A Question for Sailors

[smstonypoint]

I have been reading about the collision of the USS Fitzgerald and a container ship off the coast of Japan: Freighter Was On Autopilot When It Hit US Destroyer.


I served in the USCG from 1965-69, and was a quartermaster aboard a 180' buoy tender from 1966-67. The buoy tender was equipped with Loran, radar, and RDF as navigation aids. When underway, the bridge was manned by the officer of the deck, a quartermaster, the helmsman, and at least two seamen serving as lookouts. The officer of the deck or the quartermaster monitored the radar. I would think a modern destroyer would have multiple radar and sonar personnel on watch while at sea.

I am having a hard time figuring how this this collision could have happened.

It is not clear which ship had the right-of-way. The container ship (Chrystal) was apparently on autopilot, but even if the destroyer had the right-of-way, it would make sense for the destroyer to take evasive action before the risk of a collision.

"The Fitzgerald is equipped with the AN/SPS-64 advanced military navigation radar, and also uses a commercial radar system to enhance the shipping traffic picture of ships in its vicinity.

Navy ships operate radar systems to detect approaching ships or submarines. Lookouts posted on the bridge are responsible for detecting ships that pose a risk of collision.

Additionally, all commercial ships over 300 tons are required under international rules to operate AIS location data. AIS information from Crystal should have been monitored by sailors on the bridge of the Fitzgerald."

Your thoughts?

Steve

 

[Thall303]

Freighter Was On Autopilot When It Hit US Destroyer

 

[smstonypoint]

Freighter Was On Autopilot When It Hit US Destroyer

That's the link I provided.

Steve

 

[bcp]

From a UK source, but should be a worldwide rule:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281965/msn1781.pdf

"This notice incorporates amendments to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, up to and including those annexed to IMO Resolution A.910(22). In accordance with the Convention, the latest amendments come into force internationally on 29 November 2003."

Rule 15
Crossing situation
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.


If both were on a sustained course and not maneuvering or evading a third vessel, it looks like the Fitzgerald violated Rule 15.

Bruce

 

[smstonypoint]

From a UK source, but should be a worldwide rule:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/281965/msn1781.pdf

"This notice incorporates amendments to the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, up to and including those annexed to IMO Resolution A.910(22). In accordance with the Convention, the latest amendments come into force internationally on 29 November 2003."

Rule 15
Crossing situation
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.


If both were on a sustained course and not maneuvering or evading a third vessel, it looks like the Fitzgerald violated Rule 15.

Bruce

That's a basic (and universal) right-of-way rule . It's not clear to me that the Chrystal had the right-of-way.

Steve

 

[rhunt]

Talk about asleep at the switch!!! Bob

 

[k0ua]

So after the collision, the merchant ship firewalled the throttle and was turned 90 degrees, and when it finally got the annoying destroyer off of its bow, it returned to base course? They said it must have been an autopilot maneuver, and no one was on the bridge because no one would do such a thing? So in merchant ships of this size, they all just go to bed and let the autopilot run the whole dang ship? Holy cow!. And the sailors on the bridge of the Destroyer were just doing what? Were there any females on board? What the sam hill were they doing,? and radar proximity alarms? Heck even my chevy has a back up alarm that chimes when you are about to hit something.

OK, so no-one on watch on the Merchantman, and everybody on the destroyer was in the head? I don't get it either.

 

[k0ua]

OK, ok, I got it figured out. There was no one on the bridge of the merchantman, and Gilligan was on duty on the destroyer! Got it. I have no other explanation.

 

[smstonypoint]

OK, ok, I got it figured out. There was no one on the bridge of the merchantman, and Gilligan was on duty on the destroyer! Got it. I have no other explanation.

Or Ensign Parker.

Steve

 

[Deere Dude]

So after the collision, the merchant ship firewalled the throttle and was turned 90 degrees, and when it finally got the annoying destroyer off of its bow, it returned to base course? They said it must have been an autopilot maneuver, and no one was on the bridge because no one would do such a thing? So in merchant ships of this size, they all just go to bed and let the autopilot run the whole dang ship? Holy cow!. And the sailors on the bridge of the Destroyer were just doing what? Were there any females on board? What the sam hill were they doing,? and radar proximity alarms? Heck even my chevy has a back up alarm that chimes when you are about to hit something.

OK, so no-one on watch on the Merchantman, and everybody on the destroyer was in the head? I don't get it either.

That's going to look good on the Captains resume! Talk about a dereliction of duty...

 

[k0ua]

There is got to be more to this story. Either that, or this was one monumental screwup from both parties. But I guess people are people, and they all have lapses in judgement.

 

[rustyshakelford]

There is got to be more to this story. Either that, or this was one monumental screwup from both parties. But I guess people are people, and they all have lapses in judgement.

I agree. I want to know how a ship got within 1000 meters of a war ship

Brett

 

[Msamt]

There's a ton more to the story, wait for a bit and it will all come out. I have spent too many hours on watch in sonar, Combat Information Center, bridge, and flag bridges of just about every type of navy vessel and one thing I know is this part of the world, at night, is tough navigation. Not as tough as straits of Malacca or the strait of Hormuz, but still tough.
Remember, only a million things can go wrong on ships underway.
MT

 

[smstonypoint]

I don't anything about navigation in those waters, my "sea" duty was confined to the Chesapeake Bay, the NC and Delmarva coasts, and one voyage to Bermuda.

The closest to a collusion I experienced occurred in the Chesapeake Bay. I was on watch when we observed a tug pushing a barge off our port bow. After noting that the tug was maintaining a constant bearing, the OOD notified the captain, who came to the bridge. The tug maintained a constant bearing and the captain relieved the OOD. We came within a hundred yards of the tug before the captain reversed engines and blasted the ship's horn. I could see the tug captain look back while going on his merry way.

I remember giving a sworn statement regarding the incident, but I never learned what discipline the tug captain received.

Steve

 

[k0ua]

I don't anything about navigation in those waters, my "sea" duty was confined to the Chesapeake Bay, the NC and Delmarva coasts, and one voyage to Bermuda.

The closest to a collusion I experienced occurred in the Chesapeake Bay. I was on watch when we observed a tug pushing a barge off our port bow. After noting that the tug was maintaining a constant bearing, the OOD notified the captain, who came to the bridge. The tug maintained a constant bearing and the captain relieved the OOD. We came within a hundred yards of the tug before the captain reversed engines and blasted the ship's horn. I could see the tug captain look back while going on his merry way.

I remember giving a sworn statement regarding the incident, but I never learned what discipline the tug captain received.

Steve

Hm... "collusion" huh... how was that tug flagged? I sure hope it wasn't Russian.....

 

[smstonypoint]

Hm... "collusion" huh... how was that tug flagged? I sure hope it wasn't Russian.....

How embarrassing. I will never live down the shame.:ashamed::ashamed::ashamed:


Steve

 

[k0ua]

How embarrassing. I will never live down the shame.:ashamed::ashamed::ashamed:


Steve

As the chief of the "police". I would think impeachment might be in order. So disappointing....

 

[smstonypoint]

As the chief of the "police". I would think impeachment might be in order. So disappointing....

I throw myself on the mercy of the court.


Steve

 

[Wagtail]

I throw myself on the mercy of the court.


Steve

Granted under the "Tit for Tat" ruling of 1958. :judge:

 

[Wagtail]

I too am waiting more information to come to light.

During my service on Frigates, Destroyers and one stint on a Replenishment Ship, a bridge watch consisted of the OOW, Boatswain's Mate and TWO lookouts. There was at least one RADAR display on the Bridge. The Operations Room (aft of the Bridge) was also manned by Radar Operators & a plotter. Depending on the class of ship, the Helmsman & Telegraphman were also on the Bridge or 3 decks below. Oh, and there was a Lifebouy Sentry on the Quarterdeck (AX).

And then the ships started relying on 'technology' and, therefore, 'minimum manning'. Towards the end of my seagoing career the Lookouts were eliminated as an 'at sea' part of the watch and the same thing happened to the AX Sentry.

Large Merchant Ships, with their minimum crew, reliance on technology and inertia just lumbered along... any 'fine' for a navigational infraction would be handled by their corporate owners.