US Destroyer collides with merchant ship

[David Morton]

I'm all for discussing sex. Perhaps it will jar my memory

[gates_cliff]

Rule 2 in addition to Rule 17 b

Rule 2

(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 precautions 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.

[tjr818]

Well after all this time someone has a plausible explanation. I am not sure he is right, but he sure tells a logical tale.

Here is the link:

http://inhomelandsecurity.com/reason-na ... t-vessels/

[Jim Davis]

And perhaps a little more "common sense" being applied.

http://gcaptain.com/u-s-navy-ships-to-t ... fic-areas/

[jen1722terry]

I happened to notice an article in the NY Times just a few days ago about how 100 hour work weeks are common for USN sailors on sea duty. Sadly, this does not surprise me.

I was in the US Army from 1971-73. My post for the last 17 months of my enlistment was the recruiting and testing station in Philadelphia. I did mental testing for the recruits and draftees. The draft had ended shortly before I was posted. The decline in the number of qualified recruits was precipitous in all service branches.

With some Navy ships requiring 5000 crew, and a strong US job market, I wonder if our Navy can get the number of enlistees they really need to man such a large Navy safely, with well rested and alert crews.

Just some history from an old veteran. FYI

Cheers!

Terry

[John Stone]

There is a big difference between the military of 1973 and 2017. It's an all volunteer force now--some would say all recruited force. These days, the personnel in all the services are very well educated. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head but but there were a lots of troops without high school degrees in the 1970s. Not the case anymore. Most services won't even look at potential recruits if they don't have a high school degree. In the Marines, I am always surprised how many of our junior enlisted have college degrees. Many SNCOs have masters degrees. I was told recently that the Coast Guard has a stunningly high rate of college degrees for its junior enlisted.

The difference in the quality of the troops when I first joined the Marines in 1982 and when I retired in 2009 is breathtaking. I am sure it's the same for all the services. So I don't think getting quality personnel is the problem. Trouble like this usually comes down to leadership--at all levels. It always starts with the unit commander but it can extend up to the top of the organization. My instincts tell me a great ship captain does not have problems like we are seeing because he or she addresses challenges by leadership and training.

A couple weeks ago I spent a few days sailing with a new CD 36 owner, a retired Navy Bosun. He had recently recently retired after 30 years of service. He spent nearly all that time at sea to include service in all the fleets. He had served in the Burke class destroyers as well. I asked him about the collisions. I thought he would tell me it was the result of a long decline in the Navy. But he did not mince words (would you every expect a bosun to mince words?). He laid the blame on the 7th Fleet Leadership. He had some choice words which I won't repeat in a family oriented forum. Bottom line. It's not the troops (it never is). It's the leaders.

[Neil Gordon]

>>It's not the troops (it never is). It's the leaders.<<

When the same accident repeats, you look for the common thread.

As for the 100 hour work week, I did some calculations...

Start with a "normal" work week of 40 hours,
Add watches (4 on, 8 off) for a total of 56 hours
Subtract the overlap of about 13 hours

That's a base of 83 hours, which seems the minimum at-sea work week.

Turn to on Saturday and you add 5 net hours, for a total of 88.

Add in some drills, for general quarters, fire or whatever, plus some underway replenishment, and you're in the mid-90s.

That was my standard, early 1970s, for PEACETIME STEAMING. And yes, we were tired.

[SPIBob]

I did three WESTPACs in the 60's, each a six-month deployment to the Western Pacific, which in those days meant the Tonkin Gulf and the coast of North Vietnam. We would have welcomed a 100 hour work week. 120-130 was more like it. We were all sleep deprived pretty much all the time. And we would do this for 20, 30 days or more in a row before going back to port for a few days. But that still would be no excuse for getting T-boned by a freighter. There is no excuse for that. Like the Captain said. Someone was asleep at the wheel.

[gates_cliff]

Although not related to the topic, but after reading these posts, I am reminded of an incident I experienced on a flight from San Juan to DC. I was coming off a charter with a group of folks much younger than me, they all fell fast asleep from the serious partying they had been doing.

On the plane I was sitting in an aisle seat and across the aisle from me was an older gentleman with a baseball cap with WWII Veteran on it and US Navy. I had to strike up a conversation with him and he was retired from the Navy living in PR. I asked where he had served and he told me the story of first being on a Destroyer in the Med, then he went on to tell me that he was tired of being down inside a ship and heard about a new program. He joined and became one of the first UDT, "Frogmen"! I remember watching a TV show about them when I was a kid. He told some great stories including posting a sign on the beach of some island that the Marines were going to land on the next day, with something like "UDT Team 4 Welcomes the Marines to ...." Quite a character and still quite spry, he needed to hustle off the plane to get to his rental care before dark because he longer liked to drive at night. I'd have liked to buy him dinner or cup of coffee or something.

[John Stone]

Sobering summary of Navy Investigation in Defense News on the collision.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... rd%20Brief

[Joe Myerson]

Thanks, John, for posting that link. It is a sobering read. The thought that the crews of our surface-warfare fleet have inadequate seamanship and navigational skills, that communications between the bridge and the deck could break down, and that crews could "freeze" in emergency situations, should concern anybody who cares about our nation's readiness.

I never served in the Navy, but I remember my celestial navigational instructor repeating what she called the "first law of navigation" at least once in every class, "Constant vigilance."

--Joe

[Neil Gordon]

The thought that the crews of our surface-warfare fleet have inadequate seamanship and navigational skills, that communications between the bridge and the deck could break down, and that crews could "freeze" in emergency situations, should concern anybody who cares about our nation's readiness.

In one case you have a collision while the Captain is in his cabin, unaware. That's a basic breakdown in understanding a basic standing order to notify the Captain, and has little to do with seamanship and navigational skills. In the other case, skilled crew members weren't asked to man their "special sea and anchor detail" stations, so that they could sleep in an extra hour. I also don't see where having old charts [lacking the traffic separation scheme!] is the fault of the crew.