A Question for Sailors

[k0ua]

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.

Well, we need to try to fix it. Several people died, and a bunch more were injured. Not to mention the monetary loss.

 

[Wagtail]

Oh, I agree James. And it will be 'fixed'... for this and some related scenarios. Each Service has a "Safety Department" (whatever it may be called) that investigates and recommends corrections. One of the largest (and thickest) manuals is the Safety Manual. I did a 3 year posting in Canberra at NavSafe, so I know. It's called the "Swiss Cheese Model"... all the 'holes' (potential hazards/problems) have to line up for an accident to occur.

But there'll always be a next time, you just hope that you're vigilant enough to catch it in time and fill in the holes.

 

[bindian]

Well, we need to try to fix it. Several people died, and a bunch more were injured. Not to mention the monetary loss.

James,
Don't say try. We need to fix it.
hugs, Brandi

 

[rustyshakelford]

I'm still in the camp that the fitz was disabled by the container ship and it turned around and rammed them. If you do some digging, the evidence is there. In this day in age, the possibility of the crew of the fitz not being alert is simply not possible. They were electronically attacked and I feel the government will never admit that our fleet is subject to this threat.

The container ship hit the fitz square on. It doesn't have any evidence like it was underway when hit due to the minimal lateral damage to the ship. Looks like a straight up broadside hit on a stationary object. I have no doubt trump will handle business and punish those that hurt our guys and gals

Brett

 

[smstonypoint]

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.

Any idea of the number of people manning the bridge of a modern destroyer while it is underway?

Steve

 

[smstonypoint]

I just stumbled on this article about autonomous cargo ships: Norway Takes Lead in Race to Build Autonomous Cargo Ships - WSJ.

Steve

 

[3930dave]

I just stumbled on this article about autonomous cargo ships: Norway Takes Lead in Race to Build Autonomous Cargo Ships - WSJ.

Steve

For me, that leads to a shopping link. I noticed this morning that there is an optional box to check when loading links on TBN, to (hopefully) prevent extraneous detours.

Might just be my end (normally stable..... well, the laptop at least ) , but I won't click on link pages unless they look exactly like what I expect....

But - re. what your link title says..... great..... now we have megaton shlps as targets for hackers....... well, that should make real-estate within 6 blocks of a harbour less expensive !

Rgds,

D.

 

[smstonypoint]

For me, that leads to a shopping link. I noticed this morning that there is an optional box to check when loading links on TBN, to (hopefully) prevent extraneous detours.

Might just be my end (normally stable..... well, the laptop at least ) , but I won't click on link pages unless they look exactly like what I expect....

But - re. what your link title says..... great..... now we have megaton shlps as targets for hackers....... well, that should make real-estate within 6 blocks of a harbour less expensive !

Rgds,

D.

Hmmmm? The link takes me to Viglink and I then have to make another click to continue to the WSJ.:confused3:

Steve

 

[k0ua]

Hmmmm? The link takes me to Viglink and I then have to make another click to continue to the WSJ.:confused3:

Steve

It looks like TBN has installed a browser hijack.

 

[3930dave]

It looks like TBN has installed a browser hijack.

Just a guess (we'll need the mods or IT boffins to comment next), but I suspect this is not TBN. I've encountered this same problem in the past when trying to post a "newspaper" link - my work around was to just reference the "paper" name in text, as well as a text-only title to manually search for if desired.

My guess is the "papers" are using this to insert paid ads, but that's only a guess at the moment.

WSJ appears to be pay-walled (personal info being currency today....), so I suspect that end....

Rgds, D.