"The Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to Advincula's report that was seen by Reuters. "
Per AIS data, the Crystal steamed STRAIGHT on a course of 70 degrees -- at full speed -- during that entire ten-minute interval, It DID NOT perform any maneuver during that ten minutes -- much less "steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer".
Given that Advincula started out with that huge lie, I'm not inclined to believe his
"the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal, had "signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald 'suddenly' steamed onto a course to cross its path."
at all....
IMHO, he is trying to cover for the fact that he and his crew were asleep -- and had zero idea what had happened until he sent a crewman to examine the foredeck -- over a half-hour after the collision!
agree, either the mate of the watch was asleep or camped out on the starboard bridge wing. Probably had absolutely no awareness of the impending collision until it happened.
I think that is a very definite thing to consider...
Can we regroup here and have a civil debate without the huge exclamatory billboards designed to deliver a death blow? Once again there really is no need for this in a civil and intelligent debate.
I get that you feel we could never be in the wrong or make mistakes. Unfortunately reality dictates this is just not true. Please let me share a comparison analogy to consider that might put things in better perspective for you concerning my view on this.
I think it very well IS true that the Crystal was asleep at the wheel. I am not arguing this very probable fact. What I question are the failures from the other party in this incident. Both were in the wrong and not just one can be blamed for this.
A sophisticated state of the art war machine just doesn’t allow it’s self to be ran over by a slow barge on a steady course with the “right of way”. Manned or unmanned is at that point totally irrelevant. Knowing they cannot be seen by other vessels, and having very sophisticated detection devices to see other vessels first, the responsibility was on the Fitzgerald to be on top of their game. And they were not or it would never have happened. So they are even more to blame than the other vessel under these circumstances considering the resources they had available to prevent it.
A comparison to what you are sharing here would be like saying that a Lockheed Martin F-35 is in no way at fault if it crosses the flight path of and is struck by a Handley Page. Then place all the blame on the pilot of the Handley Page because he blinked and ignore the huge technological advantages the F-35 had to prevent this very thing from happening.
The only way this could ever happen would be if the F-35 did not steer clear with responsible prudence and was purposely trying to buzz the Handley Page and screwed up doing it. There is absolutely no way the F-35 could not see the Handley Page far far ahead of it and take the responsibly to avoid it knowing it is a highly un-maneuverable Handley Page.
Although the Fitzgerald had their AIS off, does this mean they do not monitor the AIS beacons of all the vessels around them and fly blind? No, they still monitor this and they saw it just fine long before they got to it.