AXC Crystal ship owners to pay for a portion of damage to USS Fitzgerald

[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.

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/11/ship-owners-to-pay-us-government-for-fitzgerald-collision/

[Bull Snipe]

Thanks

[Openurmind]

I would appreciate that, for future reference. I have absolutely no doubt of your expertise with this.

Quick question though. Can the Navy track Navy vessels while AIS is off?

[TXnMA]

FRiend, I just noticed something curious on this "chopper view" photo of the foredeck of the ACX Crystal -- following the collision:

Do you think the debris visible on the Xtal foredeck might just be part of the EW unit that had been on the small sponson deck above the Fitz captain's quarters?

I'm referencing the small deck (overtinted in purple, below) that "drooped" downward and was shoved aftward in the post-collision view, below:

I notice that the EW "console" is missing from its mount, post-collision...

No doubt, the Navy recovered the material, if it was theirs. But, do you think it's possible my tentative ID is plausible?

Thanks!
TXnMA
 

P.S. @Openurmind: As promised... The original intent of that lower pair of annotated photos was to show how all above-water damage on the Fitzgerald was shoved aft -- indicating that the Fitz rammed the Xtal's portside bow from behind. ("Overtaking side-swipe") This gives you a small example of the extent of our analyses...

[TXnMA]

"Quick question though. Can the Navy track Navy vessels while AIS is off?"

Above my pay grade -- I'm ex-USAF... '-)

Perhaps my ex-Naval colleague, @rlmorel, can comment on that.

But, you might ask yourself, "Does the USN have access to satellite data?" '-)

TXnMA
 

[Openurmind]

Oh I get it. Went through about 4 months of the same on another website. :)

I think your observations look sound, From my experience working with metal in Auto Accidents it has all definitely been pushed back at the same time as inward.

I wish I could share more, but it is very possible there may have been a training drill in progress. Looks like you might question the official version of the impact and how it happened?

I think that is good if this is the case. :)

[TXnMA]

The following is my long-studied OPINION -- based on AIS data, official reports, and -- importantly --analysis of damage patterns to both vessels. It derives from the EVIDENCE -- not some wild-hair conspiracy theory...

~~~~~~~~~~

The crew of the ACX Crystal are, apparently, lying though their teeth. Based on the vessel’s behavior, there was no one anywhere near the Crystal's bridge before, during, or for at least ten minutes before and after the collision. The Crystal was on unmanned autopilot for that entire time.

To try to CHOA, the Crystal's captain obviously lied in his first report:

For the TWELVE minutes prior to the collision, the Crystal steamed on a steady 70 degree course at top speed. At no time during that interval was there the least evidence of maneuvering -- much less a "hard turn to starboard ten minutes prior to collision" -- as reported by ACX Crystal's Captain Ronald Advincula. (See note in red on the above image.)

Following the collision, ("overtaking sideswipe of the port bow" -- 600 feet from the crew 's quarters) the ACX Crystal remained on unmanned autopilot -- until ~0200 Local time (1/2 hour after collision). Then, damage to the port bow was discovered, and -- now under manual control -- the Xtal was U-turned to return to the scene of "whatever happened".

After circling (dead slow) in the vicinity of the damaged Fitzgerald, (?and transmitting the first report of the collision -- an hour late?) the Xtal ambled northward dead slowly -- barely maintaining steerageway (not playing games).

All readers: You are advised to carefully consider the AIS color codes (indicating ACX Crystal's speeds) -- during the entire encounter. In no way do they match a "cat and mouse" scenario.

~~~~~~~~~~

At all times following the (1630Z/0130L) collision, the Fitzgerald was dead in the water, without communications -- and fighting to stay afloat and rescue crewmen.

IMO, the deficiencies in the Fitz's crew's performance are condemning enough. There is ZERO JUSTIFICATION for further slandering them by publishing dumb@$$3d, slanderous accusations of "playing games" -- with a multimillion $$$ warship -- and endangering its crew.

And, @OpenurMind, you can pass that along to your "anonymous 'source'"...

That's how I sees it...
TXnMA
 

[TXnMA]

Apologies! I fully intended to copy you on my # 26

[Bull Snipe]

excellent demo of that debacle. Thanks

[TXnMA]

"Quick question though. Can the Navy track Navy vessels while AIS is off?"

Follow-up answer: This CNN (yeah -- I know...) video report seems to indicate that the Navy is now having its vessels turn their AIS transmitters on when they are in heavily-trafficed areas outside of port...

Just another FWIW data point...

TXnMA
 

[Larry Lucido]

I have to admit it’s getting hard to keep up. I wasn’t sure whether they were talking about a collision between the Crystal Ship and the Edmund Fitzgerald, or a collision between the Jim Morrison and the Gordon Lightfoot.

[Openurmind]

Who could argue with this unnecessary billboard of HTML that just screams “I am the BIGGEST Bull in the pasture! OOH RAH!” I had already backed off because I can not reveal my source. No need for this. But since you decided it necessary to bring so much attention to it let me share this...

There are things you do not know about the TRUE course of the Fitzgerald BEFORE this happened. And in no way will I ever believe that an Arleigh Burke class Destroyer allowed it’s self be ran over by a SLOW BARGE on a STEADY COURSE manned or unmanned.

Speaking of UNMANNED... Were every one of the FIVE PRIMARY DETECTION SYSTEMS on this very sophisticated war vessel OFF? Or were these ALL UNMANNED? I say they were not off and they were not unmanned. There were unknown operations in place.

There is more to this we are not being told... Something is obviously wrong with this whole picture my friend.

USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62)

Arleigh Burke class Destroyer

Sensors and processing systems:

AN/SPY-1D 3D radar
AN/SPS-67(V)2 surface-search radar
AN/SPS-73(V)12 surface-search radar
AN/SPG-62 fire-control radar
AN/SQS-53C sonar array
AN/SQR-19 tactical towed array sonar
AN/SQQ-28 LAMPS III shipboard system

[Openurmind]

Yep... And they are still not turning on when they are supposed to in many cases.

[dfwgator]

One of my favorite Doors songs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1sLx1tjPY

[Larry Lucido]

Walter: ‘First order of business is to find a new place to cook. Before anyone says it, no more RVs.’
Jesse: ‘I don’t know, the Crystal Ship did pretty good for us.’
Walter: ‘The Crystal Ship?’
Jesse: ‘Yeah, that’s what I called it.’

[rlmorel]

By gosh, I think you are right there. It sure looks like it could be that equipment! Doesn’t change much, but interesting to see a detail you hadn’t picked up on, or hadn’t seen.

[rlmorel]

I don’t know about the AIS being off...I am an Airedale! But I gave it some thought, and using standard military logic...I would think it would be off by default when at sea.

I would have thought that to be the case because...why transmit movements of our ships? Why give our foes real time data as to where are ships are and what kind of ships they are?

But as you referenced in another post...the Navy has indeed changed its policy on this, and I don’t think you are giving much away. After all, in crowded sea lanes, there are a lot of eyes that know just who and what you are.

I bet they don’t have AIS turned on during operations outside those crowded sea lanes, though.

[rlmorel]

Don’t be too hard on TXnMA on this, he has spent a lot of time researching it, and I think his analysis is some of the best out there.

Using HTML formatting is a necessity in trying to convey complicated data, IMO, and this whole scenario has a lot of data elements.

Without rehashing it all, I doubt it is a plot of any kind. It was a sad failure of leadership. As someone who grew up in a Navy family and did a tour myself, it saddens me to think of it, because in the end, it was a bunch of people asleep at the wheel.

Bottom line, all that great equipment is no good if people aren’t appropriately trained and led. And they weren’t.

Both you and TXnMA want the truth out of this, and it is why things like FR are really valuable to us.

[rlmorel]

This gCaptain article backs up the CNN report: CNO: U.S. Navy Ships Told to Turn AIS Transmitting ‘ON’ in High-Traffic Areas

That makes sense to me, but the crews can still screw things up even with that unless they get back to disciplined seamanship.

[TXnMA]

I suspect the AIS Transmit ON/OFF decision will remain with the vessel's captain -- depending on how safe he wants to feel -- or how many court proceedings he feels like dodging... '-)

Both Fitz and McCain were in areas where I'd definitely have the AIS ON, if it were my call. But in Op areas, I'd definitely shun making my ship a located target...

[TXnMA]

Speaking of "disciplined seamanship", would you happen to know the source of that article that revealed the gender makeup of the Fitz Bridge and Combat crews -- and revealed the personal rift between them?

IIRC, that was the same one where the OOD testified that her last command was for "hard left rudder" and "Full/Flank speed ahead" -- and that she failed to sound the collision alarm.

It also covered the lack of lookouts and failings of the Mate, IIRC...

Actually, I feel sorry for that little JG OOD. She, personally, will never recover from the grief that she caused -- even though she was "hung out" with little or no crew or management support...

Of course, I'm not sure she was capable of driving a Yugo -- much less a destroyer. You'll see why I say that, soon...