[TXnMA]

I'm re-posting here my DATA-based response on another thread to the ACX Crystal Captain's so-called, "report":

~~~~~~~~~~~

"The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

TXnMA:

"MOOSAKE!!!"*

Here's the AIS data:

For at least seven minutes after his '10 minutes before collision', the ACX Crystal maintained its 70-degree course -- and, then, only diverted 12 degrees. That's "hard to starboard" -- for ten minutes???

If "Captain Ronald Advincula" put such a whopping big lie re his conning of the ACX Crystal in his report, why should anyone believe this?

"...the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path."

Why, indeed????

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

("MOOSAKE"": Intoxicating drink made from milk. -- pronounced, "Moose-Hockey"...)

[Oztrich Boy]

Two possibilities

1. The Captain lied, knowing AIS data would not support it

2. Reuters reporter misunderstood

Report possibly said detected unidentified ship at 1:20. Attempted contact with signal light. When there was no response ordered hard starboard just before collision at 1:30.

[UCANSEE2]

Mysteriouser and mysteriouser.

[TXnMA]

I have serious questions re the accuracy of the Reuters report and/or the veracity of Captain Advincula's report (as published).

The navigational statement is flatly bogus -- as presented. So, IF the Reuters article accurately represents Advincula's report -- why should we believe anything he said about audible and/or visual signalling?

Take a look at my #201, here, which shows zero maneuvering by the ACX Crystal for at least seven (7) minutes of the ten (10) minutes prior to collision.

That is not what Reuters' statement re Advincula's report says...

[mad_as_he$$]

Hey “hard” is relative!