Navy Destroyer tee boned by a Freighter?

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. c. Re: post #240. I was NOT suggesting that those enlisting or who have served in the military as a career/training option are worth less or doing anything less than those who joined for patriotic reasons.

 

[Brooksie]

Yes, and no.

In open waters the vessel to starboard is the "stand on" vessel. Meaning it should maintain its course and speed. The vessel to port should navigate so as to avoid a collision.

However there are other circumstances such as rule of tonnage, deep draft vessel in a restricted channel. sail vs. power, etc. etc.. Chapmans is a great resource.

Over all these is one overriding rule - all captains MUST do everything in their power to avoid a collision. So even if you have right of way, you should conduct yourself in the boating version of defensive driving!

There are even grey areas there. For example if you are the stand-on vessel but believe the other vessel and your's are about to collide and you take evasive action by changing speed or course, and then a collision occurs since the other vessel was also takin evasive action, you can be assigned a percentage of the blame as you were the stand on vessel and should have held your course.

Stay safe out there!

All true but now the Crystal Captain says that when the Fitz did not respond to its "flashing lights" (whatever that means) it "made a hard right turn and hit the Fitz 20 min later" so the stand-on vessel did not stand-on and pass safely behind the Fitz, but instead, by turning stbd., insisted it was going to pass in front of the Fitz thus insuring a collision. If making the stbd. turn instead of holding course caused it to hit the Fitz, then the Crystal is at fault.

 

[koliver]

All true but now the Crystal Captain says that when the Fitz did not respond to its "flashing lights" (whatever that means) it "made a hard right turn and hit the Fitz 20 min later" so the stand-on vessel did not stand-on and pass safely behind the Fitz, but instead, by turning stbd., insisted it was going to pass in front of the Fitz thus insuring a collision. If making the stbd. turn instead of holding course caused it to hit the Fitz, then the Crystal is at fault.

Brooksie:

I think the Reuters report has it wrong, as Wxx has already pointed out "This is a translation from the gcaptain forum:

"Takeshi
This is my English translation of the same report by Reuters in Japan in Japanese.
ACX Crystal captain wrote to the company that while cruising to Tokyo bay at 18 knots, TWO watch crews of ACX found the destroyer on 40 degree port side 3NM in distance around 1:15AM. 5 minutes later the destroyer suddnely started moving and continued on thier collision course. While manually steering, ACX gave caution to the navy ship by turning on/off the light without any reaction. then decided to take hard starboard turn for collision avoidance but both ships crashed around 1:30AM."

While they may have started to turn away, given the response time required and the AIS track (real evidence) showing a sudden 90° turn to Stb, they had just started that maneuver when the collision occurred.

 

[dhays]

Really? Really?! Is their "service" any less valuable? And if they die while "taking advantage" are their deaths somehow less tragic?

That isn't at all what I got from his post. He was simply pointing out that there is a segment that enlist because they see it as being economically advantageous or necessary.

 

[menzies]

Usa! Usa! Usa! Usa!

 

[Benthic2]

I don't really care what the freighter did to be honest... Even if the freighter were trying to intentionally ram the Destroyer....it shouldn't have been able to. AND.....the captain would not be in his cabin with a collision imminent...unless they didn't know it was imminent..but how could they NOT know ??

For me all the mystery and intrigue is on the Destroyer.

 

[SoWhat]

Interesting. One thing I noted was him saying they signaled with flashing lights. No radio? No sound?

Big ships enter/leave Boston Harbor every day. Every weekend little ships try to cross the bow of the big ships. Every high tide on said weekends I hear five very loud blasts of big ship's horn. Sometimes followed by 5 more blasts a minute later.

 

[BandB]

Big ships enter/leave Boston Harbor every day. Every weekend little ships try to cross the bow of the big ships. Every high tide on said weekends I hear five very loud blasts of big ship's horn. Sometimes followed by 5 more blasts a minute later.

Plenty of horn blasts at Port Everglades too.

 

[Bigsfish]

WifeyB

Beam me up Scotty!

Not a conspiracist but there are a lot of question that seem to developing. Time will tell. We do know that navigation systems can be hacked as proven in the past. Just sayin!

 

[HiDHo]

one of the great features of this blog is the "ignore list ". Thanks

 

[Brooksie]

While they may have started to turn away, given the response time required and the AIS track (real evidence) showing a sudden 90° turn to Stb, they had just started that maneuver when the collision occurred.

I disagree, the stand-on vessel did not stand-on and insisted on passing in front of the Fitz. If they were in command they should have been aware of the Fitz well b/4 3 miles. I think the 90 degree turn in the AIS track may be the collision point and the crystal being dragged along b/4 they disengaged. A ship that size, @ 18k, could not produce a plot like that w/o help.

 

[CDreamer]

The State of Texas operates a car ferry system from Galveston Island to Bolivar peninsula. It's free - part of the State highway system.
This weekend they'll be running 5 ferries which hold around 60 cars each. I can't tell you how many boaters misjudge the (surprising) speed of the ferries and cut in front. Lots of close calls.
I know this is also a problem around Seattle, especially at night.

 

[psneeld]

Comparing this incident to small boats and small ferries.....

Well heck, I guess both the captain of a 900 foot merchie and a senior Navy officer must have just graduated the local yacht club sailing school.

Seriously?

Obviously errors were made, but come on people, put it into the proper perspective....not some kids in a sailing class.....

 

[CDreamer]

Wasn't comparing. A number of TF members had commented about moving ships. (a la posts 226, 247 and 248.). Just observing that even a car ferry can't stop or turn quickly, much less a ship.

 

[rwidman]

............ In addition, both of these vessels would likely have been equipped with AIS. ...... .

I read somewhere that Navy ships often turn off their AIS transmitters so nobody knows where they are. It makes sense but at the same time, it defeats the purpose of having AIS in the first place.

 

[kthoennes]

The State of Texas operates a car ferry system from Galveston Island to Bolivar peninsula. It's free - part of the State highway system.
This weekend they'll be running 5 ferries which hold around 60 cars each. I can't tell you how many boaters misjudge the (surprising) speed of the ferries and cut in front. Lots of close calls.
I know this is also a problem around Seattle, especially at night.

Around Vancouver BC too, with the BC ferries. They are so much faster than it looks from a distance. Even in a 50 foot charter boat last summer, if we saw one far off in the distance we still ran for our lives and gave it miles of separation. Insane to play chicken with anything in the thousands of tons.

 

[psneeld]

I wonder if the Navy is treating AIS like the early days of GPS where everyone thought it could be a big threat to our resources.Took a few years until the threat analysis was completely understood.

Whether AIS was on or off, in this situation it would be hard to believe that it was critical in avoiding the collision with all other visual and electronic means available.

There is something more...can't wait to hear what it is.

 

[Bigsfish]

One day we will know but it is strange.

??

 

[CDreamer]

I agree. After 250+ posts, let's hope there is some official information released. It really seems unlikely that these two ships, on their own courses, crashed in a fairly open area simply because they weren't paying attention. If that were true it would happen more often. Obviously there is something significant missing. The h--- of it is, the world may never know. And with 7 sailors dead, that would be a real shame.

 

[BruceK]

.. It really seems unlikely that these two ships, on their own courses, crashed in a fairly open area simply because they weren't paying attention. If that were true it would happen more often. Obviously there is something significant missing....

Indeed. In my experience odd things happen because someone did something completely unexpected by the other. Whatever it is, it should come out, eventually. Unless maybe, it gets embargoed on security grounds.

 

[SaltyDawg86]

Haha wow. The speculation and conclusions (some) are too funny here! It amazes me how many people actually think merchant ships run around with nobody on the bridge or they sleep all the time!

 

[Bigsfish]

I would expect a primilary statement soon but an official statement and final ruling may take years.

 

[O C Diver]

Haha wow. The speculation and conclusions (some) are too funny here! It amazes me how many people actually think merchant ships run around with nobody on the bridge or they sleep all the time!

I think the term is complacency and a failure to monitor the radar because you're focused on the AIS. I don't think the freighter crew saw the collision course before it happened between no AIS target and only navigation lights on the warship. None of this excuses the warships failures to avoid the situation. If the freighter had seen the warship 10 minutes in advance of the collision, it seems there should have been 5 prolonged blasts of the horn every minute until impact.

Ted

 

[psneeld]

Good point about the danger/doubt signal....cant recall seeing if the crews heard any.

More mystery.....

 

[Group9]

I think the term is complacency and a failure to monitor the radar because you're focused on the AIS. I don't think the freighter crew saw the collision course before it happened between no AIS target and only navigation lights on the warship. None of this excuses the warships failures to avoid the situation. If the freighter had seen the warship 10 minutes in advance of the collision, it seems there should have been 5 prolonged blasts of the horn every minute until impact.

Ted

That's what is strange. I have seem numerous videos of U.S. Navy ships and other (Russian, Chinese, Iranian) ships playing chicken, and nearing a collision. And, one thing you always have is the five horn blasts, again and again, in succession. It makes you think the Navy ship had no clue it was about to be hit until it happened.

But, every once in a while, all that fancy detection gear and methodology seems to suffer some kind of inexplicable failure (like the US submarine that surfaced under the ship near Hawaii and sank it accidently). Ironically, it was also a Japanese ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehime_Maru_and_USS_Greeneville_collision

 

[Wxx3]

I think the term is complacency and a failure to monitor the radar because you're focused on the AIS. I don't think the freighter crew saw the collision course before it happened between no AIS target and only navigation lights on the warship. None of this excuses the warships failures to avoid the situation. If the freighter had seen the warship 10 minutes in advance of the collision, it seems there should have been 5 prolonged blasts of the horn every minute until impact.

Ted

At night or in poor visibility, the 5 blasts may not be that helpful.

The Crystal's captain used a light because it was dark out.

Has the USN explained why they did not realize they had the collision time wrong?

 

[Wxx3]

U thought this most recent post from gcaptain was worth repeating:

"Kennebec_Captain

Is it safe to assume that a ship's captain might use the light instead of the VHF in order to avoid embarrassing the other vessel's captain by broadcasting over the VHF, a channel open to all in receiving range, and also something that would be recorded on those vessels' VDR's?

Is is also safe to assume that another case in which a ship's captain might use the light instead of VHF to signal a ship at night who isn't transmitting AIS, since they would not know who to hail on the radio? "Hello, ship near Japan, have you got yer ears on? Breaker breaker good buddy, & all that." It occurs to me that trying to hail a random ship out of maybe fifty ships which might receive the transmission might get either no response, or many responses.​

The light was used more often pre-AIS because of the time and trouble it took to communicate. Not to mention the risk of making passing arraignments with the wrong ship. Now with AIS the VHF is more often the go to tool to sort out complex traffic situations with another ships, for example two ships approach each other while weaving through a fishing fleet.

With fishing boats without AIS it likely not worth the time to try and contact via VHF. Say I'm meeting a large vessel port to port and overtaking a fishing vessel to stbd, with bad water to stbd, the F/V starts to creep in on me a quick flash of the light "hey I'm here" most often does the trick. Unlike the 5 short blasts the light is specific to a single vessel.

Under stress people tend to revert to old habits, if the crew used the light frequently but not the whistle that might explain that reaction, of course they "should have" used the whistle as well.

27182:
Y'all attract a lot of attention when a big news event happens and your industry might benefit by adding some additional context for the broader than normal audience.​

Yes, that's true, but most people don't read long posts, I sail foreign deep-sea, world wide. Taiwan Strait, Korean Strait, South China Sea, Japan Sea, Singapore Strait, Gulf of Thailand all involve encountering heavy, mixed fishing boat / large ship traffic, a little more to it than saying follow COLREGS."

 

[Robin]

Perhaps because of the stealth nature of the radar target from FItz that Crystal saw on their radar they assumed it to be a much smaller vessel like a fishing boat and a light was a good way of waking it up to look their way? If you hide behind stealth technology and turn off AIS transmissions and ignore those from others like Crystal who the world can clearly see WAS transmitting, then you need to make sure the lookouts actually do..... look out. Crystal would have been a massive target on any radar screen, let alone one on a high tech warship, if somebody bothered to look.

 

[twistedtree]

I think the term is complacency and a failure to monitor the radar because you're focused on the AIS. I don't think the freighter crew saw the collision course before it happened between no AIS target and only navigation lights on the warship. None of this excuses the warships failures to avoid the situation. If the freighter had seen the warship 10 minutes in advance of the collision, it seems there should have been 5 prolonged blasts of the horn every minute until impact.

Ted

If you take the freighter crews account at face value, they were aware of the navy ship, and it was not underway. Then it suddenly got underway, thereby creating a collision course. The freighter was the stand on vessel, so their job was to stand on until other action was required to avoid a collision. That's what they did, while signaling the navy ship. There is no account of radio calls or sound signals, but that doesn't mean there were none.

When it became clear that alternate action was required to avoid a collision, the freighter made a hard turn to stbd, which is the correct action to take. Sometime after that the ships collided.

Granted, we don't have all the info, but from what's available, the freighter did everything right except meet their ultimate objective of doing whatever is needed to avoid a collision. They tried, but didn't succeed. And although the navy has been silent, all indications are that they were primarily at fault. If they were not at fault, I expect they would be less silent, but that's just a guess on my part.

 

[Bigsfish]

I certainly wouldn't read the Navy's silence as a sign of guilt. Let's wait until the investigation is complete before laying blame.