TXnMA
Posted on 01/12/2019 2:41:07 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"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...
Agreed. I think ACS made this deal to put it to bed.
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.
“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”.
That is exactly what happened. The Fitzgerald’s bridge and CIC watches were grossly derelict in the performance of their duties. Had they performed their duties as they should have, this incident would not have occurred.
“Knowing they cannot be seen by other vessels” Wrong. Fitzgerald is not invisible on radar. She produces a smaller radar blip on the screen, but she does produce a radar return. The collision happened at night. Fitzgerald’s navigation lights would have been on. Those lights are visible for a least 5 miles.
“The only way this could ever happen would be if the F-35 did not steer clear with responsible prudence.” That, again, is exactly what happened. The Fitzgerald did not steer clear with responsible prudence as required by Navy Regulations and International Law. The Bridge watch on Fitzgerald was complete oblivious to the reality of the situation and failed to act accordingly.
I agree but here is where I have huge questions. The Fitzgerald has numerous sophisticated detection devices that “see” just as well at night as they do anytime. And I am absolutely sure they can monitor and do monitor civilian AIS traffic themselves. How could ALL of this highly advanced instrument redundancy fail to see the Crystal? With these detection devices a visual lookout is redundant and almost unneeded in reality.
So I think the bridge watch was not oblivious to the presence of the Crystal yet for some reason refused to give right of way. Could the OOD have tried to force the Crystal to give right of way to the Fitzgerald even though they didn’t legally have the right of way? And then because the Crystal was asleep at the wheel they failed to even realize the Fitzgerald was attempting to make them give up right of way even though they had no right?
Could it have been “Just wait... We are a US Destroyer they will give way... Hold course they will give way... Oh crap! they are not giving!”. It would not be the first time we have stepped on our own foot with overconfidence.
Even if the Crystal was asleep at the wheel, to try and force right of way when you have no right of way would be the cause and sole fault.
“How could ALL of this highly advanced instrument redundancy fail to see the Crystal?” The instruments, radars, computers etc. “saw” the Crystal. The human eyes and brains that were suppose to do something reasonable with the information are the ones that failed in this incident. The equipment functioned fully, the humans did not.
you seem intent on trying to assign a reason for the Fitzgerald’s actions. She wasn’t trying to board, she wasn’t playing cat and mouse, she wasn’t playing chicken, and she wasn’t trying to force a right of way, she clearly didn’t have.
Pure and simple, the bridge watch on Fitzgerald lost the bubble, and for some amount of time didn’t have a clue as to the real situation facing them. The CIC watch failed to communicate with the bridge and aid them in the safe navigation of the ship. The Officers on watch on the bridge and CIC are responsible for the collision.
a competent watch officer with a set of field glasses, a compass repeater and an azmuth ring is all that is really required to avoid a collision at sea, in most cases. Radar, and multimillion dollar computers and AIC make the job easier, but it still requires a conscientious officer carrying out his duties to avoid a collision.
I’m going to agree and leave it at that based on the info currently available because it does indeed fit well with what we have so far.
TXnMA
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.