US Destroyer collides with merchant ship

[David Morton]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/politics/ ... index.html

Please, someone explain to me how this could possibly happen? I can imagine a merchant ship falling asleep at the wheel, but a US Navy destroyer with hundreds of crew, all dedicated to the safety of the ship and crew with all the sophisticated navigational electronics at hand? How does a Navy ship even allow a civilian vessel get that close? Very curious. But I think some Navy heads will roll...

David

[grluecke]

I was fortunate enough to visit the USS Carl Vinson in the Pacific, they were launching F18s and a merchant ship was crossing off our bow. It was a couple of miles off, but the Carl Vinson was radioing them to change course, the jets had to turn as soon as the took off to keep from going over them.

The merchant ship just ignored us, our officers told me that was normal, after all, course changes cost money...

But you would think that everyone would know just where that point is that you have to give up...

"Chicken!"

[SPIBob]

I served on a destroyer, the USS Robison, DDG-12, so this story really caught my attention. The USS Fitzgerald was definitely the give-way vessel and must accept full responsibility for the collision. These mishaps usually are the result of a convergence of minor errors capped by one enormous SNAFU. I'm betting the minor errors resulted in getting too close to the merchant vessel and the fatal error was simply a left-rudder command that got executed as a right-rudder course change.

I've read of this kind of mistake happening, for example, when a warship is finished refueling from alongside an oil tanker and then the order to bear away from the tanker gets reversed and the warship bears into the tanker. It's amazing how quickly such a simple mistake results in a major collision.

Yeah, heads will roll, and they should.

[John Stone]

I've been following this story too. I spent a month as a midshipman on an FF many years ago and have almost three years of sea time as a Marine aboad amphibs so I have a lifelong interest in warships--or any ship for that matter. And while we Marines may often tease our sailor brothers and sisters they are, without a doubt, the finest most competent sailors in the world. No other country comes close. But it's a huge tragedy regardless the fault.

I gather from available info the collision took place about 0200 local. Half moon and moonrise about 0130. I don't know about cloud cover. It would appear that being struck on the starboard side the Fitzgerald was the give way vessel but its impossible to be sure without more info. There are all kinds of scenarios that come to mind: Maybe the Fitz had a complete power failure and was dead in the water. Maybe the freighter was running without lights and no one was at the helm. Maybe there was a communications breakdown and confusion over maintaining separation. Maybe there was a mechanical steering failure on one of the ships. Maybe it was intentional. Or maybe the OOD and the bridge team screwed up.

We will know a lot more in a week.

I was reading about the unfolding collision story last night in the Washington Post and I was sickened by the hateful vindictive insulting comments directed at the US Navy in the comment section. What is a matter with people?

[grluecke]

I just heard about 7 missing crew.

My earlier post was meant to be humorous, but my heart goes out to the families of the missing and the other sailors. Nothing is funny when there is loss of life.

It is, indeed, hard to understand how that could have possibly happened! Both ships undoubtedly had radar, so even if one was completely incapacitated, the other must have been able to "see". It would not be unthinkable that the cargo ship help was asleep, but I would have to think that there would be several layers of fail-safe on the U.S. Navy ship. Backup power, radar, night-vision binoculars, standing watch, ...

[John Stone]

I am not going to fault anyone till the investigation is released but I assure you that the big merchant ships have very small crews. Often there is only one person on the bridge and if they step away . . . .

I cannot count the times I have tried to hail a passing freighter at sea with no response. And I have also made contact with freighters, and even a cruise ship once, where the watch officer had to go find someone that could speak English.

I have also had great comms with commercial shipping.

We will eventually find out what things went wrong.

[Astronomertoo]

I've been following this story too. I spent a month as a midshipman on an FF many years ago and have almost three years of sea time as a Marine aboad amphibs so I have a lifelong interest in warships--or any ship for that matter. And while we Marines may often tease our sailor brothers and sisters they are, without a doubt, the finest most competent sailors in the world. No other country comes close. But it's a huge tragedy regardless the fault.

I gather from available info the collision took place about 0200 local. Half moon and moonrise about 0130. I don't know about cloud cover. It would appear that being struck on the starboard side the Fitzgerald was the give way vessel but its impossible to be sure without more info. There are all kinds of scenarios that come to mind: Maybe the Fitz had a complete power failure and was dead in the water. Maybe the freighter was running without lights and no one was at the helm. Maybe there was a communications breakdown and confusion over maintaining separation. Maybe there was a mechanical steering failure on one of the ships. Maybe it was intentional. Or maybe the OOD and the bridge team screwed up.

I was reading about the unfolding collision story last night in the Washington Post and I was sickened by the hateful vindictive insulting comments directed at the US Navy in the comment section. What is a matter with people?

-----------------
Hello all,
Agreed. We have all learned this year how sick the WaPo has become, so nothing they put in print would ever surprise me.
However, the US Navy is supposed to be better than to allow this terrible COLREG disaster: Number one rule, DO NOT allow collision! I worked aboard a 125 ft research vessel traveling back and forth across the Gulf Stream up and down Florida over 4.5 years and have stood my share of radar watches on good, and terrible nights in the stream. One thing that was drilled into us crew as we took our watch turns on the bridge, was to keep the freighter traffic in the forefront of our mind, and watch for unexpected course changes. In case of any question, call for more eyes, or wake up the Capt, if asleep. We had the typical dual radar, manual and auto range alarm set points, for keeping an eye on any approaches to our course, and the new stuff is far more sophisticated now than what we could have ever imagined back then. Any required changes in course or S-S commo was entered in the log by the responsible officer for the record. The freighters were always assumed to be running totally blind, with no one awake in the wheelhouse. YMMV. But the US Navy should have had at least 3 or more redundant smart alarming equipment and computer NAV systems warning the deck officer and the watch personnel very early on, of any possible crossing in that event. It is totally unconscionable that this could happen as it appears to have, and there are zero excuses. Many heads will roll. I am sorry for the families of those killed and drowned in their bunks, as well as many others who must have been seriously wounded below decks, as the freighter's underwater bow bulb slammed into the forward lower hull. That ship was also carrying a lot of high tech munitions which may have, or could have been adversely affected. Unbelieveable.
Be well.
BobC

[Neil Gordon]

>> The USS Fitzgerald was definitely the give-way vessel ...<<

Unless, of course, the other ship was more than 22.5 degrees abaft the beam and so was overtaking. There's a lot we don't know.

[gates_cliff]

Excellent Point Neil! The overtaking vessel is always the "give way" and the stand on vessel is to maintain course and speed.

As sailors we usually don't have to worry about that though!!!!!!

[Neil Gordon]

Excellent Point Neil! The overtaking vessel is always the "give way" and the stand on vessel is to maintain course and speed.

As sailors we usually don't have to worry about that though!!!!!!

Cliff, as a sailor, I worry about vessels overtaking me all the time! I also find that I overtake small craft that are fishing and trolling at low speed... I also do my best to overtake other sailboats.

[David Morton]

I don't believe that Coast Guard regs completely alleviate collision responsibility from the stand-on vessel based on Rules of Nav. Somehow I don't think the commanding officers of the Fitz will be relying on that argument at the Courts Martial that are sure to follow. The loss of life makes this whole incident particularly horrific. I know the Navy will not shirk its responsibility and will take home many lessons as a result. A bit of silver lining.

Meanwhile, BobC, I don't really share your opinion of the Washington Post. The comment section is not vetted by the Washington Post and is symptomatic of the internet social media's inability of hold people responsible for their sociopathic postings. But I also believe that politicizing our posts to this forum only serves to obscure our otherwise thoughtful comments.

David

[Neil Gordon]

I don't believe that Coast Guard regs completely alleviate collision responsibility from the stand-on vessel based on Rules of Nav.

Rule 17 (b): "When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision."

[Jim Walsh]

This is an excerpt from our forums Code Of Conduct;
"We are a community of boaters, so occasional general boating questions, as well as occasional personal messages that help build the sense of community, are OK. However, three topics are always off-limits: Sex, religion and politics. Any mention of these inevitably draws fuel, heat and (hot) air - the ingredients for a fire if not an explosion."

[Sea Hunt Video]

. . . three topics are always off-limits: Sex, religion and politics.

Commodore Walsh:

I am complete agreement with "religion" and "politics" being off-limits.

However, friend Jim, perhaps the bylaws committee or the rules committee or the "indecency committee" would consider deleting or substantially reducing the prohibition against the topic of "sex".

[Capt Hook]

Roberto,
Would you be willing to substitute Red Sox for sex on the tabu list?
Didn't think so.