A Question for Sailors

[Msamt]

I cannot think of any recent USN collision, grounding, or other screw up where the captain and many of the ship officers and NCOs where not canned. ...the patrol boats that got captured by the Iranians, etc

Later,
Dan

The Officer in charge of the evolution (0-3 Lt) nor were the two craft masters were not dismissed

 

[dmccarty]

Excellent examples. People tend to gravitate to IF: Got Tech = Yes, THEN: Think = No, that's what scares me....

Your first 2 examples tie into what I was getting at about what basic modern navigation should be capable of - the data was there, but not visible to the human operator - Why is the operator allowed to program a nautical auto-pilot course that passes through a land-mass ? How can NOT flagging that as a potentially lethal error be considered anything but negligent ?

Next level up, 2 moving boats.... as a control system, today, we never should have to start this thread.

Rgds, D.

You raise some good points and I think the answers is that that autopilot has no knowledge of what is on the electronic chart/chart plotter. At least on the systems I have used. They are two separate systems even though the autopilot data can be displayed on the chart plotter. I don't think the autopilots have/see the data that is contained in the charts nor do the autopilots have the intelligence to make decisions on the chart data. The auto pilots are dumb in that they just drive the boat from point to point if so programed. At least for the auto pilots I have used.

There are two different electronic chart technologies I know about. One is a digitized version of the chart while the other is simply a copy of the paper chart that can be digitally displayed. Not really explaining that well but the digitized chart is a file that contains the objects in the chart while the digitized copy is simply a copy of the chart. So it is like comparing a document contained in a word processing file, aka, the digitized chart, vs a JPG of the document. I don't think the later charts could provide data to a smart auto pilot.

At some point one would expect that the autopilot could consume the data in the full digitized chart but I don't know if that has been done yet. Even if the auto pilot was smarter, charts are NOT always accurate. Not only can entire land masses be off by miles, ie, the USN minesweeper incident, but objects on the chart can change. Even with updated charts. For instance, I have read of people who have put an auto pilot way point on a buoy, :shocked:, and then hit said buoy. The thing is, buoys can and do move. The position of the boat is not as accurate as one would believe even with GPS, yet this guy hit the danged buoy. Now, if the auto pilot was smart, and knew about the buoy position on the chart, there is no certainty that the buoy is actually at the position. So the smart auto pilot could prevent the course from going over the buoy but the buoy might not be where the auto pilot/chart thinks it is. One still has to use their Mark I eyeball. Unfortunately, too many people are driving by display and not looking out...

There are MANY boats out there without this level of computerization and not just in third world countries. One has to look. Radar will not pick up objects low in the water, especially if there is any wave height and those objects can ruin you day.

Later,
Dan

 

[smstonypoint]

A version of what happened from the Crystal's captain:EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course ...

Steve

 

[turnkey4099]

I made it to the 7:30 mark... and then my brain started to really hurt. :confused2:

All I had to do was read the title. Obvious wack job.

 

[turnkey4099]

I don't think bugs in the navigation software is the problem with this incident. I have never read of a navigation incident were a bug in the software caused an incident. However, there are plenty of incidents were the misuse of the software did cause collisions and resulted in deaths.

One of the problems with this technology, and especially GPS, is that people are trained by just using the equipment to think that what is on the chart plotter is accurate to some huge degree of precision. Now, the GPS might be accurate, but the CHART used to show the position of the vessel maybe off by miles. One of the charts used the USN minesweeper that ran aground in the PI was off but almost 8 nautical miles! This is why one should use charts from different sources and hopefully running on different redundant systems.

<snippage>

I have numerous examples of this on getting tradesmen to my house. Make appointment, no show, phone rings. I ask where they are. They went to where google told them the hosue was. Too bad that google has it mislocated by 7 MILES. Had same thing with power company and a problem tree. They insisted that there was no tree there. Location I gave them was per the mail address. They went by google and they were right. There was no tree there...3 miles away from where I told them.

 

[aczlan]

A version of what happened from the Crystal's captain:EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course ...

Steve

TOKYO, June 26 (Reuters) - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

The collision tore a gash below the Fitzgerald's waterline, killing seven sailors in what was the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen's Aden harbour in 2000.

Those who died were in their berthing compartments, while the Fitzgerald's commander was injured in his cabin, suggesting that no alarm warning of an imminent collision was sounded.

A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, the Fitzgerald's home port, said he was unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.

The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

Spokesmen from the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), U.S. Coast Guard and ship owner, Dainichi Invest, also declined to comment. Reuters was not able to contact Advincula, who was no longer in Japan.

The investigations will examine witness testimony and electronic data to determine how a naval destroyer fitted with sophisticated radar could be struck by a vessel more than three times its size.

Another focus of the probes has been the length of time it took the ACX Crystal to report the collision. The JCG says it was first notified at 2:25 a.m., nearly an hour after the accident.

In his report, the ACX Crystal's captain said there was "confusion" on his ship's bridge, and that it turned around and returned to the collision site after continuing for 6 nautical miles (11 km).

Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows that the ACX Crystal, chartered by Japan's Nippon Yusen KK, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. (Reporting by Tim Kelly; Additional reporting by Nobuhiro Kubo; Editing by Alex Richardson)

That is an interesting story. It should be interesting to see if the data recorders back it up.

Aaron Z

 

[Steave]

Had the ACX Crystal stayed on course after the warning light no collision would have happened. The Fitzgerald would have been out of the path. The ACX Crystal steered hard starboard (apparently the same direction of travel as the Fitzgerald) then hit the Fitzgerald on its starboard side 10 minutes later.

 

[smstonypoint]

An update -- but it doesn't do much to advance the narrative.

USS Fitzgerald collision: Crew 'should have spoken up' before accident, official says | Fox News

Crew members aboard the USS Fitzgerald "should have spoken up" long before the American warship collided with a massive cargo vessel off the coast of Japan last month, U.S. officials said on Friday.

"There were many people who should have spoken up," one U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing investigation, told Fox News.

<snip>

There are two navigation teams aboard every Navy warship, one on the bridge where the ship is driven and another team below the bridge in the combat information center, where a backup chart and radar team are located. This means there were two teams of sailors that missed recommending and taking "decisive and early action," the official told Fox News.

Initial investigation blames Navy for USS Fitzgerald collision - CNNPolitics.com

Preliminary findings in the investigation into the collision between the USS Fitzgerald and a Philippine cargo ship off the coast of Japan in June suggest the accident was caused by multiple errors by the Fitzgerald's crew and a failure to take action in the minutes leading to the collision, according to two defense officials.

<snip>

The initial findings are just the first stage in what is expected to be a lengthy inquiry. Both officials said the initial investigation found that the Fitzgerald crew failed to understand and acknowledge the cargo ship was approaching and failed to take any action necessary to avoid the collision. It's also not clear if the crew ever called the commanding officer to come to the bridge.


The officials say investigators are also looking at the possibility that the ship was traveling at a higher speed than expected to reach a location it was due to arrive at the next day.

Steve

 

[k0ua]

It doesn't make a lot of sense does it? What was everyone doing on the bridge and in the CIC? Was there much alcohol or pot or women on board?

 

[Wagtail]

It doesn't make a lot of sense does it? What was everyone doing on the bridge and in the CIC? Was there much alcohol or pot or women on board?

James, in my gut opinion it will have nothing to do with alcohol (US warships are 'dry')/ drugs or the gender of the Sailors...

It's a result of the modern design of 'minimum manning' the ships combined/supported with/by reliance on modern technology to achieve that end.

Put another way, today there are less people onboard the ships because they are relying on the technology to do more of the 'work'. A one-in-three or (worse, over time) a one-in-two watch system really tires a crew out over time (multiple weeks at sea). We used to sail with a lot more "Training Bunks" = extra personnel to monitor the 'situation'; in all departments. Not anymore.

Communications is another factor in a system so reliant on technology and a simple breakdown or assumption can lead to a dangerous situation. As a scenario: The Bridge watch (with their own access to the radar displays) always gets a 'call from the Operations Room' when there's a navigational hazard (another ship). But, if the ship is in a busy shipping lane with several 'contacts' being reported... one could be missed, or assumed that it was already reported in the last 'call'. On the minimum manned Bridge, the OOW may be in information overload; trying to make sense of a cluttered radar/navigational display.

And this is all happening at 0230... the Middle Watch... midnight to 4 am. Factor in the interrupted sleep and the sea-state/weather and it's a recipe for a major mistake to happen.