Posted on 06/18/2017 6:56:07 AM PDT by ColdOne
The bodies of some of the seven US sailors missing after a pre-dawn collision off the coast of Japan on Saturday have been found, the Navy said early Sunday.
They were found in compartments below the waterline that flooded when the collision tore holes in their destroyer, the USS Fitzgerald. They died either from the impact or drowned when seawater flooded the compartments.
Most of the approximately 300 sailors on the ship were asleep at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Doesn’t look like a sideswipe. No marks along the hull. Looks pretty direct.
It was still a nudge not a broadside at speed
Given the size of the container ship and the time it takes to slow down or change course of such a behemoth, the cargo ship must have already been correcting to starboard when they made contact
My guessing
Have you ever been on a ship approaching a busy harbor at night? No? ok, then don’t speak on things you don’t comprehend. In that area of the ocean, there are literally hundreds of ships, boats, and other watercraft. In such a busy shipping lane, the US Warship as are the merchants are bound by the International rules of the road. Someone violated them. The sad thing is, even it was the merchant - the Captain of the Fitzerald will still be held accountable.
Well, the Crystal didnt keep going and plow right through the Fitz
And they sure as hell didn’t come to a dead stop to exchange jnsurance information or the cargo ship would have lost complete control
So a glancing blow as they were turning away looks possible
No scrapes or extended crushing along the Fitz suggests she was stationary at time of impact
........well, I have been on a US Navy warship (USS Haynsworth DD) as its radarman going down the Mississippi River at night heading for open water enroute to Mayport, Fla. to reload the ships magazines with 5 inch shells.
Going down the Mississippi at night in heavily congested river water was at least very similar to the level of challenge facing the Fitzgerald.
So, based on that experience, I can tell all with total confidence that under NORMAL circumstances this crash was absolutely avoidable. The radar I was manning that night was at least 50 years old relative to 2017 equipment but it painted a totally clear picture of ships in the river big and small.
So, based upon my experience “conditions” were not “normal” on board the Fitzgerald preceding impact. A person or persons were not doing their job when this happened or the radar was down. If it WAS DOWN, that’s a whole nuther can of worms, and much worse for the captain.
I’ve seen reports that the major damage was below the waterline. Berthing areas on small ship are below the waterline with the exception of chiefs and officers. The fact the ship lost power even with two separate engine rooms also indicates major damage.
Has anyone published the detailed AIS tracks from the cargo vessel?
I’ve only seen a low-res. newspaper graphic.
Very impressive..!
Go on ahead and give me the very basics of ship navigation, KLUTZ..!
This oughta be good.
Knock it off. This is a site for discussion, not insults.
Apparently, you are unaware of the Navy term "watch". There are ALWAYS qualified personnel in position around the clock to man the Deck, Engineering (propulsion&other systems), Bridge/Navigation, Command Information Center (CiC), Weapons, Communications (Radio), Aviation departments and their respective divisions within said departments.
If fact, when even in a friendly port, they didn't allow the entire crew ashore for liberty. There must be enough personnel to get the ship underway in case of emergency or direct orders from the top. In my day, it was about a third of the crew stayed aboard and alternated "duty days" for liberty. That applied even my home port of San Diego which I think was every 4th "duty day".
The problem was not about enough man power, but seems to be something else. I won't speculate on what occurred just yet, but something is not right here. It wasn't about too many sleeping crew. BTW, large commercial vessels have the same kind of rotating watches.
I agree from looking at the damage. If a direct broadside, the mass and inertia of the commercial vessel could have cut the Fitz in half, or enough damage to sink it. Plus, there would have been much more damage to the ACX.
I said most of the crew - this was was reported - that most were sleeping including the Captain
Not all of the crew
and yes, i understand “ watch “ duty because during 10 years of joint service I pulled my share in various agencies and during deployments
I have also heard that if there was any tactical maneuvering going on or any sign of a threat the Captain as a minimum would be on the bridge and few if any crew would be sleeping
Though i have only been on watch at sea on my own private vessel during overnight offshore passages and while at anchor
So at 2:30 AM with no alerts of a threat while stationary , off the shiiping lanes , in a holding area in the lee of several small islands, 65 miles off the harbor entrance - how much of the crew was on watch vs in quarters or on routine duty below deck?
As for the cargo,ship crew of 20 how many of them were on the bridge or on watch at 2:30am - “ most”?
This is the biggest difference between USN and Naval Air investigations. In NA if the pilot survives he might not be at fault. If he dies it is pilot error. In the USN no matter what the CO is always at fault and rightly so.
We can only guess here but absent some huge failure of sensors and navigation systems, I’d think that the cause of the accident vis’a’vis the Fitzgerald is a lack of a timely command decision. Even with a sensor failure, you could look out the window. I’ve read that visual conditions were clear at the time.
If the AIS track that keeps getting posted is accurate it appears that the merchantman was driving a very erratic and confusing course. ARPA wouldn’t give a good plot. AIS would have been all over the place with course, speed and rate of turn changes. Visual observation would have shown several aspect changes by her lights. This alone would indicate a vessel in trouble, perhaps NUC that would cause me to stand well clear and not keep steering into danger. A crewman should have been given the task of tracking and reporting specifically that target.
local reports indicate she was underway, but the news and coast guard have yet to get any info from USN. It’s all tied up with the SOFA agreements and will likely require a joint investigation. Philipine flagged shipped was being operated by a Japanese company.
The U-turns are being explained as after the collision. Collison was closer to 1:30 AM rather than 2:30 as originally indicated. Uturns seem to show that the ship returned to collision area, likely to try to render assistance if needed. That would also indicate an overtaking up until the turn away from the 1:30 collision point when they slowed and turned south.
Newer reports this morning seem to say the CO may have been in his stateroom - which would mean the OOD did NOT follow standing orders. However, until we get the log info public we’ll not know for sure.
See if I can get type up the local article later this evening if I get a chance.
Meeting an old buddy that works on the base later this week - may be able to get some additional scuttle-butt then.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/world/2017/06/17/us-sailors-found-dead-destroyer-collision-freighter-japan
Two of the Fitzgerald’s berthing areas were flooded after the collision, which occurred at 2:30 a.m. local time Saturday, a time when most of the crew would have been asleep.
The Fitzgerald was about 64 miles south of Yokosuka when the Crystal rammed nose-first into the destroyer’s starboard, or right, side. It was a clear night, but the crash occurred in a busy sea lane.
Photographs showed the side of the Fitzgerald caved in about a third of the way back. The Navy said the collision inflicted significant damage to the destroyer above and below the waterline, flooding berths, a machinery area and the radio room.
Under international maritime rules, a vessel is supposed to give way to another one on its starboard side, and the damage indicates that the Crystal was to the Fitzgerald’s starboard, and therefore had the right of way.
Not if it was an overtaking vessel
You’re right, its clear it was T-boned... so how does a big lumbering tanker T-bone a destroyer? The destroyer is 10 times as nimble.
Why do we hear no details about this ‘accident’ ? No drawings, no computer generated re-enactments?
wtf?
Sorry, that hardly qualifies you as any expert in US Naval Warship watches. My 11 years as an Aviation Boatswains Mate does. Plus, even the Captain gets to sleep. Again, that's why Navy warships have around the clock watches, so others can get some rest after long hours of their specific duties. Even ground grunts are relieved to recuperate.
"So at 2:30 AM with no alerts of a threat while stationary , off the shiiping lanes , in a holding area in the lee of several small islands, 65 miles off the harbor entrance - how much of the crew was on watch vs in quarters or on routine duty below deck?"
Not sure those are the facts as yet.
As for the cargo,ship crew of 20 how many of them were on the bridge or on watch at 2:30am - “ most”?"
You really believe that a super cargo ship has only 20 crewmen? Those humongous transports operate by the same Maritime rules as any US Navy ship regarding watches. Your short stint as the "Skipper" of your boat dis-qualifies your input. Unless you served on a Navy frigate or above, you have no idea how the system works.
Still, I don't understand why the CIC mid-watch personnel with all their Aegis gear didn't see the freighter coming, not to mention the separate radar on the bridge. Aegis DD's don't miss anything with their state-of-art systems. That's why they are the best in the world.
Something is wrong here, but it's not because too many were sleeping with too few manning the systems as you imply. Watch, Watch, Watch. I had my fill of watches after my regular 12 hour flight deck duties.
My take: The CIC watch officer and the OOD on the bridge had a simultaneous fuck up.
Never claimed to have been on a navy watch at sea just as you never spent time pulling the watches Or running the duties I held over 10 years but we might have exchanged message traffic
Im sure it was exciting to be at on watch sea
it was also exciting to be in the watch center in back during the Iran- Iraq war when we were talking real time to tankers being escorted through the Persian gulf while the Rev Guard boats were harassing them and the Silkworm batteries were lighting up - i left that watch pcs just 3 days before the Vincennes “ incident”
among other interesting times
I have pulled all nighters not in a watch but on a tiller at sea near shipping lanes in a small craft scanning the horizon to make sure I wasnt going to get run down by some moving light on the horizon or needed to alter course to stay out of the way, so sure as hell don’t know why these guys got in trouble with all their experience manpower training and resources
So yeah i have no idea how the system works
The cargo crew of 20 info came from a news story quoting the Japanese Coast Guard -
Aside from the patronizing i think we’re on the same team or used to be
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.