Printable View
The guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald in a collision with a Philippine-flagged container ship.
Damage was on the Starboard side. She could have foundered, or even sunk, but for the crew's desperate efforts to save the ship.
Maritime rules suggest vessels are supposed to give way to ships on their starboard.
USS Fitzgerald 8,315-ton vs. Container Ship 29,000 tons carrying 1,080 containers.
7 souls lost, RIP.
How could this happen?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5de2178e-1.jpg
Many factors could be at play. Some which I have heard suggested (not definitive, but possibilities) are having the tracking signature turned off, the fact that this ships signature would turn up much smaller than it actually is due to concealment technology, inadequate training for the officer of the watch, etc.
Hopefully there will be lessons learned which will help prevent tragedies like this.
Broad sided in the middle of the night. Imagine the confusion and panic. How they kept her afloat is amazing. My Daughter served in the Navy. Through her I met so many, so young and spirited.
I really feel for the Families of those lost.
Just tragic.
CH-P777
Call me a skeptic, my thoughts are it was somehow intentional. Maybe 'Lil Kim assumed control of the merchant ship? I had heard the merch was doing some oddball maneuvering ahead of the hit. Nothing would make the "midget idjit" happier than seeing the US with egg on it's face...
Russ
It does happen from time to time though, we had a couple do that over a few years too. One had a friend of mine working the engine room at the time of collision.
As a former sailor, my best guess is that some OOD, along with the rest of the duty watch and the old man, are in deep dodo.
How a small, fast, destroyer type can be hit by a lumbering merchant vessel is inexplicable unless the whole bridge watch was badly distracted or asleep.
I have to agree with Chainfire on this one. The destroyer may have been a small target for the container ship but the destroyer should have known exactly where that container ship was and been able to avoid it. All the advanced radar and tracking on that ship seems to have been for nothing.
The careers that will surely be ended will not bring back those lost by a failure in leadership. The Captain was asleep but he assigns or approves of the watch schedule, same goes for the XO, the OOD is also toast. This is an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer with the Aegis Combat System, some form of negligence was present regardless who has the right-of-way, anything come within a 1,000 yards they should have taken that ship out of harm's way. God bless our Navy and all our armed forces, it's tough to lose good people when the means to detect and avoid are provided.
Surely they'd have some type of Alarm for any impending collision or the like.
Was any type of alarm or bell, whistle or what ever set off or pulled?
Why were sailors still asleep below deck?
Sounds like even the Commander was in his cabin which was destroyed. :confused:
Was he asleep also? Shouldn't he have been told about a close/near passing? :dunno:
I wasn't Navy and don't know all procedures, but this all leads me to believe there was no on board warning that all aboard would/could hear.
He (Commander Benson) was injured and airlifted by a Japanese Coast Guard helicopter.
Some reports I read all vary on how long he commanded the Fitzgerald. Some say just since this past May (meaning just over a month~) Some say for a little more than one year.
My Daughter called me today with a Happy Fathers day greeting. I brought up this accident with her, to see if she knew anyone on the Fitzgerald, which was a negative, but did mention a fellow Corpsman who is on the Lake Champlain and had a collision last month.
I looked it up after the call to find this: May 2017 the 568 foot USS Lake Champlain a guided-missile cruiser hit a 60 to 70 foot South Korean fishing boat, near the Korean peninsula but no injuries were reported.
Conspiracy thought............. What if that Flagged South Korean fishing vessel was really a North Korean boat full of explosives...... aka a floating IED !
What the Hell is going on at this time that we are building up our Naval Forces for the Chinese and North Korean threats ? :banghead:
Again Prayers for the families of those lost.
Charlie-Painter777
P.S. Want to add: With as busy as that water way is, I'd be lite up like the 4th of July letting every one know I was there.
I read something to the effect that within Japanese waters, US Navy vessels operate the same as civilian ships. Not sure I read that right, not sure what it means but it seems to imply that combat radar, etc might have been turned off and the ship on auto pilot. If this is Navy procedure, may not be the crew at fault but higher command.
I'm sure time will tell with the investigations.
I hope it isn't some B.S. that this vessel had to operate under that may have led to the deaths of these sailors.
CH-P777
All the posturing in the world with 3rd guesses will not bring those poor souls back hopefully it was mercifully quick, we may never know the true facts but feel there will be B/S like chasing a spy fishing boat from North Korea.
Its more for the families to have closure for the ones lost.
And yes one thinks the OOTW in charge of the destroyer and the bridge crew are going to be put over a very intense flame which may end their careers.....we will wait and see sorta jogs the memory of the Voyager - ACC Melbourne collision all those years ago which was awful and saw the destroyer sunk with a heavy loss of life.
AP,
The container ship made a sudden turn shortly before the collision
The route of the container ship ACX Crystal, provided by vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic, shows that the ship made a sudden turn around 1:30 a.m., as if possible trying to avoid something, before continuing eastward.
PHOTO: A screenshot provided by vessel-tracking service MarineTraffic shows the route of the container ship ACX Crystal that collided with the USS Fitzgerald in the waters southwest of Tokyo, June 16, 2017, killing seven U.S. sailors. (MarineTraffic via AP)
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1x16_608-1.jpg
What the Hell......................
Trying to avoid........ or trying to hit ??
The fact that the Captain was seriously injured in his rack, and those sailors were killed in there bunks tells me that they never brought the ship to emergency stations before the crash. That also indicates it was likely incompetence on the OODs part than some terrorist action (as they easily could just bring the ship up to speed and avoid it in the worst case). Whoever was in charge froze when they needed to act, and unfortunately some paid the ultimate price.
With every man and his sea-dog being able to afford a basic radar for their fishing boats and pleasure cruisers these days, something was seriously amiss, if nobody on a a vessel of that class spotted, electronically, a thing the size of that commercial ship. Even were it swanning about erratically and being VERY illegal and running without lights, unlike the Fitzgerald.
The RAN has the dubious honour of more post-WW2 sinkings BY an aircraft carrier than any other navy.
HMAS Melbourne collided with and sank, the RAN Daring Class destroyer, HMAS Voyager in 1964, with the loss of 14 officers, including the commanding officer, 67 sailors and one civilian dockyard employee. This happened whilst on an exercise about 20 NM from Jervis Bay.
After repairs, Melbourne went to sea without much happening until 3 June 1969. Melbourne struck the USS Frank E. Evans as she crossed her bows in the the South China Sea. The destroyer was cut in two, with the bow section sinking rapidly. 74 sailors and officers were lost.
I also think Bruce that when the Melbourne was being towed to be cut up for scrap she broke her tow and was a rather difficult thing to capture again to continue the journey to the gas axes some ships are just cursed maybe they changed her name should never do that along with bananas on boats!!!!!
Regarding ship names, there is an old adage that dates back to the days of sail, : "Change the name, change the luck". Apparently, it cuts, so to speak, both ways.
From "that" site:
"The ship was laid down for the Royal Navy as the lead ship of the Majestic class in April 1943, and was launched as HMS Majestic (R77) in February 1945. At the end of World War II, work on the ship was suspended until she was purchased by the RAN in 1947. At the time of purchase, it was decided to incorporate new aircraft carrier technologies into the design, making Melbourne the third ship to be constructed with an angled flight deck. Delays in construction and integrating the enhancements meant that the carrier was not commissioned until 1955."
This seems to be drifting off topic.
Nope we will just fill in time until more information comes to light on exactly what they were doing and who was in the wrong, obviously something terribly wrong has occurred but which ship and who's fault we will wait to hear.
So I would not expect to hear much for a good while yet and as we do not have any facts about it apart from the erroneous activities of the container ship we are just as blind as those who were in charge of the vessels at that time........
There is a major discrepancy in time. The container ship reported the collision occured around 2:20. They later changed the time to 1:30 which is the time of the "swerve". 2:25 is around the time the ship had come back. Japan changed the time from 2:20 to 1:30 based on the container ship's change in time but the US Navy is insisting the collision occurred at 1:30.
The route of the container ship looks plausible with hitting the destroyer, swerving and then returning to see what happened. But then again it also looks plausible for seeing the destroyer swerving, and then coming back to hit it intentionally. I don't really see the second happening but the Navy is sticking with their timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz
One of the handful of survivors from the bow section was transferred to my ship. He was still a nervous wreck, and shortly thereafter went to shore duty. :surrender:
Heard on TV news, but can't find an article, that the Fitzgerald's Radio/Communications center was knocked out. SAT phones were used to call it in.
Read that Jap officials say the investigation could take 2 years.
CH-P777
Here's a good write-up, the reporting time discrepancy of over ONE hour is quite disconcerting...
Russ
The one hour difference in time could be explained due to the fact Japan doesn't follow Daylight Savings Time. If we were currently running on standard time (like Japan is) the time would have been at 2:30. Both are technically right, just depends on how you look at the clock.
The Naval types would also be reporting the "Time Zone" in their messages. This is usually carried in what is known as a "Date-Time" group.
These are six digits followed by a letter code.
Date is listed first, eg. 21, then the time, in 24hour form, followed by a three-letter month abbreviation and usually has, at the end, either "Z", signifying GMT / UST , or another letter that corresponds to "local" time. "K" is the code for the eastern seaboard of Australia, for example.
So, if I sent a message from Brisbane, at 0901 in the morning, today, the DTG would read:
210901JUNK
If five minutes later, I got a reply from London, it would be tagged:
202306JUNZ
Date-20th, because of the 10 hour time difference, thus yesterday for another fifty four minutes, 2306, for London (Greenwich) time, STANDARD, NOT daylight saving, JUN for the current month and "Z" to identify that the message was sent and tagged using GMT/UST.
The entire aviation industry, along with using English as THE standard language, uses GMT/UST for ALL scheduling and international communications. What appears on the display boards in the departure halls is a different matter.
ALL of this maritime link to Greenwich is tied up with the fact that it was the Admiralty who finally twigged that any bozo could read a sextant and sun charts, but there was no ACCURATE way to tell Longitude. Thus a competition for a clock-maker to build a ridiculously accurate wind-up clock that would be precise enough for safe navigation. This would be used in conjunction with Sun and Star charts.
Capt. James Cook was conducting "sea trials" on these during his circumnavigation. It was also handy because the times logged whilst observing the transit of Venus were of great scientific value. Previous calculations had determined the best place and time to observe this phenomenon, but without precise time-keeping and navigation, it would be completely missed. These same tools enabled a fairly accurate mapping of the east coast of Australia.
John Harrison tested the first practical chronometer in 1761 on a voyage on HMS Deptford. In a voyage of nine weeks, the total error of the chronometer was less than five seconds which was less than a mile. When I served in the USN we carried two chronometers. Chronometers were in gimbaled cases and were wound just the same number of clicks each night at 1930. Each night the Eight O'clock (not the 2000 Report, perhaps the tradition was began many years before military time) reported that the Chronometers "were wound". When I was flying B47's in SAC we carried a master watch ( I still have mine) and we used the "Rule of Thumb" that four second error equaled a one mile error. All documentation and messages were referenced to "ZULU" time. When I worked for the USN, all message DTG's were in Zulu time .
ZULU time zone is GMT time.
FWIW
Cosine 26 make a good point about "Zulu" time.
"Serious" traffic is sent and received (and logged), with that DTG form to avoid confusion, globally.
It is fairly simple mental arithmetic to convert to local time.
Back to Maritime Misadventures: anyone running a book on how many years will pass before things become clearer?
Unless things have changed since my day all Military Communications time are in Zulu
Dick
I've read that the Japanese officials estimate this investigation could take up to 2 years.
My first thought is How a US Destroyer and a hulking container ship, ever got so close to begin with ?
For two large ships to be in waters where they should expect traffic and not see each other is hard to imagine. Having modern radar and what I've read about the Aegis combat system, should provide those on watch with unprecedented awareness of other vessels.
This leads me to believe there might have been some type of problem with the incoming information from radar, navigational lights from other ships and bridge-to-bridge radio communications. If any or all of this information wasn't passed along or interpreted correctly it would change as vessels alter their course and speed.
We do know the ACX Crystal made a U-turn some time before the collision, in itself being an unusual maneuver in a congested sea lane.
Aboard the Fitzgerald you have the Commanding officer in his quarters and most sailors still in their bunks when the Crystal struck. Makes you have to suspect that there was no early warning.
Surely some type of alarm, A collision alarm (?) should be sounded to wake and mobilize the crew in such a situation. You'd think some type of alarm of a impending collision would get a CO to the bridge. Isn't it: If in doubt, contact the CO ?
I've read where the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are like the sports cars of the sea. They should be able to get out of the way of anything.
What did happen was something went wrong.
This whole thing will come down to What Didn't Happen.
Charlie-Painter777
I was a surface sailor in the USN. I saw collisions, fires, electrical shocks, people falling overboard. Being at sea is dangerous. For some of the reasons why this could happen, read this blog from a former destroyer captain: How Could This Happen? The Fitzgerald, the U.S. Navy, and Collisions at Sea
Basically, it's dark, sometimes your radar is turned off for tactical reasons, sometimes it's less effective due to weather, sometimes you are in heavy shipping lanes with dozens of tracks (other ships, boats, rowboats) going at once. If a ship suddenly changes course, you sometimes need a few minutes to determine that, by watch standers or radar. If you are both going 15 Knots, it doesn't take long to hit.
Imagine an empty shopping mall parking lot, at night, with no lights on. You turn 15 or 20 cars loose, to drive wherever they want to go by any route....not using the lanes between the parking spots. You tell them to "watch out for others", and then you let the navigation continue all night long..... That's being at sea.
Yes, ships have a collision alarm that can be sounded. Sometimes in the heat of maneuvering people forget to hit it.
Aussie 48: Correct about the "time-zone" thing in Oz military use.
All our comms-centre logs were in Zulu and there was always a "master clock" kept on that time and labeled as such. Some types even wore two watches, each neatly labeled with a time zone. The advent of digital watches with adjustable display formats greatly simplified that matter.
Daily routine on the ground; reveille, mess times, duty times, etc, were in "local" time, but all comms were tagged in Zulu.
The advent of the US GPS system changed a LOT of things. A flock of polar-orbiting satellites, each transmitting time-code, provides amazing precision in timing and navigation. "Mil-spec" system initially could locate you within ten metres accuracy or better, anywhere on the face of the planet. This is because the "good gear' uses two frequencies as opposed to the "civilian" units using one. "Civilian" ones were initially limited to 100metres accuracy, but that seems to have been improved, lately. Now, for example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within 5m circle. Major constraints or causes of error are blocking, reflection or absorption from large building in the vicinity or heavy, wet, tree canopy cover.
The accuracy of the "on-board' maps in a GPS receiver is also critical. If the folk who wrote the code that drives the maps, leave out minor roads, random geographical features, etc. things can get untidy fairly quickly. This is akin to the practice of some purveyors of paper maps for car-drivers, of leaving out minor roads. So, as you are driving at the limit, from Las Vegas to catch a flight at LAX, and counting exits etc., rally style, a "missing" road can rapidly land you in all sorts of geographical embarrassment. Having your domestic GPS receiver on the dash of the car, with no external antenna, also greatly slows down the ability of the unit to update at highway speeds, because the car's body is a pretty good Faraday cage, and thus blocks or seriously attenuates some of the signals.
I'm also ancient enough to have monitored the old "National Bureau of Standards" time signals on short wave radio; a voice droning on endlessly; "At the tone, it will be nine-forty-eight and ten seconds, precisely". and incrementally so on, every five seconds, twenty-four hours a day. They are now called WWV and are still very active, transmitting from near Fort Collins, Colorado.
See here: WWV and WWVH Digital Time Code and Broadcast Format | NIST
These days, you can synchronise your PC or portable device to a "master clock" via the internet and stay in sync / re-sync when re-connected.
Thank you for providing that article, Mr. McGrath explains with experience the factors which could be involved, food for thought but we just can't be certain until the inquiry is complete.Quote:
Originally Posted by AZshot
As a pre INS/GPS, DR/Celestial navigator I am always interested in the exact time. I have two watches and a clock that synchronize automatically with WWVH every morning at 0500.
FWIW
An interesting story of bravery being reported.
Sailor Gave His Life To Save Shipmates After Collision | The Daily Caller
It happened around 3 bells on the mid watch. You would think that seeing both green and red nav lights on the horizon at the same time would get a lookouts attention. Curious to see what the Board of Inquiry will say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainfire
As I understand it, the Crystal was overtaking the Fitzgerald and the port and starboard running lights would not be visible.
Well I must ask what was the destroyer doing if a 29,000 tonne sea slug was overtaking it!
How does one miss a ship that size it would have towered over the Fitzgerald was there any ambient light from the moon.
Do warships in time of peace have to display their running lights, or are they exempt due to the very nature of the business they conduct with having the latest gizmo's to track other craft and being able to avoid them. TIA
From another board , make no claims as to the truthfulness .
Crystal was running without lights and with an unmanned bridge .
Is this even possible ?
Chris
Movement of the ACX Crystal,
I came across this video from Vessel Finder.
Makes it appear that the Crystal was trolling around for a target.
Comments are.... interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1b58yelh_c
The latest info is that ACX Crystal was on autopilot and the bridge was unmanned. They didn't even know they'd had an impact until approximately fifteen minutes later.
MORE
Bob
I would assume that the U.S.S. Fitzgerald could "see" the dirty great container ship either visually or electronically with radar or other on board sensors. I don't really see how they can say that they were not aware of the container ship's presence, unless of course everyone on the bridge of the Fitzgerald was either fast asleep or completely incompetent. I can only assume that the Fitzgerald was under the impression that it had "right of way" but clearly the container ship either had other ideas or simply didn't see the Fitzgerald.
When watching the video I attached it looks like the impact was near Video time 1:06, Upper left corner Time Stamp was at 16:32:47.
Then the ACX takes the hard right, back left and carries on towards it's intended course. Continues until it decides to turn back (maybe now knowing it was in a collision) at Video time 1:53, Time Stamp 17:04:37... ~1/2 hour after. At Video Time 3:06 Time Stamp 17:54:17 aprox 1-1/2hr after impact, Have they reached the impact point? Or searching for a damaged vessel?
The track away to the north, followed by the Crazy Ivan, I don't understand.
Then the ACX scoots along off to port.
Very rough draft here but the time lines run close to the estimated collision times we've had reported to us.
I'll attach the video again to make it easier to look at the time lines I've posted.
Jog done these video time and time stamps, or open this in 2 windows and pass along your thoughts.
Charlie-P777
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1b58yelh_c
GEEEEZZEE,
I've seen and read so many wild theories blaming all of the above, but haven't run across anyone putting the blame on Aliens yet...
Would be entertaining if it wasn't for our lost souls.
CH-P777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
That was my first thought upon reading about this collision. More specifically, "What happened to the tens of millions of dollars worth of tracking gear on that destroyer?!"
Read this theory: Electronics aboard the Fitz were destroyed by a EMP.
Also this, sold to North Korea by China:
China's new microwave weapon can disable missiles and paralyze tanks | Popular Science
Wow! The strange thing (for me), other than that odd track, is that, prior to reading the text, I immediately recognized that as showing part of the Izu peninsula and the Sagami Bay (I always think of it as Sagami Wan) ...Quote:
Originally Posted by painter777
... just one of myriad useless nuggets of details rattling around in my skull. :)
The other day..reports said no one was on bridge of ACX cargo ship.
Today I read:
The cargo vessel's skipper, Capt. Ronald Advincula, submitted a report to the ship's owner, Dainichi Investment Corporation. The captain's statement alleges that the container ship, the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal, had "signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald 'suddenly' steamed onto a course to cross its path," according to the Reuters article.
The Crystal steered hard to starboard to avoid the destroyer, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to Advincula's report that was seen by Reuters.
My 2 concerns......... If no one was on the bridge of the ACX at the time... Who signaled with flashing lights?
Then if the Fitzgerald 'suddenly' crossed it's (the ACX) path, Why steer hard to Starboard?
Time will tell, but I smell Fish.
Charlie-Painter777
What distances would be involved given a time lapse of 10 minutes understanding its a 29,000 tonne ship could have the destroyer poured on the coal to avoid the container vessel or didn't the destroyer see the other ship.
I like a few others are trying to understand how a state of the art warship that had to have people in charge on the bridge miss a ship of that size with all the radar they have.
As I am pretty sure the radar room does not shut down after sundown and if the bridge of the container ship was devoid of human control then despite the who's wrong surely the rules mandate the bridge will be manned 24/7 if so then there may be a big law suit coming if it is proven.
Compliancy replaced Competency?
Perhaps the Captain of the cargo vessel is able to offer a plausible explanation as to why his ship appeared to follow the course shown in the video, Post42.Quote:
Originally Posted by painter777
This from Navy.Mil The Official US Navy Site
Link to this report : 7th Fleet Announces USS Fitzgerald Accountability Determinations
Story Number: NNS170817-25Release Date: 8/17/2017 11:34:00 PM
By U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs
YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- The commanding officer, executive officer and command master chief of the guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) were relieved of their duties by Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, Commander, 7th Fleet Aug, 18.
Additionally, a number of officer and enlisted watch standers were held accountable.
The determinations were made following a thorough review of the facts and circumstances leading up to the June 17 collision between Fitzgerald and the merchant vessel ACX Crystal.
The collision was avoidable and both ships demonstrated poor seamanship. Within Fitzgerald, flawed watch stander teamwork and inadequate leadership contributed to the collision that claimed the lives of seven Fitzgerald Sailors, injured three more and damaged both ships.
With absolute accountability for the safe navigation of Fitzgerald, Cmdr. Bryce Benson was relieved due to a loss of confidence in his ability to lead. He had previously been temporarily relieved of his duties due to medical reasons from injuries sustained during the collision. Benson is being reassigned to Naval District Washington at the Washington Navy Yard, where he will have access to medical facilities in the area.
Inadequate leadership by the executive officer, Cmdr. Sean Babbitt, and command master chief, Master Chief Petty Officer Brice Baldwin, contributed to the lack of watch stander preparedness and readiness that was evident in the events leading up to the collision.
Several junior officers were relieved of their duties due to poor seamanship and flawed teamwork as bridge and combat information center watch standers. Additional administrative actions were taken against members of both watch teams.
Cmdr. Garret Miller will assume command from Fitzgerald's acting commanding officer, Cmdr. John "Jack" Fay sometime mid-to-late-August.
It was also evident from this review that the entire Fitzgerald crew demonstrated real toughness that night. Following the collision these Sailors responded with urgency, determination and creativity to save their ship. Their rigorous damage control efforts and dauntless fighting in the immediate wake of the accident prevented further loss of life.
This Extra Supplemental is linked here-
Navy Releases USS Fitzgerald Supplemental Line of Duty Investigation:
Navy Releases USS Fitzgerald Supplemental Line of Duty Investigation
To me, it reads like there was no communication.
Charlie-Painter777