Skip to comments.AXC Crystal ship owners to pay for a portion of damage to USS Fitzgerald
Posted on 01/12/2019 2:41:07 AM PST by Bull Snipe
The owners of the container ship AXC Crystal agreed to pay 27 million dollars to the United States Government to settle their liability in a collision with USS Fitzgerald DD 62. The collision took place in the early morning of 6/17/18 S.W of the entrance to Tokyo Bay.
Honestly... And I hate so say it... But I don’t think they were liable for anything. I did research on that incident and they tried their best to keep changing course and avoid the The Fitzgerald, but the US vessel kept moving back in front of it playing cat and mouse with it until it finally got too close in front of it and got hit.
That was all on us...
I pretty much agree with you. Though, the Crystal’s watch officer, had he been more attentive to his duties, may have been able to mitigate or even prevent the collision. Their responsibility is very small in this incident. The vast majority of the responsibility for the collision lies with the Fitzgerald’s Bridge and Combat watch officers. There actions got men killed and severely damaged a U.S. war ship.
The Crystal just should have come to full stop as soon as they realized the Fitzgerald was playing games with them. I think the Fitzgerald may have been trying to stop her and board her. Have you seen the paths and course changes on the map yet?
It was far too obvious what happened because of all the zig zagging going on from both. The fitzgerald was toying with the crystal, they were playing Chicken and blocking it.
Now whether the watch on the Crystal was doing the course changing, or the collision prevention system was at the helm and control I don’t know for sure, but the vessel tried to avoid the Fitzgerald several times.
I actually might still have the map showing this. I’ll look and see if I still have it. I got it from an inside source at the time.
“Though, the Crystals watch officer, had he been more attentive to his duties”
Had SHE been more attentive to her duties. SHE was convicted at courts martial.
Where did you get that conclusion? They weren’t doing anything deliberate with the Crystal, and certainly not planning to board her in Tokyo bay.
And the Crystal should have “stopped”. Beasts like that don’t stop on a dime. And then you have the problem of being stopped, at night, in the approaches to Tokyo bay.
Assuming you hold the credentials to accurately interpret the available evidence, under what theory of international law do you find the Crystal should have come to an expensive and time-consuming "full stop" solely to avoid collision with a faster and much more agile vessel that was "playing games"?
Would Fitzgerald's bridge have had reason to know its "system' was malfunctioning and if so, was effective ship to ship communications not indicated?
(Full disclosure: while I regard myself as a staunch American patriot ready to immediately respond on its behalf, I have over past decades been dismayed as I witnessed first-hand incidents on the international scene that I regarded as unnecessary and avoidable "Ugly American" behavior - and I am no snowflake.)
It is important to first realize the official narrative is false. They were not struck where they say they were struck. They were struck after the evasive maneuvers of the Crystal. I was fortunate enough to have a very creditable direct source who was tracking the event in real time as it happened because this was his work and profession.
Insurance is regulated by Governments... this Insurer probably had political pressure to make a payment and to ensure further compliance by all global insurers, and secondly to exact a contribution and to cleanse the record of the Navy under a socialist.
Yes, more attentive, it takes two to have a collision.
The OOD on Fitzgerald is fully responsible for the collision. Had the mate of the watch on Crystal been more attentive he may have had an opportunity to minimize or even avoid the collision.
I actually might still have the map showing this. Ill look and see if I still have it. I got it from an inside source at the time."
rlmorel -- Here we go again... :-(
Spend weeks drawing 'em pictures, etc -- and they still don't have a clue...
Openurmind: Please DO post that map of yours!
Based on your comments above, you obviously have misidentified both the time and point of collision.
It wasn't until AFTER the collision that the ACX Crystal did any appreciable maneuvering at all. Up to the time of collision, Xtal was on autopilot. (RTFA...)
Yep! Those wheelhouse orgasms can make for difficult navigation...
Nope... the course makes no sense even on all the maps currently available. Let common sense prevail here. The Crystal makes an impact with another vessel hard enough to shake it from stem to stern. They make an almost 90 degree hard turn to starboard still under way, make a big loop back around 180 degrees to port, then make a circle and two more zig zags underway continuing a course north east up the coast.
If they had collided with the Fitzgerald where they claim it happened at the first hard 90 degree turn to starboard they would have came full stop to at least check for damage and integrity, not continue on and zig zag so much as if it never happened. This is because it didn’t happen until AFTER all this maneuvering and they finally came back on course north east.
The Fitzgerald was not hit where it is claimed it was hit. It was hit after it played cat and mouse with the Crystal causing it to change course several times.
Let me see if I still have the chart my source gave me. Like I say... He was tracking BOTH in real time.
As Artie Johnson used to say, "Werry Interestink!" Your friend was tracking a U.S. destroyer on patrol -- in real time... If so, he is the only person I've heard of with that capability.
Please back up your claim by posting your matching data for "BOTH" vessels.
The following chart is from the USN report -- based on on the AIS Speed, Position, & Course data for the ACX Crystal -- transmitted by their AIS Transponder -- and the speed, position & course reported by the Fitzgerald crew.
All reports I've seen indicate that, following military protocols, The USS Fitzgerald DID NOT have her AIS transponder turned ON at any time.
Thanks for the ping FRiend...have to give it thought tomorrow...head is on crooked right now...:)
Found an interesting article at http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html...
Good data source, but disagree with some conclusions...
Lots more ready to post when/if Openurmind replies...
I’m here, digging now. OOH RAH!
You made a great exclamatory billboard here. No way to miss it. It was so loud it woke me up. lol
I have that “official” Navy record also, it is not accurate no matter what the Navy claims. Let me point something out here about “not being able to track USN vessels”. AIS is an international maritime protocol. And if the Navy could track it by AIS to get what you shared so could others. Every harbor in the world is monitoring AIS, including USN ships if AIS is on..
In fact there are tools the public can use to track any vessel that has AIS turned on in real time. Here is just one I located over San Diego for you that is tracking USN ships by description because their transponders are on.
Well I did find it. But I know realize I cannot share it. I forgot there were far too many indicators that will link it to the source.
I will just have to accept whatever public humiliation, stoning, and discrediting you decide to subject me to. But I cannot make any public connections to the source of this information under any circumstances.
Hopefully you have the ability to read between the lines and maybe understand why. If not fire away, I’ll just have to take the hit under the circumstances.
Not, necessarily, so...
As all records show. the USS Fitzgerald had its AIS transmitter turned OFF --- from the time it entered Sagami-wan until the collision.
However, The Fitz's AIS was ON, and faithfully recording all pertinent Fitz data the entire time.
Those recordings, as I understand it, are the source of the Fitz plot shown in the Navy report.
What is not clear is whether the Fitz crew was monitoring the AIS transmissions of other ships in that crowded set of shipping lanes it was cutting across.
What is clear is that some of the ship-handling decisions by the Fitz' OOD were so wrong, I actually wonder if she was even licensed to drive an automobile on public roadways!
Any sane auto driver -- facing an oncoming, crossing semi (at the same relative speeds and angles) would have reflexively made exactly the opposite steering and speed decisions -- or they would have died...
Forget the "Rules of the Road" (which she violated -- big time). She violated the basic rules of survival!
BTW, you should know that rlmorel (ex-Navy) and I (cartographer & failure analyst) spent literally weeks analyzing the vessel movements and collision.
In particular, I analyzed the physical damage to both vessels to determine the physics of impact. (FYI, the Navy's scaled vector images of the plan view of the collision matched our [much earlier] reconstruction drawings almost perfectly.)
As a courtesy, I'll share with you a recent observation detail I'm sending rlmorel. It should give you an inkling of the depth of our analyses...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.