Discussion: US, Japan Search For 7 Navy Sailors After Collision Off Japan Coast

[arrendis]

In short, the crew of the Fitz royally fucked up.

Not necessarily. Consider this:

Since the Fitzgerald was damaged on the starboard side this would indicate that it was the burdened vessel which means it was required to alter course to starboard to avoid collision.

This would have been turning into the collision. The ‘give way’ rules indicated (turning to starboard) are for when the two ships are heading in opposite directions (you pass on the other ship’s port, or left side). Turning to starboard would not have averted this impact. It would have worsened it.

More significantly, I think the location of damage on the freighter, combined with the established low speed (3 kts) of the Destroyer, makes it clear that the container vessel was moving faster than the DD, on a roughly similar course (ie: was coming from behind and would move ahead, if their courses were such that they didn’t collide). As a result, the applicable rule becomes:

[quote]Rule 13 - Overtaking

(a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules 4-18, any vessel overtaking any other shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.

(b) A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with a another vessel from a direction more than 22.5 degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.

© When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and act accordingly.

(d) Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is finally past and clear.[/quote]

The problem comes in when you don’t know just what the initial angle of approach was—which at the moment, we don’t. The DD’s crew may be at fault. In fact, it’s quite likely they were. But they may not be, and again, it’s way too early to go declaring this an open and shut case.

[the_loan_arranger]

In short, the crew of the Fitz royally fucked up.

Not necessarily.

It’s a rule of the navy. If you’re involved in a collision you’ve fucked up. Blame is a separate matter.

[arrendis]

Well, that’s definitely true.

[horrido]

No. Don’t buy it. No for one minute. Something very simple and fundamental happened here that is usually best described as ‘shit happens’. Tech fails - we all know that. Ships like the Fitz have backups systems of backup systems, but sometimes unintended results. Bad code. Bad judgment. Who knows? What is certain is that whoever is captain of that ship will never command a ship again, whether it’s his/her fault or not.

And even 40ft boats have surface radar these days.

[losamigos]

The captain is toast, despite that he was probably asleep in his cabin.

[trcpedaller]

As a former USN officer on a simliar DD, let me say your facts and speculation are not well informed. All CO’s have standing orders pertaining to notification of ships within radar and visual range. Often these require thE Officer of the Deck (OOD) to notify the CO of any ship that will pass within 2k yards (1nm) of the ship. On first contact (visual and or radar) both the bridge team and Combat Information Center will begin plotting bearing lines and ranges to determine a target ships movement relative to their ship. It doesn’t take long to assess the maneuvering situation and best course changes to prevent a collision. An experienced OOD could probably do it accurately in his head with just a few lines of bearing.

The OOD is then responsible to call the CO regardless of the time when the Closest Point of Approach (CPA) is within 1 nm and to inform the captain of the tactical situation and recommended maneuver.

Unless there were navigational obstacles or complicating traffic factors given all the known facts, I assume the bridge/CIC and CO screwed the pooch big time.f

[losamigos]

Or possibly the OOD was communicating with the container ship and anti-collision instructions were lost in translation? Possibly one or the other was too arrogant to give way? Even in a high traffic area, it seems that the OOD and CO were the responsible party in crossing the container ship.

Second collision in about a month:

USS Lake Champlain Collision at Sea

WATERS EAST OF THE KOREAN PENINSULA (NNS) (NNS) – A South Korean fishing vessel collided with USS Lake Champlain (CG 57) while the guided-missile cruiser was conducting routine operations in international waters.
No one was injured when the fishing vessel collided with Lake Champlain’s port side, amid ship, at approximately 11:50 a.m. (+9I), May 9.

[ottis]

This incident was clearly Trumps fault, just because the buck stops with the president.

[greylady]

Would they have been tracking directly using the radar, or using radar data to update a plot board?

If they were using a plot, I could imagine someone deciding they knew the course and speed of the freighter well enough - so they moved the marker at appropriate intervals without going constantly back and forth to the radar to confirm the track. In that case, If the freighter changed course, they might not have noticed in time.

[neal_anderthal]

Seven sailors whose lives we as a nation are responsible for are probably dead. This is horrific. Still don’t understand how this could happen with the advanced equipment these ships have. Just dispiriting.