Update: USS Fitzgerald

[DAB]

read a book long ago, about the adventures of a couple who sailed the world in their little sail boat. they had put it on auto steer and gone to bed. they happened to wake up just in time to see a container ship bearing down on them.

maritime rules are that ships under sail have right of way over ships under power. well, that's nice, but it behooves the sail boat to get the hell out of the way of the container ship, right of way or not.

[6spdC6]

Originally Posted by DAB

read a book long ago, about the adventures of a couple who sailed the world in their little sail boat. they had put it on auto steer and gone to bed. they happened to wake up just in time to see a container ship bearing down on them.

maritime rules are that ships under sail have right of way over ships under power. well, that's nice, but it behooves the sail boat to get the hell out of the way of the container ship, right of way or not.

Something my father taught me when I was learning to drive "Being killed defending your right of way is stupid".

FWIW I,m a long time pleasure boater and I know know the rules, though it appears most boaters do not. I stood a couple watches when in the Navy and waiting to hear the WHOLE story, that is if it ever comes out!

[Fasglas]

As this subject has and will ultimately be talked to death, let's consider the most basic:

https://maritime.college/Boating-Rules.php

When power meets power

You must give way to another vessel on your starboard. (right)
If you meet head on, both vessels must turn to starboard. (right)

Really, it doesn't get any simpler.

The Crystal was on Fitzgerald's Right.
Crystal attempted to alter course to Right.

Seems Fitzgerald was at fault.

[RedLS1GTO]

Every article I read and every thread I see on this subject makes me cringe. There is so much incorrect information flying around that it is impossible to address it all.

Originally Posted by DAB

somebody asleep at the wheel.

wouldn't be the first time someone has fallen asleep on duty.

It would take much more than someone falling asleep.

Originally Posted by DAB

by maritime law, the shipping container vessel was in the right, the navy ship was supposed to give way.

It depends on the angle of approach. Was it overtaking? Crossing? Did the cargo ship turn towards?

Yes, the general rule is vessel to starboard is stand-on, but there are many exceptions to that.

Originally Posted by DAB

Gene, the navy ship can out move and out run that shipping vessel.

62 was more than likely cruising at slow speed (<12 kts) at trail shaft, which means 1 of 4 main engines online, 1 shaft driving, and 1 "freewheeling". It is the most efficient way to steam around and what is usually done unless there is a need to exceed 12 knots (which I doubt was happening).

At trail shaft and slow speed, a DDG handles like a 78 Caprice with 4 flat tires... on ice. People keep acting as if a 500+ foot long ship can turn like a Corvette. That is simply not how it works... ESPECIALLY at trail shaft.

Originally Posted by mrvette

I heard the container ship had no running lights, and so was not spotted by the bridge on our boat, that still don't esplain why radar was not noticed.....but supposedly alone at night in open ocean, I suppose they not watching too good, or worse yet....had it turned off?? or maybe just the screen dimmed??

seems to me a collision alarm would go off before it happened, but with no lights on the scene, they dunno which way to go in a big fat hurry, so to the radar screen to see WTF??

a series of guesses, BUT it comes back to that U turn.....

IF... and is a big IF the cargo ship was dark, it makes all the difference in the world. When a radar contact comes up, the 1st thing you do is verify it. Close to land and in shipping lanes, a false track is a very common thing. At night, that big ship could be completely invisible. It is absolutely amazing how things can disappear on the water. If they had a contact that showed close but no visual, the track was likely ignored or even marked as a false track.

Originally Posted by Fasglas

As this subject has and will ultimately be talked to death, let's consider the most basic:

https://maritime.college/Boating-Rules.php

Really, it doesn't get any simpler.

The Crystal was on Fitzgerald's Right.
Crystal attempted to alter course to Right.

Seems Fitzgerald was at fault.

Yea, it is nowhere even close to being that simple. As said, there is WAAAAAAY more to it than that and many many things that complicate it, not the least of which is that if the freighter was in a 10 MINUTE turn to starboard and hit damn near on the beam, it stands to reason that if it simply maintained it's original course, it would have passed astern with plenty of real estate to spare.

If 62 was moving at 12 kts (normal steaming) and the freighter made it approximately 90 degrees through it's turn (ASSumption) before hitting on the beam, it would have passed almost a mile astern had it simply gone straight.

Originally Posted by VITE1

A whole lot of WTF going on. I'll wait for more verified facts before voicing an opinion.

This. 100% THIS.

If I had to guess, 62 saw the track of the freighter and immediately calculated CPA (closest point of approach) as you do with just about every track that will get even close. With the information given about the starboard turn, they would have seen 2k+ yards in a crossing situation, deemed it safe, and moved on to something else. They had no reasonable expectation that the freighter would essentially turn into them.

If the freighter claims that they tried to avoid and had 10 minutes to make a turn before collision, were calls made over bridge to bridge? Did they sound danger? What did they do other than turn? The easiest way to avoid a collision if you have 10 minutes is to pick up the radio and ask the other guy what he is doing. I've made more of those calls in my life than I can even begin to count. It's really not that hard. There are at least 3 B2B radios being monitored at any given time to hear that call. IF 62 did essentially drive straight in front of them, the absolute LAST thing that they should have done was turn starboard. Turn to port, pass astern, and be done. Even a slight speed change would have avoided the collision. None of what is being said makes any sense.

I am not at all saying that 62 was not at fault. They may very well have f**ked up colossally but to attempt to say that as a fact as so many people (most of which have never even been on a ship, much less navigated in that environment) are doing with the information currently available is absolutely ridiculous.

RedLS1GTO - USN 2nd Fleet shiphandler of the year 2006

[Fasglas]

"Hey! I'm sailin' here. YOU turn away or stop."

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

This. 100% THIS.

If I had to guess, 62 saw the track of the freighter and immediately calculated CPA (closest point of approach) as you do with just about every track that will get even close. With the information given about the starboard turn, they would have seen 2k+ yards in a crossing situation, deemed it safe, and moved on to something else. They had no reasonable expectation that the freighter would essentially turn into them.

If the freighter claims that they tried to avoid and had 10 minutes to make a turn before collision, were calls made over bridge to bridge? Did they sound danger? What did they do other than turn? The easiest way to avoid a collision if you have 10 minutes is to pick up the radio and ask the other guy what he is doing. I've made more of those calls in my life than I can even begin to count. It's really not that hard. There are at least 3 B2B radios being monitored at any given time to hear that call. IF 62 did essentially drive straight in front of them, the absolute LAST thing that they should have done was turn starboard. Turn to port, pass astern, and be done. Even a slight speed change would have avoided the collision. None of what is being said makes any sense.

I am not at all saying that 62 was not at fault. They may very well have f**ked up colossally but to attempt to say that as a fact as so many people (most of which have never even been on a ship, much less navigated in that environment) are doing with the information currently available is absolutely ridiculous.

RedLS1GTO - USN 2nd Fleet shiphandler of the year 2006

Crystal was known to be making or had made a U turn, and they had scrapings on the port side of their bow as well as damage directly to the bow.

Just a guess, but I'm going to throw this out there, even without all facts about the incident in: The Crystal had passed well in front of the Fitzgerald from Fitzgerald's port to starboard and then made the U turn. Either Coming out of the maneuver or still in it, it had come up from the aft starboard of the Fitzgerald and was bearing down on it at such an angle and speed that the Crystal captain tried to reduce his speed and steer even harder to starboard. After the collision he continued on for an hour trying to figure out what his story was going to be. As far as running dark, I just don't know. I don't see why he would do that.

Just a guess.

[DAB]

an intentional attack with a container ship?

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by DAB

an intentional attack with a container ship?

Don't get Gene started

[DAB]

Originally Posted by OddBall

Don't get Gene started

he wakes up, sips his coffee, and he's off.....takes no priming at all.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by DAB

an intentional attack with a container ship?

When you were a kid, did you ever imagine a scenario where people would fly airplanes into buildings.....on purpose? I'm still with Gene on this.....it wuz da Mooslims.

[OddBall]

Any other uniformed hypothesis? This is VB you know; we are all brain surgeons and double-naught spy's that are sixth grade graduates.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by TxAg

5th grade here thank you very much.

Me too! But I read at a sixth grade level, so there.

[Fasglas]

Originally Posted by DAB

an intentional attack with a container ship?

Sure, why not? A fine example of speed, manuverability, and stealthiness.

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Me too! But I read at a sixth grade level, so there.

I have a fifth grade education, but I have the intelligence of a sixth grader.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

Sure, why not? A fine example of speed, manuverability, and stealthiness.

You of course say that sarcastically but in reality it may not be that crazy, especially if it was something done out of opportunity.

I can't imagine someone hopping on a Group 3 vessel and setting out with the intent to ram a US Navy ship but if they found themselves in close proximity... it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

As I said before, it is incredible how invisible a ship can become at night. Doing "light checks", I have been less than 200 yards from a 509' long ship without even the slightest visible sign of it.

If you have a radar saying 1 thing and your eyes saying another, human nature tends to favor the eyes. You could have a big flashing contact on the screen but if you look out and see absolutely nothing on that vector, it is certainly not implausible to believe that they simply chose to believe their eyes over the screen. As I said previously, false contacts occur on a regular basis.

Possible? Absolutely.
Likely? Eh...

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

You of course say that sarcastically but in reality it may not be that crazy, especially if it was something done out of opportunity.

I can't imagine someone hopping on a Group 3 vessel and setting out with the intent to ram a US Navy ship but if they found themselves in close proximity... it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility.

As I said before, it is incredible how invisible a ship can become at night. Doing "light checks", I have been less than 200 yards from a 509' long ship without even the slightest visible sign of it.

If you have a radar saying 1 thing and your eyes saying another, human nature tends to favor the eyes. You could have a big flashing contact on the screen but if you look out and see absolutely nothing on that vector, it is certainly not implausible to believe that they simply chose to believe their eyes over the screen. As I said previously, false contacts occur on a regular basis.

Possible? Absolutely.
Likely? Eh...

OK, lets go with the above, what I want to know is how you can have a false positive on a damn RADAR, the thing shoots out a signal and there has to be something there for it to reflect off of, nothing there and so no bounce....but IF something IS there, it has to reflect the signal.....and be seen....

but to have something there, especially a HUGE ship....and NOT reflect??, but I have to ASSume the radar was seeing other boats along the way or it would have been noticed and fixed.....would have to assume a sudden last second failure.....and does the warning bell sound off the radar or a secondary information source?, like another radar of maybe lesser power???

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by mrvette

OK, lets go with the above, what I want to know is how you can have a false positive on a damn RADAR, the thing shoots out a signal and there has to be something there for it to reflect off of, nothing there and so no bounce....but IF something IS there, it has to reflect the signal.....and be seen....

but to have something there, especially a HUGE ship....and NOT reflect??, but I have to ASSume the radar was seeing other boats along the way or it would have been noticed and fixed.....would have to assume a sudden last second failure.....and does the warning bell sound off the radar or a secondary information source?, like another radar of maybe lesser power???

Look at it more as a gain issue than a non-return. Many things send back radar returns in the ocean, waves, weather, even birds. On these systems, size does not necessarily convert to a different size track. A small sail boat on the screen will look just about the same as this big group 3. When a track pops up, it is ASSumed to be a valid track until it is verified that it is not. Usually these tracks pop up as something unrealistic and are easy to spot. An example is an 80 knot contact changing course every few seconds. Obvious false track... delete. The problem with this that MAY have come into play here is that once a track is deleted, it does not show up again (unless you make it show up again).

This is ENTIRELY speculation. IF... and it is a big IF... this ship was running dark it is possible that someone actually deleted the track entirely when it did not show up visually. If that happened, no matter how close it got, it never showed back up on radar and would not have triggered alarms. Personally, I wouldn't ever delete a track that "made sense", as in a reasonable course and speed, but I could absolutely see it happening.

Yes, there are multiple radars. The other that should have seen something is the AN/SPY-1D(V) (the primary fighting radar). CIC is usually concentrating on things other than navigation. That's the bridge's job. However, any TAO worth a sh*t should have at least asked the question when a track started getting close. Even if a track is "deleted" from the bridge, it will still show in combat. How/why they either missed it or didn't think it was worth mentioning, I can't explain with the information that we have.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by DAB

read a book long ago, about the adventures of a couple who sailed the world in their little sail boat. they had put it on auto steer and gone to bed. they happened to wake up just in time to see a container ship bearing down on them.

maritime rules are that ships under sail have right of way over ships under power. well, that's nice, but it behooves the sail boat to get the hell out of the way of the container ship, right of way or not.

It does, but maritime rules aren't so clear. Sailing vessels are only stand-on vessels over certain motorized vessels. When another vessel is limited in its ability to maneuver, or is not under command, it becomes the stand-on vessel. Of course, several situations exist where both vessels are stand-on and neither are give-way. That's why, in the end, it becomes every captain's responsibility to avoid a collision. But, let's face it, physics always wins.

[Scissors]

Originally Posted by Fasglas

As this subject has and will ultimately be talked to death, let's consider the most basic:

https://maritime.college/Boating-Rules.php



Really, it doesn't get any simpler.

The Crystal was on Fitzgerald's Right.
Crystal attempted to alter course to Right.

Seems Fitzgerald was at fault.

Not sure of the exact angles in this case, but if Vessel A is approaching starboard and abeam of Vessel B, then both vessels must give way. If a vessel to starboard is sufficiently aft, then you are the stand-on vessel and they are the give-way vessel (this appears initially to be the case based on pictures I've seen of the damage).

But throw in "limited maneuverability" and "not under command" and things get thornier.

Given the information available thus far, it appears that both were at fault and both should have given way.