The AIS plots you posted here are outdated, and #26 updates the plot -- and totally revises your conclusion (and my earlier one...)
reed13k and KC Burke have it right.
And so it is alway found to be.
Aside from my comedy, here is an exchange on Vessel of Interest that many concede may have some of the detail or might be as close a guess as we have now:
Anonymous18 June 2017 at 12:52:00 GMT-4
US Surface Navy vet here. I don’t see any analysis of the actions of the USN vessel here. With the limited amount of info here combined with what my experience as the OOD of a USN cruiser, this is what I see.
On the USN ship you have multiple people tracking the paths of all contacts.
There are standing orders from every CO as to when to contact him should a ship be on track to pass within a couple thousand yards. If it is REALLY close, the CO usually will come up to the bridge.
Junior Officers have been (ahem) known to prefer to NOT wake the old man if at all possible and will adjust course to stay out of the “notify the Captain” parameters.
Also, late watches can sometimes slacken and contacts do sometimes sneak up on you - especially if folks are tired after a demanding exercise etc.
Anyway, the rules of the road state that if a contact is on track to pass in front of you from right to left, they have the “right of way.” We would often try to radio the merchant, but often there was no response or a language barrier. We never expected a merchant to change course - unless we had the right of way. For them, time and distance are money, they have a very specific route and don’t like to change it.
My guess, from the location of impact, is that the USN vessel tried to cut IN FRONT of the merchant instead of what would normally happen - pass behind it.
Major screw-up.
And if the CO was in his cabin (as appears to be the case) and not on the bridge, he was either notified of the contact and didn’t come up (unlikely), or his OOD thought he could handle it with a “hold my beer” judgement call.
My 2 cents.
Reply
Replies
FlyingSailor18 June 2017 at 16:18:00 GMT-4
Same thoughts here. 11 years at sea, 3 as a CO. The fact that the vessels this size got that close without the CO on the bridge says something.
Brion Boyles18 June 2017 at 17:30:00 GMT-4
Agreed. Retired QMC here, 20 years deployed on ships out of homeports in Far East. Practically impossible for the destroyer to suffer that damage and not have been the give-way vessel. Standing out of Tokyo Wan, they may have been just changing watches from Sea and Anchor/nav detail to normal at-sea watch and this contact somehow got lost in turnover confusion, but several people were not watching what was going on...or several people’s watches no longer EXIST. The Navy has been relying more on computers for nav and target solution, combining jobs on the bridge and reducing watch team members. not the FIRST time this has bitten them in the ass. MK 1 MOD 0 eyeballs and common sense have given way to trusting digital readouts. Either this is a simple case of that, or there is a LOT MORE negligence to this story.
Vicara18 June 2017 at 21:32:00 GMT-4
I am a civilian, and not in the shipping industry. My interest in this case stems from the issue of accountability, and because I am a Filipino. (The Crystal was registered as a Philippine vessel, with Filipino.) This updated NYTimes story reports that the CO of the Fitzgerald was in his stateroom at the time of the collision, and that he will likely be relieved of his command for what may have been a failure in communication aboard his ship. I hope that the actions taken by the civilian ship will be fully investigated as well. Human accountability is important.
Do they ?
USS Fitzgerald collision wasn't reported for nearly an hour, Japan says
A track of the much-larger container ship's route by MarineTraffic, a vessel-tracking service, shows it made a sudden turn as if trying to avoid something at about 1:30 a.m., before continuing eastward. It then made a U-turn and returned around 2:30 a.m. to the area near the collision.