Posted on 08/19/2017 8:37:40 AM PDT by Oatka
I think those facts could change.
The Reuters report was discussed in an interesting thread elsewhere. Someone who translates Japanese said that the “ten minute” comment was being misinterpreted. I think we’ll find that the warning lights were flashed just prior to the actual collision, and I doubt that the Crystal changed course at all until the collision, but was then shoved almost 90 degrees to starboard by the Fitzgerald.
The Fitzgerald probably did change course a few minutes before the collision, while attempting to avoid the Wan Hai, however.
But again, all speculation.
Until now the armchair commanders at FreeRepublic had been assuming the Fitzgerald and the Crystal had been traveling in the same direction.
Now that we know the ships were traveling in opposite directions, how did the two ships collide.
The reason I suspect the Crystal made the hard starboard turn is that the Fitzgerald would have had more damage if it was a direct hit versus a glancing blow.
We know the Fitzgerald was traveling at 20 knots and the Crystal was traveling at 18.5 knots.
All I know is that the Navy has been totally mismanaged for quite some time. All of these incidents could have been prevented. It seems since the Cole incident,the Navy has not been the same.
Then President Bill Clinton had poor Semenship, but he wasn’t relieved of Duty.
Forgot to add, he was just “relieved”.
As a former US Navy officer, I am 100% certain that the Captain was to blame, not just administratively but because he was did something wrong. It was the Captain's responsibility to make sure the ship had qualified watchstanders who knew their jobs. He personally sits on the qualification boards for the OOD and other critical personnel. He personally sets the standards for professionalism and for when he is called. Whatever errors were made, it was (both by policy and in the real world) his responsibility to have trained his officers and crew better.
Given the large number of US Navy ships that have never had a collision, not just because they were lucky but because they made each situation safe, the few who have this sort of oopsie stand out. I have called my Captain to the bridge (surfaced submarine) or the Conn (when submerged) many times and have never worried that I was bothering him. I had one Captain tell me, once, that he had confidence I could handle a situation without him, and my response, "no, Sir, I cannot" brought him to the Bridge faster than I thought possible.
I don't know what this Captain in particular did wrong, but he was the Executive Officer on the ship for two years before they made him Captain. He knew his men. He planned and supervised their training for a very long time. Whatever went wrong, it was his mistake (with help from others).
Dude was in his rack asleep.
No "seamanship" involved.
>>Now that we know the ships were traveling in opposite directions, how did the two ships collide?<<
By the time of the collision, the Fitzgerald might have already changed course to avoid the Wan Hai, is my guess. And then, of course, there could have been a sudden change in course at the end in an attempt to avoid the Crystal, assuming they finally realized it was there.
>>The reason I suspect the Crystal made the hard starboard turn is that the Fitzgerald would have had more damage if it was a direct hit versus a glancing blow.<<
I doubt the Crystal changed course at all until the moment of the collision, and that the 90 degree turn then was due to the momentum of the Fitzgerald. There’s also speculation out there that the Fitzgerald snagged the anchor of the Crystal although the report released today didn’t say anything about that. But if it did, that would have also aided the Fitzgerald in pulling the Crystal to starboard.
Assuming the Crystal was still on its 70 degree course at the time of the collision, the Fitzgerald would have been on approximately a 100 degree course, given the diagram the Navy provided of the collision angle.
Another one of the unanswered questions is why the Crystal corrected course and continued on for nearly a half hour before returning, especially if someone was on the bridge of the Crystal at the time of the collision.
Most night orders include waking the captain if another vessel gets within a prescribed range, and if in doubt wake the captain.
So, that thing about a drone hitting her with an EMP causing systems failures leading to the collision was B.S.?
The initial crew getting the ship underway would be those sailors assigned to "Sea and Anchor Detail", which may or may not transition to "Navigation Detail", depending on the length and difficulty of the outbound transit. Going from Sea and Anchor to Nav Detail should not require changes to key navigation personnel. Once the ship is at sea with no navigational restrictions, the normal underway watch is set. So yes, there would most likely have been a watch turnover at some point between getting underway and the collision.
Poor seamanship? You think? Hell, they only crashed one ship. Idiots.
Thanks for the clarification.
On June 26 Maritime Executive posted this report. I have not seen a report that debunks “”ACX Crystal tried to signal the Fitzgerald with flashing lights;””. Do you have a source?
http://maritime-executive.com/article/acx-crystals-captain-alleges-no-response-from-fitzgerald
By MarEx 2017-06-26 13:05:49
In his after-accident report, the captain of the ACX Crystal alleged that the destroyer USS Fitzgerald failed to respond to multiple warnings of an impending collision, according to Reuters. On June 17, the Crystal struck the Fitzgerald on the starboard side, penetrating three compartments below the waterline and killing seven sailors, one of the worst U.S. Navy non-combat casualties in years.
The wire agency’s account is based on Capt. Ronald Advincula’s after-accident report to Dainichi Investment Corporation, the owner of the ACX Crystal. Advincula’s account could not be confirmed, but he asserted that:
- USS Fitzgerald was on a crossing course;
- ACX Crystal tried to signal the Fitzgerald with flashing lights;
- Fitzgerald did not respond to light signals or take evasive action;
- ACX Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid collision;
- ACX Crystal struck the Fitzgerald ten minutes after taking this evasive action;
- the time of impact was about 0130 hours;
- there was “confusion” on the Crystal’s bridge after the collision;
- and the Crystal turned around to return to the scene of the accident after proceeding for another six nm.
USS PORTER incident in the Gulf is nearly identical to this incident only no one died. Command climate breakdown example in USCGA simulators for a couple years now shown to Prospective CO/XO school and others. Very complex factors, far from simple cut-and-dry single point fault. About 15 identifiable failures resulting in a disastrous collective.
I know the difference in post crash rust and old continuing rust.
Do you notice how much rust is evident on our Navy ships these days? Almost every one I see has streaks of rust on the hull. More so than I ever remember.
No requirement for transponder. If lights are lit all are on same playing field. Or do you think every fishing vessel has a transponder?
I’m guessing the other ship didn’t pay attention to their surface radar or the Fitz was confused I their radar with the other ship as a ghost reflection of the larger ship.
Doesn’t matter - lookouts failed, OOD doesn’t appear to have notified CO of close approach, etc etc
As with nearly every at sea collision multiple failures occurred on both ships.
I am sure they set Special Sea and Anchor Detail when they got underway and would have retained that enhanced watch standing condition until sometime after they had gotten into their line of traffic in the main shipping channel. The regular watch should have been in place at the point the collision occurred. I could see from the map accompanying some descriptions the bay itself with the greatest congestion was well behind them.
I agree, but I am aware of ship’s where the bridge teams went out of their way to never call the Captain, even when they should have.
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.