I Just have a question. Why did the container ship backtrack and target the Navy vessel ?
Posted on 06/17/2017 7:20:21 PM PDT by proust
So recent systems work and repairs. That’s another plausible thread in this.
First that sentence is mangled.
Second, what’s the procedure after alarms and evacuation?
First that referenced sentence is mangled.
Second, what’s the procedure after alarms and evacuation?
My understanding is that this is a very busy shipping channel - not the middle of the ocean.
So *relatively* close passes are a norm - at 3-4 miles the courses don’t actually intercept within a half-mile...then something changes late in the track.
I don’t think the Navy does that stunt any more. Not after a Navy sub hit a Japanese vessel full of students off Hawaii a decade or so ago.
Happened in February 2001, nine miles off Oahu. The submarine _Greenfield_ struck and sank a fishery training vessel full of high school students after performing an emergency surfacing maneuver for VIPs aboard the sub.
...If the Navy still performs the maneuver for training purposes, I would hope it’s strictly for training and not to impress visitors!
The other vessel tried to hit them, and missed, but went back for another try.
Great book...I read that book as well.
A little off subject, but with the state of art of CGI, I wish someone would make a movie about that entire battle. There is so much in it, failure, desperation, triumph, and even a Charge of The Light Brigade by US destroyers in a virtual suicide mission, accompanied by an inadvertent reference to the same poem in communication to Halsey (as you know from reading it!)
I wish it could be made without some POS liberal director managing to put his own spin on it.
.
Bullshit!
You can see the first pass, which missed, and the return, strike, reverse, and run for cover.
The picture in 230? I think but it's been 38 years that that type of hatch was used in places like the shaft alleys. Again another space not normally manned but checked every two hours or so by a Rover Watch. IIRC that specific type can be opened either side as the dog handles are on a shaft that goes all the wall through the bulkhead. I could be wrong but that is the only place I remember seeing that type of hatch and it was down on the 6th deck and maybe a few machinery rooms elsewhere. Then there was the typical passageway hatches that had a handle which operated all dogs at the same time.
I Just have a question. Why did the container ship backtrack and target the Navy vessel ?
Some goofy graphic from wherever means squat other than to show odd thinking.
No track of the Fitzgerald has been released, so give it up, you have been busted.
If you have legitimate track info, share where you got it from.
They didn’t. If you look at the AIS track with the speeds, you’ll see that that, at the first turn, ACX Crystal ABRUPTLY changed course and lost 6.1 knots in less than three minutes and 4,000 feet. Loaded container ships simply can’t shed speed that fast unless they’ve hit something. THE collision occurred BEFORE the U-turns, not after.
The time the Navy is reporting is wrong, and the Japanese Coast Guard is right—the collision occurred at 16:30 UTC (1:30am local), not 17:30. Most likely, Fitz tried to “beat the train,” didn’t succeed, and ACX Crystal’s autopilot began to resume course and speed. There’s a very good possibility that ACX Crystal’s bridge watch was in bed (explaining the sluggish response), but I don’t buy a deliberate attack at all. If it had been a deliberate attack at ~17:30 UTC, that means that ACX Crystal decided to hang around for another thirty minutes afterwards. If it was an intentional collision at 16:30 UTC, ACX Crystal’s track indicates that they turned around to render assistance and remain in the area for three hours. THAT makes sense.
Radio just said 3 injured sailors, IIRC including the captain, were airlifted to hospital.
From all appearances, either the Navy ship was not moving or was attempting to turn away from the container ship. Why would this be ?
Well, I was there in 2010 for a visit...and they did it again! ;)
Navy v. Tourists? LOL!
Same as with the Porter. They probably thought they could pass in front until the last moment, then tried to turn away. If ACX Crystal’s bridge was negligently unattended, it would have done nothing to avoid the collision. Fitzgerald may have been able to turn far enough to make it a glancing blow that only contacted the container ship’s port bow.
Also, a correction to my last post: If it had been a deliberate attack at 17:30 UTC, that means they had remained in the area for an hour and a half afterwards, not just a half hour.
Thanks. Merchant ships do not make manuevers like this because of the waste of fuel and time, unless something was wrong with the ship, there was a mutiny or they lost control of the ship.
The NK's have some incredible computer hackers, and this ship stopped in SK.
Since it is obvious that is not what happened, why would they state that in the articles ?
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.