Posted on 06/26/2017 5:56:24 AM PDT by AU72
TOKYO, June 26 (Reuters) - 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.
Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17
Those who died were in their berthing compartments, while the Fitzgerald's commander was injured in his cabin, suggesting that no alarm warning of an imminent collision was sounded.
So the container ship just chased our destroyer down and rammed it?
No way the US Navy is not at fault.
Not quite. Nobody I know speculates the bridge of the ACX Crystal was deserted. There is a general assumption there was at least one person on the bridge of the ACX Crystal, because even the laxest of civilian crews would not violate that law (I believe the law states there has to be someone there anytime the ship is in motion)
What we don't know is if that person was actually paying attention, surfing porn, watching a movie on a laptop, or reading a book. We just don't know.
But if you look, the ACX Crystal did make a course change to port of a couple of degrees at around 0120 local time (about ten minutes before the collision) so it is plausible that there is some credibility to this.
But...signaling with lights? As another poster said, I would expect a horn, never mind simple verbal communication.
That said, the captain of the ACX Crystal might have been using the known public domain tracking of his course, and used the course change that occurred as a matter of programming to send a message by signal lamp because...well...there wouldn't be a concrete recording or record of that...right? What if they look a the logs of the ACX Crystal? That WOULD and SHOULD most definitely be a log entry. I smell a bit of ass-covering BS by the ACX Crytal.
I was thinking that, too. IIRC, it was one guilty guy who had had a gay relationship go wrong. I believe he died in the explosion. And his family fought the claim that he was responsible. Trump has only had 5 months to turn the Military away from Obama’s gay agenda. Prayers for those who were lost and for their loved ones.
“According to an earlier article posted here, to save the ship from sinking, the crew had to close off the compartments where the sailors died ands leave them to drown.”
The senior CPO went down and brought up 20 and then went back for 6 more. They had to seal the 7 behind the bulkhead to save the ship. I’ve read they were pounding on the hatch trying to get out.
I've come to the realization that most massive screw-ups are caused by three things...
1. Sex
2. Money
3. Stupidity
Combinations, of course, are allowed. And, given the choice between some massive cover-up or good conspiracy theory and the above three ... my bet is ALWAYS with sex, money, and/or stupidity.
When it comes to the high seas, especially with US naval combatants, you don't get into a pissing match over who's higher-powered or more maneuverable; you avoid those situations altogether. The Crystal had right-of-way due to her position relative to the Fitzgerald, not because she was less maneuverable.
The Fitzgerald should have fallen back and allowed the Crystal to pass, or the Fitzgerald should have taken a course and speed that would have increased the distance between the two ships.
Too many people not paying attention... too many redundant safety systems ignored?
It is a bit depressing to come to that conclusion, that there are people who will sacrifice nearly ANYTHING for a few minutes of sexual pleasure.
It drives home the point of just how powerful that sexual drive is in most humans, especially young ones in the prime of their lives...which happens to be the majority of those in the military.
Just another reason they should not be mixed. It isn’t the civilian world, I have no issues with that.
It is the military, and throwing all these young people of different sex together in a big metal pot called a warship and mixing it until explodes in our faces isn’t a good idea.
But hey, I am a sexist and bigot for saying so. So be it.
Or Texting.
Texting not allowed. No cell phones allowed while ship is under way. Instant boot if caught.
That’s good to hear. thanks.
I’m concerned that liberal control of the military under 0bama and efforts to make the military “kinder and more sensitive” has resulted in a significantly less effective force. This story and the recent story about the snowflake that hide in the engine room of the Shiloh suggests discipline and mental toughness are not adequately addressed during boot-camp and subsequent training.
Anyone who has worked in a job, military or otherwise, maritime, aviation or otherwise, knows one thing for certain about alarms:
There is no alarm made that some people won’t ignore, or rationalize some way to ignore and/or disable it.
In aviation, they found that too many alarms cause aviators to disregard them, especially when there were more than one, so years ago they developed a “Master Caution” system, in which when an alarm sounds, the specific flashing light indicating the issue lights up and the alarm sounds, but it is connected to a Master Caution, a big square light prominently in view. In an emergency, they are trained to immediately hit the Master Caution light to disable it, and find out what the specific issue is.
If another system is problematic, the big Master Caution light turns on, another alarm sounds, and another specific button lights up there. They are supposed to hit the Master Caution to turn it off, and look for the new light.
I wonder if the same thing happens on the bridge of a ship. When the proximity alarm sounds, do they immediately disable it and investigate?
Or...what if they were having some kind of systems glitch where it was setting it off and they simply got into the habit of disabling it and ignoring it?
I admit this is all speculation. But people don’t like to be bothered by these annoying things...(I would put a sarcasm tag, but hope it isn’t needed)
I have long been concerned about that.
The big, justified trouble for that ship’s captain and, at least, the OOD is there’s an inescapable responsibility to keep a full lookout at all times and take whatever evasive measures are necessary whenever a collision appears likely. This happened on a clear night. There’s no way anyone can reasonably argue the lookout and evasion obligations were complied with. As a result, seven good sailors died frightful and unnecessary deaths.
And so which vessal is that in this case?
This is BS from the container ship captain.
If the captain was “so aware” of what was going on...why did he allow his ship to correct course and continue away from the collision site for an another 30 minutes before returning?
He’s just trying to save his butt.
(Yeah, I’m biased and pulling for the U.S. Navy.)
Agreed 100%. I cannot think even of any best case scenario that exonerates the navy vessel.
Best theory so far... makes sense rlmorel...
I can’t think of any scenario where the navy ship is not in the wrong, no matter if the captain of the other ship is telling the truth.
Even if the container ship actively sought to ram the destroyer, it could have never caught it, assuming both parties were aware of this game.
I think the most damning piece of evidence is that a collision warning was never sounded on the destroyer. To me, that suggests the bridge crew were aware of the other boat and attempted to either assume they had the right of way and the other ship would defer to them or they wanted to scoot in front of it because they had the speed. However, the container ship was (if we believe that captain) in a 10-minute turn (it is slow!) to avoid hitting the destroyer. When it was getting close maybe the bridge crew on the destroyer didn’t realize the subtle change in course and misjudged its approach.
Also, it has been speculated the bridge crew was all “busy” with other things. I find that hard to believe for a lot of reasons, but the biggest one is that they were near shore and (relative to the middle of the ocean) in heavy traffic.
I would rather believe this is a case of hubris on the part of the destroyer captain (or, the officer in charge at the time) rather than dereliction of duty of an entire bridge crew.
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.