman with Mercury out drive which were off as we were fishing in about 150' on the drop off, where the sub surfaced it could have been 1000'. It might have been one of ours or Russian but I don't think they knew we were there. It might have scared them when they heard an engine start.

 

[Ski in NC]

The USN sub guys in Hawaii didn't make good use of it them when they surfaced under that Japanese fishing boat, capsizing and sinking it with loss of all on board if memory serves correctly.

I think in that event the sub did a rapid surface from some depth. In that case they did not linger just below the surface and assess what is on the surface. They took a gamble that the surface was clear but the fishing boat was there. Usually a good gamble, but that one was not. In reality, not many boats on the surface.

 

[Wxx3]

I knew you'd know they details.
Thanks.

 

[Ski in NC]

Ski

20' open fisherman with Mercury out drive which were off as we were fishing in about 150' on the drop off, where the sub surfaced it could have been 1000'. It might have been one of ours or Russian but I don't think they knew we were there. It might have scared them when they heard an engine start.

If engine was off, they may not have heard you. But no expert on sonar, just a generalist.

 

[rclarke246]

I have a theory that might sound a little crazy but I will put it out there.

I would presume that the Fitz was part of the carrier group and engaged in anti submarine warfare as its primary function.

My second assumption is that it was tracking a submarine and had been for some time.

I think the Fitz was sitting on top of or close by a submarine and that submarine knew it had been detected and was in all stop silent mode. If they had been tracking for several days it would be safe to assume that the commander of the Fitz had left a night order entry to continue the tracking over night while he was off watch for some sleep.

The submarine commander was looking for a way to shake off the DDG. The Crystal provided that opportunity. The sub headed for the container ship in order to get below it and travel in its "shadow". The Fitz fired up and went screaming after it and somehow in close proximity to the Crystal lost its situational awareness.

This theory would make some sense out of what happened.
Very interesting thread. Thanks.