[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by skip0358

It was on the News tonight showed the freighter make a sharp upturn into the destroyer. You can also Google it ,it's online also.

USS Fitzgerald crash: Seven navy crew missing off Japan - BBC News

I see what you mean. It is under investigation. The U-Turn was 25 minutes before the collision. I do not see that they were aiming at the Naval ship though.

[Taltarzac725]

Access Denied

Some more information about this collision.

YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- A number of Sailors' bodies that were missing from the collision between USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) and a merchant ship have been found.

[CFrance]

This is our son's take/guess. He's a Maine Maritime Academy graduate, has spent many years on an outsourced naval supply ship as deck officer, and is currently working operations for a shipping company (Australia). I don't know if he knows about the U turn:

"Just from what I've read:

1.) damage to the starboard side of the Navy ship suggests the Navy ship was the "give way vessel" so most likely at fault. Especially considering all of the RADARs and navigation equipment. Also, when you are in a situation that requires "evasive action" you turn to starboard, always, so hitting squarely on the starboard side indicates they were not sure of the situation or they would have already been turning to starboard and they would have hit the other ship.

2.) the sailors that died were in a berthing compartment. My guess is the bulbous bow of the container ship struck the keel "perfectly" and opened up the bottom of ship and also caused damage that would not allow the sailors to open a hatch and get out.

3.) the impact would've thrown people down. I am guessing the Captain sustained injuries getting thrown into something on the bridge when the stem of the bow of the container ship struck the starboard side of the Navy vessel. All of the damage you can see on the pictures is damage above the waterline caused by the contact of the Navy ship with the stem. Where the damage below the waterline would have been caused by the impact of the bulbous bow; I'm guessing.

4.) This on the surface looks like gross negligence by the crew of the Navy ship. The starboard side being damaged, the amount of crew and navigation equipment on the Navy ship for early detection and avoidance, plus the VHF. Navy ships at night are dark. If you want to find one you look for the "hole" in the lights you can see. They also have RADAR absorbing materials on the hull which would return a small target on a freighter's RADAR. So essentially Navy ships have a higher responsibility in a "non-combat environment" to avoid situations like this.

It's a shame but the number of ships on the ocean are increasing and the size of ships are getting bigger. The container ship could have lost contact or never saw the Navy ship. But the Navy ship should have avoided the container ship and the sailors died due to the officers of the watch not taking early action to avoid the situation."

[stan the man]

We will never know the real story. Investigation or not, real story will not come out. For the cargo ship to turn 360 degrees probably take a couple of miles and a lot of time. First we will try and blame somebody else. When that fails we will conclude it was human error. Capt demoted and retires. Moves to Villages

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by CFrance

This is our son's take/guess. He's a Maine Maritime Academy graduate, has spent many years on an outsourced naval supply ship as deck officer, and is currently working operations for a shipping company (Australia). I don't know if he knows about the U turn:

"Just from what I've read:

1.) damage to the starboard side of the Navy ship suggests the Navy ship was the "give way vessel" so most likely at fault. Especially considering all of the RADARs and navigation equipment. Also, when you are in a situation that requires "evasive action" you turn to starboard, always, so hitting squarely on the starboard side indicates they were not sure of the situation or they would have already been turning to starboard and they would have hit the other ship.

2.) the sailors that died were in a berthing compartment. My guess is the bulbous bow of the container ship struck the keel "perfectly" and opened up the bottom of ship and also caused damage that would not allow the sailors to open a hatch and get out.

3.) the impact would've thrown people down. I am guessing the Captain sustained injuries getting thrown into something on the bridge when the stem of the bow of the container ship struck the starboard side of the Navy vessel. All of the damage you can see on the pictures is damage above the waterline caused by the contact of the Navy ship with the stem. Where the damage below the waterline would have been caused by the impact of the bulbous bow; I'm guessing.

4.) This on the surface looks like gross negligence by the crew of the Navy ship. The starboard side being damaged, the amount of crew and navigation equipment on the Navy ship for early detection and avoidance, plus the VHF. Navy ships at night are dark. If you want to find one you look for the "hole" in the lights you can see. They also have RADAR absorbing materials on the hull which would return a small target on a freighter's RADAR. So essentially Navy ships have a higher responsibility in a "non-combat environment" to avoid situations like this.

It's a shame but the number of ships on the ocean are increasing and the size of ships are getting bigger. The container ship could have lost contact or never saw the Navy ship. But the Navy ship should have avoided the container ship and the sailors died due to the officers of the watch not taking early action to avoid the situation."

Thanks for posting this. It should not be too hard to get at the facts in this matter unless someone has an agenda to cover stuff up.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Sandtrap328

Maybe one of The Villages Navy veterans can answer.

How could a US Navy guided missile destroyer collide with a container ship at 2:30 a.m. while on the open sea?

I have visited the bridge of cruise ships and have seen their radar systems. I would imagine that a Navy ship would have radar equipment at least equal to a cruise ship. The container ship also would have radar, I would imagine.

Are some court martials going to come of this or total loss of command for the skipper of the Navy ship?

This collision did not occur "on the open sea." It occurred the very busy shipping lanes approaching the port of Tokyo, the busiest shipping port in the world.

The destroyer Fitzpatrick is 505 feet long and displaces 9,000 tons. The cargo ship ACX Crystal is 730 feet long and displaces 29,000 tons. A collision between the two would understandably do the greatest damage to the smaller ship.

Now, regarding the issue of collision avoidance, one would think that appropriate equipment was in use on both ships. But, the approach to a busy port, where this collision occurred, is often highly congested with ships moving into and out of the port. Tokyo Bay is one of the most congested waters for vessel traffic in the world. There was a preliminary report that the cargo ship unexpectedly altered its course. Even a relatively agile ship, like the destroyer, might have been unable to alter course to avoid a collision by the time that the danger became apparent.

I'm sure there will be an extensive investigation.

This event brings to mind the collision of the Stockholm and the Andrea Doria, and the sinking of the Andrea Doria, 45 miles south of Nantucket Island, in 1956. And, get this, their radars first detected each other at a range of 17 nautical miles. You would have thought they could have managed to avoid each other.

Things are not always simple; especially at sea, and more especially at night.

[Taltarzac725]

U.S. Navy Identifies 7 Deceased Fitzgerald Sailors

List of the fallen sailors.

[petsetc]

I agree with CFrance that it appears the US destroyer was the burdened vessel.

40 yrs ago as a deck watch officer in the USCG, I had the opportunity to go to a commercial vessel radar school as a guest to promote a better understanding of each other. I learned that with all the training we (USCG and USN) had in plotting other ships movements, the merchants had a basic philosophy to steer on the other vessel, to fall off under the steer if overtaking and to turn to starboard (right) when approaching head on. Prior to the commercial training, I had a couple of disconcerting encounters with merchant vessels where a hard left rudder (NEVER THE CORRECT SOLUTION) seemed necessary and would have resulted in a collision on my starboard side. After spending a few days with the merchants and learning their thoughts were "you can't hit something your steering on", I (we) handled the situations with more aware caution.

[Jim 9922]

Originally Posted by stan the man

"---- When that fails we will conclude it was human error. Capt demoted and retires. Moves to Villages

I hope not. If he can't navigate a ship just think how poorly he will do in our traffic circles.

[CFrance]

I'm interested in the opinion of anyone who has had experience in shipping, as regards to this article: The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why. – gCaptain Our son who is a mariner fully believes that despite the U-turn of the container vessel, the Navy ship bears fault along with the container vessel. This article seems to agree with that, citing the COLREGS, the time of the incident and how long the chain of command takes from the bridge when the captain is not present. I remember from our 25 years of sailing that COLREGS state both vessels must take action to avoid a collision, regardless of who has the right of way and who must give way. And failure to keep watch is a fault. ("every modern admiralty court trial of ships colliding has found fault with both ships, even if one is securely anchored!")

You might have to give your email to read the article, but you can unsubscribe immediately. Plus it is a very safe site, and interesting if you have any "water" in your life other than a swimming pool. If you have trouble opening it, go to gcaptain.com and search for Fitzgerald. It's very interesting and gives a lot of information about how merchant vessels are run vs. Navy ships, and how the ships themselves are equipped and what they can do.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by CFrance

I'm interested in the opinion of anyone who has had experience in shipping, as regards to this article: The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why. – gCaptain Our son who is a mariner fully believes that despite the U-turn of the container vessel, the Navy ship bears fault along with the container vessel. This article seems to agree with that, citing the COLREGS, the time of the incident and how long the chain of command takes from the bridge when the captain is not present. I remember from our 25 years of sailing that COLREGS state both vessels must take action to avoid a collision, regardless of who has the right of way and who must give way. And failure to keep watch is a fault. ("every modern admiralty court trial of ships colliding has found fault with both ships, even if one is securely anchored!")

You might have to give your email to read the article, but you can unsubscribe immediately. Plus it is a very safe site, and interesting if you have any "water" in your life other than a swimming pool. If you have trouble opening it, go to gcaptain.com and search for Fitzgerald. It's very interesting and gives a lot of information about how merchant vessels are run vs. Navy ships, and how the ships themselves are equipped and what they can do.

I could get to the article just fine and Thanks so much for posting that very useful link to it. It has some very good information. I am a landlubber myself having only probably been on the ocean or Gulf of Mexico four times or so and these trips were all in small fishing or touring vessels. And a yacht for a re-union of sorts for University of Denver Alumni in the SF Bay area around 1985 or 1986. Condoleezza Rice - Wikipedia Not sure if she attended or not?

[valuemkt]

CFrance .. thank you .. that was an outstanding and informative article

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

This collision did not occur "on the open sea." It occurred the very busy shipping lanes approaching the port of Tokyo, the busiest shipping port in the world.

I usually count on you to stick to facts. According to Wikipedia, Tokyo is 31st busiest container port in the world.

6 of the top 10, or 7 if you include Hong Kong, are in China.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by blueash

I usually count on you to stick to facts. According to Wikipedia, Tokyo is 31st busiest container port in the world.

6 of the top 10, or 7 if you include Hong Kong, are in China.

Alas, I did not save the link to the article which made that assertion. When I state what I believe to be a fact, rather than my opinion, I strive to always have research to back it up.

However, I recall that the article that I had read did not limit its computation to container traffic, but went on to discuss other traffic, such as cruise lines, pleasure boats, and military vessels. Apparently, our Navy uses the port extensively.

In any event, since I can't locate my source, I recant the claim, and just observe that Tokyo is a busy sea port.