Navy Destroyer tee boned by a Freighter?
- Thread starter Pluto
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
psneeld
Guru
In any profession, the true pros require a higher standard of their peers than the usual....isnt our justice system supoosed to be a jury of your peers? Often in the military, you are better off in civilian court.
But every profession has occuoants with titles and less than perfect morals.
The Navy is very quick to relieve Commanding Officers, often when there is doubt the CO was truely responsible. Politically correct hasnt been as invasive in the Merchant ranks historically, but seems to be catching up.
Wifey B: 90% on any test is actually a very high standard. Depending on test taking ability, many will miss 5-10% on material they know thoroughly. There are very few professions that require scores that high. Also, some of those best in testing may not be as skilled at applying knowledge. In terms of Col-Regs, some may get bogged down in minutia and overlook the first responsibility of avoiding an accident while in a deep discussion of who is right under the regs.
I agree with one statement made by the writer and that is that there's almost definitely some guilt on the part of both parties. I don't buy however that he has all the details and the cause totally figured out at this point with many key facts still missing.
Just remember that nearly 50% of all doctors rank in the bottom half of their profession. Same with lawyers, teachers. Just meeting the minimum qualifications isn't what it's really all about.
LarryM
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,069
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Pelago
- Vessel Make
- Wellcraft 3300 Coastal
Wifey B: 90% on any test is actually a very high standard. Depending on test taking ability, many will miss 5-10% on material they know thoroughly. There are very few professions that require scores that high. Also, some of those best in testing may not be as skilled at applying knowledge. In terms of Col-Regs, some may get bogged down in minutia and overlook the first responsibility of avoiding an accident while in a deep discussion of who is right under the regs.
Here is an interesting bit of FAA Data showing the Pass Rate and Average Score for various FAA Written Knowledge Tests. The latest data are from 2014. 2015/2016/2017 are not readily available.
Here's the link.
I thought this might help illustrate how high a 90% pass/fail threshold really is.
2014 Airmen Knowledge Tests
Total Volume - 129,204
Volume, Pass Rate/Average Score
Air Transport Pilot Airplane (14 CFR part 121)
25,610, 92.67%/85.56%
Air Transport Pilot Airplane (14 CFR part 135)
1,644, 86.86%/79.75%
Commercial Pilot Airplane
8,322, 96.60%/86.87%
The actual pass/fail threshold for FAA Airmen Knowledge Tests is 70%.
Last edited:
Wifey B: 70% is the pass rate in most schools and is for most professions that have to pass tests.
Wxx3
Dauntless Award
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,820
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Dauntless
- Vessel Make
- Kadey Krogen 42 - 148
This accident is not about COLREGS.
You do not have to know any COLREGS to avoid a collision.
It's about being able to look at the window and use some common sense.
The fact the the Fitz in a heavy traffic lane was not transmitting AIS is plain stupid.
In a few hours, the Russians, Chinese and w=whoever else cared would be able to see the boat with eyeballs.
It's about an Officer of the Deck, driven to inaction for whatever reason, when that boat could have turned in less than 30 seconds.
Unlike the Crystal, they had the AIS information and it should have been obvious that they were going to pass in front of the Crystal with little to no room to spare.
Those of us here on this forum have all had to get out of someone's way at some point.
We just did what we had to do. We didn't consult the COLREGS first (well probably most of us didn't)
You do not have to know any COLREGS to avoid a collision.
It's about being able to look at the window and use some common sense.
The fact the the Fitz in a heavy traffic lane was not transmitting AIS is plain stupid.
In a few hours, the Russians, Chinese and w=whoever else cared would be able to see the boat with eyeballs.
It's about an Officer of the Deck, driven to inaction for whatever reason, when that boat could have turned in less than 30 seconds.
Unlike the Crystal, they had the AIS information and it should have been obvious that they were going to pass in front of the Crystal with little to no room to spare.
Those of us here on this forum have all had to get out of someone's way at some point.
We just did what we had to do. We didn't consult the COLREGS first (well probably most of us didn't
)
MurrayM
Guru
This accident is not about COLREGS.
You do not have to know any COLREGS to avoid a collision.
It's about being able to look at the window and use some common sense.
The fact the the Fitz in a heavy traffic lane was not transmitting AIS is plain stupid.
In a few hours, the Russians, Chinese and w=whoever else cared would be able to see the boat with eyeballs.
It's about an Officer of the Deck, driven to inaction for whatever reason, when that boat could have turned in less than 30 seconds.
Unlike the Crystal, they had the AIS information and it should have been obvious that they were going to pass in front of the Crystal with little to no room to spare.
Those of us here on this forum have all had to get out of someone's way at some point.
We just did what we had to do. We didn't consult the COLREGS first (well probably most of us didn't
Note to self...shoulder check regularly when in busy waters
Capt.Bill11
Guru
Robin
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 81
- Location
- where democracy needs no guns
- Vessel Name
- MYOB, NOSEY
- Vessel Make
- TS39
This accident is not about COLREGS.
You do not have to know any COLREGS to avoid a collision.
It's about being able to look at the window and use some common sense.
The fact the the Fitz in a heavy traffic lane was not transmitting AIS is plain stupid.
In a few hours, the Russians, Chinese and w=whoever else cared would be able to see the boat with eyeballs.
It's about an Officer of the Deck, driven to inaction for whatever reason, when that boat could have turned in less than 30 seconds.
Unlike the Crystal, they had the AIS information and it should have been obvious that they were going to pass in front of the Crystal with little to no room to spare.
Those of us here on this forum have all had to get out of someone's way at some point.
We just did what we had to do. We didn't consult the COLREGS first (well probably most of us didn't
If you choose to hide beneath the cloak of invisibility then you had best WATCH OUT!
dhays
Guru
- Joined
- May 26, 2015
- Messages
- 9,045
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Kinship
- Vessel Make
- North Pacific 43
In many ways I agree with you. I expect a high level of professionalism from our military services. For the most part, I think they provide that in spades.
I have not noticed the "oh well... **** happened" attitude that you have. I have heard folks that want to know what happened and expect that people will be held accountable. Hopefully, the right people will be held accountable.
We don't know what happened. There certainly appears to be a major failure. However, other than the Captain, I don't see how any one person could have made the errors result in a collision. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that ultimately the Navy will find that there was systemic breakdown. I would imagine that there will be some changes in the way crews and commanders are educated and trained, and that procedures will be altered.
twistedtree
Guru
This accident is not about COLREGS.
You do not have to know any COLREGS to avoid a collision.
It's about being able to look at the window and use some common sense.
The fact the the Fitz in a heavy traffic lane was not transmitting AIS is plain stupid.
In a few hours, the Russians, Chinese and w=whoever else cared would be able to see the boat with eyeballs.
It's about an Officer of the Deck, driven to inaction for whatever reason, when that boat could have turned in less than 30 seconds.
Unlike the Crystal, they had the AIS information and it should have been obvious that they were going to pass in front of the Crystal with little to no room to spare.
Those of us here on this forum have all had to get out of someone's way at some point.
We just did what we had to do. We didn't consult the COLREGS first (well probably most of us didn't
I agree with the sentiment, and feel it applies regardless of AIS or not. Radar, which is mandated on any ship that size, will show you exactly how you are going to pass any other ship, ahead or behind, how far apart, and when it's going to happen. And you can do trial maneuvers to the results of various what-if scenarios. And AIS will show it to you all over again. It's all a giant f-up, that's for sure.
78puget-trawler
Guru
Career ender for some, but life enders for others, that is the worst part.
Bob Cofer
Guru
The wild speculations of most who have never set foot on the bridge of a warship is laughable. It's good to see all of the El Faro experts have crawled back out from their holes.
7 good sailors are dead. You can bet your last dollar that an investigation of unimaginable thoroughness will be completed, blame will be placed and lessons will be learned. There is no obligation to share those facts with the public and most likely they won't be.
Good grief!
7 good sailors are dead. You can bet your last dollar that an investigation of unimaginable thoroughness will be completed, blame will be placed and lessons will be learned. There is no obligation to share those facts with the public and most likely they won't be.
Good grief!
knotheadcharters
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2011
- Messages
- 338
- Vessel Name
- Amar la Vida
- Vessel Make
- 1989 Carver Californian 48' MY
My sentiments exactly, to me these are the same that believe the CBS "Expert" that said the larger ship has the right away.
For those that have never shipped in these waters, and I know 98% haven't. You have no idea what the traffic is.
As fas as AIS being off, All USN/USNS leave it off. In the South China Sea right now ours is off and will remain off.
For the people making jokes, people lost there lives in a tragic accident. Avoidable possibly, but I'll just sit back and listen to the trawler clowns Armchair quarterback this and tell us what should have happened or what could have been done.
psneeld
Guru
Thanks for the post.
While I didn't do a case study, sounded familiar when in busy waters with traffic not always following lanes.
Multiple big boys in a tight area, simple maneuvers have multiple and complicating effects down the road.
catalinajack
Guru
My son last year finished a three year hitch aboard a destroyer. His berthing was in the same part of the ship. As for closing the watertight hatches, he explained to me that there would have not been any choice, that if they were not closed in time, the next level would have flooded and the ship would have sunk. That would have put hundreds of sailors in the water at night, most in just life vests. I think the loss of life would have been greater had the ship sunk. Plus, most, if not all, of those seven who perished may have died of impact injuries rather than have drowned. Damage control procedures are drummed in to sailors' heads. How awful for any sailor to dog the hatches knowing that shipmates may be below.
Last edited by a moderator:
Benthic2
Guru
I don't recall much "wild speculation"..just natural curiousity as to how something like this could have happened. For this to happen between two large civillian ships would be shocking...for it to happen to a Navy ship is unfathomable. I don't think anyone needs to "have set foot on the bridge of a warship" to find this objectionable. As US Citizens, we have an expectation that our Navy is capable and our soldiers and sailors are being well cared for. This incident calls both of those things into question. While its true that most of us have no idea how complex it would be to be in command of a destroyer, we know ships aren't supposed to collide. We can ask why the captain wasn't on the bridge with a collision iminent, how did these ships not see each other, and how can a 700 foot freighter disable a multi-billion dollar ship that is supposed to be able to protect itself against far more dangerous foes. In fact, it would be irresponsible of us NOT to ask these questions.
Last edited:
This accident is not about COLREGS.
You do not have to know any COLREGS to avoid a collision.
It's about being able to look at the window and use some common sense.
The fact the the Fitz in a heavy traffic lane was not transmitting AIS is plain stupid.
In a few hours, the Russians, Chinese and w=whoever else cared would be able to see the boat with eyeballs.
It's about an Officer of the Deck, driven to inaction for whatever reason, when that boat could have turned in less than 30 seconds.
Unlike the Crystal, they had the AIS information and it should have been obvious that they were going to pass in front of the Crystal with little to no room to spare.
Those of us here on this forum have all had to get out of someone's way at some point.
We just did what we had to do. We didn't consult the COLREGS first (well probably most of us didn't
It is always about the application of the COLREGS, whether you consciously think about the ordinary rules of the road (common sense) or not. especially:
Rule 5
Look-out:
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means
appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk
of collision.
Then the rules applicable to such specifics as apply in the circumstances, such as:
Rule 7
Risk of collision
(a). Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine
if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.
There are no circumstances that might "Trump" these rules.
diver dave
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2017
- Messages
- 2,570
- Location
- United States
- Vessel Name
- Coquina
- Vessel Make
- Lagoon 380
I agree with point 1. Point 2 also, unless you are a Navy. Perhaps the USN decided to "block" that S.Korean fishing boat rather than blow them out of the water.
I went on two Tiger Cruises aboard CVN 74, the USS John C. Stennis. There were two look outs posted up high in the Crows Nest. They were there 24/7, even in port. Their job was to scan forward and aft looking for anything out of the ordinary. They had multi thousand dollar binoculars, a radio and a sound powered phone communicating with the bridge. I would imagine a similar setup on the Fitz. RIP Sailor Men.
Mule
Guru
In 1969, on a Destroyer, there was a port and starboard lookout on the signal bridge. There was a lookout on the fantail. All were on sound powered phones on the same network along with the radarmen in CIC and on the bridge the guy with the grease pencil in front of the status board was in charge. The OOD had a radar screen also. The lookouts, status board guy and messenger all rotated during a watch.
I do not know how much has changed but I bet not a lot.
BTW Big Jim..what a wonderful opportunity.
Last edited:
NO
See Rule 2
Rule 2
Responsibility
(a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of
any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary
practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and
to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these
Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
O C Diver
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,868
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Slow Hand
- Vessel Make
- Cherubini Independence 45
A minor point that may be misunderstood, the Navy doesn't transmit on AIS, that has nothing to do with receiving AIS. The Navy ship may very well have been monitoring the other ships positions, but they were invisible to the freighter, on AIS.
Currently traveling through the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways. AIS is wonderful for staying out of the way of 1,000' freighters in channels less than an eighth of a mile wide.
Ted
Currently traveling through the Great Lakes and their connecting waterways. AIS is wonderful for staying out of the way of 1,000' freighters in channels less than an eighth of a mile wide.
Ted
