A Question for Sailors

[/pine]

This skipper's career is done; if he has 20 years in, he'd better put in his papers now. If not, he'll be skippering a desk for the balance of his time. The fault lies with the overnight watch on the Fitzgerald; there should have been someone on the bridge, particularly in such busy waters. It's not going to be pleasant for the guy who didn't show for his shift; heads will roll for many on board the Fitz that night.

Probably so...but not necessarily...the navy has a history of covering for favorite sons etc.,etc...* (see below)

IMO it's absurd to even consider that neither of the vessels had personnel on watch (let alone radar watch alarms)...IMO it's most likely a case of one or both of the watch crews assuming the other vessel was going to take evasive action...

*...as for the navy and history of cover ups...just ask john mccain...I had friends on the USS Forrestal...both survivors and fatalities...they know the truth and those still living will tell you about the big cover up that saved mccain's butt...BTW...my father was a POW for 3 years and I have NO respect for j. mccain...!

 

[PILOON]

Could it be that the navy vessel was 'electronically cloaked' and the merchant ship's radar did not see it?

Fighter aircraft have that feature and I understood some navy ships also have the capability.

 

[smstonypoint]

You know, we put men on Cargo vessels so that they can avoid collisions (and collusions ) , and keep the machinery in good order. The dang ship could pilot itself all the way across the pacific, as some of our drones have done, and it could come into port and dock itself too. But they ARE manned. Or supposed to be. Of course the stupid autopilot, when it hits something is just going to throw on more power because of the speed loss of pushing a DDG thru the water sideways. And of course it will resume the base course when it can.

pacific -- adjective -- peaceful or helping to cause peace

Pacific -- noun -- short for Pacific Ocean

Sincerely,

 

[k0ua]

pacific -- adjective -- peaceful or helping to cause peace

Pacific -- noun -- short for Pacific Ocean

Sincerely,
View attachment 513289

I should have know better than to spar with the master. mea maxima culpa

 

[smstonypoint]

I should have know better than to spar with the master.

As a result of my mistake yesterday, my auxiliary membership in POEM (Professional Organization of English Majors) has been suspended. I have appealed the decision and hope to improve my chances of winning my appeal by pointing out grammatical errors at every opportunity.


Steve

 

[k0ua]

As a result of my mistake yesterday, my auxiliary membership in POEM (Professional Organization of English Majors) has been suspended. I have appealed the decision and hope to improve my chances of winning my appeal by pointing out grammatical errors at every opportunity.


Steve

I am so sorry Steve. Being censured by one's own professional organization is a bitter pill to swallow. And being brought low by such a blatant offender such as myself is almost more than one can bear.

 

[3930dave]

This give you a hint of the technology available but people can still mess up even with this level of information.

Later,
Dan

I've posted in another thread about a parallel problem in commercial aviation. People have become used to automatic systems doing the "thinking", and planes have been flown into the ground or a vertical stall due to a relatively minor error in an automatic system. In an older, less "advanced" era, many of these crashes probably would have been avoided by a competent pilot.

There's also the problem of data "smog". With a blizzard of information coming at you, it can be easy for a critical piece of information (esp. one that the system hasn't been programmed to escalate appropriately) to be obscured.

A common expression is "being in the loop". A comment by a military commander about modern drone technology stuck in my mind - he said something to the effect "The tech is advancing fast enough that it is difficult to keep the human operators on the loop".

Modern tech systems can often routinely accomplish amazingly complex activities. One thing that concerns me as tech advances is people effectively abrogating responsibility, well, for pretty much everything.

In benign real-world situations, I'll often say "what did people blame things on, before computers were around.... ?". With fatalities involved, the question becomes even more important, IMO.

Most organizations are attracted to replacing human capital with tech, as much as possible. I haven't read about the weather conditions in this incident, but it's sad to think that even the most junior sailor on-board could have visually spotted the problem that the automatic systems apparently missed. (I'm assuming that both ships had navigation lights illuminated at the time of the collision).

My comments above concern a fault related to native bugs or lapses in control programming. If a hack was involved, that highlights the need for engaged human oversight even more.

Rgds, D.

 

[TCJatko]

I've posted in another thread about a parallel problem in commercial aviation. People have become used to automatic systems doing the "thinking", and planes have been flown into the ground or a vertical stall due to a relatively minor error in an automatic system. In an older, less "advanced" era, many of these crashes probably would have been avoided by a competent pilot.

There's also the problem of data "smog". With a blizzard of information coming at you, it can be easy for a critical piece of information (esp. one that the system hasn't been programmed to escalate appropriately) to be obscured.

A common expression is "being in the loop". A comment by a military commander about modern drone technology stuck in my mind - he said something to the effect "The tech is advancing fast enough that it is difficult to keep the human operators on the loop".

Modern tech systems can often routinely accomplish amazingly complex activities. One thing that concerns me as tech advances is people effectively abrogating responsibility, well, for pretty much everything.

In benign real-world situations, I'll often say "what did people blame things on, before computers were around.... ?". With fatalities involved, the question becomes even more important, IMO.

Most organizations are attracted to replacing human capital with tech, as much as possible. I haven't read about the weather conditions in this incident, but it's sad to think that even the most junior sailor on-board could have visually spotted the problem that the automatic systems apparently missed. (I'm assuming that both ships had navigation lights illuminated at the time of the collision).

My comments above concern a fault related to native bugs or lapses in control programming. If a hack was involved, that highlights the need for engaged human oversight even more.

Rgds, D.

Isn't this the truth; Air France 447 is a classic example. The pilots continued to attempt to climb with the aircraft in a full stall.

 

[TCJatko]

Probably so...but not necessarily...the navy has a history of covering for favorite sons etc.,etc...* (see below)

IMO it's absurd to even consider that neither of the vessels had personnel on watch (let alone radar watch alarms)...IMO it's most likely a case of one or both of the watch crews assuming the other vessel was going to take evasive action...

*...as for the navy and history of cover ups...just ask john mccain...I had friends on the USS Forrestal...both survivors and fatalities...they know the truth and those still living will tell you about the big cover up that saved mccain's butt...BTW...my father was a POW for 3 years and I have NO respect for j. mccain...!

There's too much at stake here: new SECDEF and President will be looking for real answers. I'd say the skipper will be very lucky to be able to retire in grade. Commander Benson isn't an academy grad; he's toast IMHO.

 

[rustydollar]

Probably so...but not necessarily...the navy has a history of covering for favorite sons etc.,etc...* (see below)

IMO it's absurd to even consider that neither of the vessels had personnel on watch (let alone radar watch alarms)...IMO it's most likely a case of one or both of the watch crews assuming the other vessel was going to take evasive action...

*...as for the navy and history of cover ups...just ask john mccain...I had friends on the USS Forrestal...both survivors and fatalities...they know the truth and those still living will tell you about the big cover up that saved mccain's butt...BTW...my father was a POW for 3 years and I have NO respect for j. mccain...!

Live video coverage of that tragic day the USS Forrestal caught fire

Trial by Fire: A Carrier Fights for Life : United States Navy : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive