Author Topic: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17  (Read 11193 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Occam

    Go RRRRRRRREDBLACKS!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 91,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,976
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2017, 23:35:15 »
The USN is reporting that all 7 sailors were found dead in flooded compartments.  RIP, matelots.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/17/us/missing-sailors-found/index.html

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,462
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2017, 23:43:00 »
Not good news.   My deepest condolences to family and crewmates.   :salute:   
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #27 on: June 18, 2017, 03:52:05 »
The damage was below the waterline.The captains cabin was destroyed by the impact. The ship had been in danger of sinking but due to the actions of the crew they saved their ship.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-stops-search-7-missing-sailors-bodies-found-055115455.html

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,824
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #28 on: June 18, 2017, 07:53:30 »
Well done, the Ship's crew.  I understand that no matter the MOSID, all are DC and firefighter first, and the Fitzgerald's crew saved the ship.

RIP to those sailors who perished. :salute:

Regards
G2G

Offline Chief Stoker

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 730,952
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,526
  • Arctic SME
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #29 on: June 18, 2017, 12:14:50 »
Its been on my mind for the last several days the seven sailors aboard the USS FITZGERALD who tragically met their end. I'm sure when they went to their racks that night, it never entered their mind of something happening to them like that.Sailing aboard a Naval Vessel is inherently dangerous proposition from fire, flood, collision or simply an accident from falling down a ladder or falling over the side. Over the years I came close to being washed over the side mid Atlantic and faced my share of near misses from potential fires and catastrophic failures of equipment. We are all trained firefighters on board and my trade specializes in situations such as Damage Control, Helo Crash firefighting among others. My current job on the training and safety at sea side of the spectrum deals with these sort of situations and this is a good wake up call for all of us to renew our efforts to mentor and train the new generation of sailors to mitigate the hazards of a life at sea.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 72,290
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,452
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2017, 15:16:08 »
The Captain's cabin was reportedly completely destroyed. Commander Bryce Benson took command about a month ago.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,518
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #31 on: June 18, 2017, 18:39:29 »
Well done, the Ship's crew.  I understand that no matter the MOSID, all are DC and firefighter first, and the Fitzgerald's crew saved the ship.

RIP to those sailors who perished. :salute:

Regards
G2G

We are all sailors first.  Float, Move, Fight
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2017, 19:41:15 »
Another account by a sailor who was in the flooding berthing compartment.Interesting that thinking they were under attack some members of the crew wen to their battale staions. :salute:

https://japantoday.com/category/national/navy-stops-search-for-7-missing-sailors-after-bodies-found

Offline WeatherdoG

  • Member
  • ****
  • 14,897
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 186
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2017, 20:28:03 »
Another account by a sailor who was in the flooding berthing compartment.Interesting that thinking they were under attack some members of the crew wen to their battale staions. :salute:

https://japantoday.com/category/national/navy-stops-search-for-7-missing-sailors-after-bodies-found

I always liked that our mess decks on CPFs are above the water line, this story really makes me appreciate it more. I can imagine few situations at sea more horrible than having your mess deck ripped open in your sleep, and sea water flooding in.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2017, 22:17:14 »
The deceased sailors have been identified. RIP

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/navy-identifies-seven-sailors-killed-in-fitzgerald-collision

According to a statement from U.S. 7th Fleet Public Affairs, the deceased included:

Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia

Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego, California

Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Connecticut

Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas

Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlosvictor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, California

Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Maryland

Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

Official 7th Fleet PR.

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1217872/us-navy-identifies-7-deceased-fitzgerald-sailors/
« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 22:29:13 by tomahawk6 »

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,462
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,524
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2017, 22:23:45 »
I always liked that our mess decks on CPFs are above the water line, this story really makes me appreciate it more. I can imagine few situations at sea more horrible than having your mess deck ripped open in your sleep, and sea water flooding in.
21 Mess on CAL, HAL, WIN and FRE are on 4 deck which puts them into the waterline.  Although I expect regardless of where your mess is located, if something comes smashing in like this, you're going to be fighting for your life.
I'm just like the CAF, I seem to have retention issues.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2017, 08:37:20 »
Interesting article from the Pacific edition Stars and Stripes concerning the aftermath of the crash. The article gives one a sense of the spirit of comradeship evident in the USN.Sailors standing watches aboard the Fitz in addition to their normal assigned duties on their own ships.

https://www.stripes.com/news/flooding-weak-bulkheads-remain-problems-for-uss-fitzgerald-after-collision-1.474275#.WUfEuUhtm70

“As far as damage … I think this was greater damage compared to the USS Cole,” said Damage Controlman Chief Andrae Sutherland, who participated in emergency response efforts after the October 2000 bombing that killed 17 Americans and injured 39.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2017, 08:48:18 by tomahawk6 »

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #37 on: June 19, 2017, 20:03:31 »
The Japanese Coast Guard investigators have discovered that the Crystal delayed an hour reporting the collision. They are now asking why this delay ? Its not looking good for the Crystal as being the cause of the collision.Still early to draw a conclusion.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/japan-investigates-delay-in-reporting-us-navy-ship-collision

TOKYO — Japan's coast guard is investigating why it took nearly an hour for a deadly collision between a U.S. Navy destroyer and a container ship to be reported.

A coast guard official said Monday they are trying to find out what the crew of the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal was doing before reporting the collision off Japan's coast to authorities 50 minutes later.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #38 on: June 19, 2017, 22:44:31 »
The Japanese Coast Guard investigators have discovered that the Crystal delayed an hour reporting the collision. They are now asking why this delay ? Its not looking good for the Crystal as being the cause of the collision.Still early to draw a conclusion.

https://www.navytimes.com/articles/japan-investigates-delay-in-reporting-us-navy-ship-collision

TOKYO — Japan's coast guard is investigating why it took nearly an hour for a deadly collision between a U.S. Navy destroyer and a container ship to be reported.

A coast guard official said Monday they are trying to find out what the crew of the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal was doing before reporting the collision off Japan's coast to authorities 50 minutes later.

This article certainly explains the earlier timeline discrepancy between the initial press reports and Maritime Traffic ACX Crystal movement trace. A 0130 hrs collision clearly puts ACX Chrystal on the initial eastward track where the sharp turn to starboard happens. Her 0225 hrs report to the Coast Guard would be consistent with her returning on the westward track to the general area of the collision.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2017, 12:23:27 »
The CO of USS Stethem talks about the support effort ongoing for the Fitz crew.

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/533089/uss-stethem-co-discusses-uss-fitzgerald#

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 94,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2017, 12:44:12 »
BZ to all involved in this. They are upholding one of the highest tradition of the western navies: Service first.

This solidarity is exactly the illustration of something some of us in these forum who are from the Navy keep telling you. Where the Army often has fierce loyalty to one's regiment, the Air Force to one's community, in the Navy, loyalty is first and foremost to the actual naval service. Ship, unit, school, base or station comes second - always - and the good of the service overrides everything else.
 

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2017, 12:52:50 »
To top it off the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief Petty Officer of Navy visited the USS Fitzgerlad crew today.They also wanted to thank the JSDF and Coast Guard for their help during the aftermath of the collision.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2017, 12:56:06 »
Interesting little article on Fox that also looks at the time of the collision. I noted the item at the end which states that the vessel on the port side should give way to the one on the starboard.

Quote
Reuters pointed out that vessels at sea are supposed to give way to ships on their starboard. The report said that even though the collision occurred in Japanese waters, under maritime rules, the u.S. could claim some authority

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/20/uss-fitzgerald-us-coast-guard-to-interview-crew-container-ship-in-collision.html

This would ordinarily put the duty on the Fitzgerald to steer clear of the ACX Chrystal.

From the little that I know of the rules of navigation at sea (all of what I know can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea) the ACX Chrystal would have the duty instead if she was overtaking the Fitzgerald.

Quote
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules ... ... an overtaking vessel must keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. "Overtaking" means approaching another vessel at more than 22.5 degrees abaft[17] her beam, i.e., so that at night, the overtaking vessel would see only the stern light and neither of the sidelights of the vessel being overtaken.[11][page needed] Note that the opening words of this rule make clear that this rule overrides all other rules.

Looks to me like this whole thing is going to come down to who was overtaking who and at what angle they were approaching each other.

Any comments from those of you with real knowledge of the sea?

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2017, 13:42:44 »
Judging by the damage, the ACX was overtaking the Fitz from the starboard rear at about 50 degrees UNLESS the Fitz sped up in an effort to get ahead of the ACX.
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 94,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,821
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2017, 13:57:30 »
Fox is sensational in its reporting, but it's not necessarily that straight forward.

The rules (crossing situation vs overtaking situation) that may be at issue here are for ships in sight of one another. At this point, we don't even know (at least I haven't seen it described anywhere) the prevailing visibility conditions at the time and location of the accident: Could the two vessels see each other? If not, the crossing rule and the overtaking rule are out the window and, under rule 19, each ship involved must manoeuvre to avoid a collision.

You may want to look at my earlier post and to some of Lumber posts above also. Remember that at sea, we deal with relative tracks, that is there is a resulting track that is the effect of the combination of both ship's movement. It is that resulting track that determines many situations. One such effect is that, as a general result but not always, two ships on a collision course will create a resulting "relative" track that will be on a constant bearing from one another. As I described earlier, when that constant bearing is at or near the cut off point for being in an overtaking or crossing situation, it is sometimes difficult to assess the situation. That is why Rule 13 states that if you are not sure, you should act as if overtaking.

Does that resolve everything? No, not necessarily.

For instance, the Rules - ALL the Rules - apply when there is a risk of collision.  If no risk exists, then no rule applies. But things don't stay static at sea and situations evolve from normal operation of the vessels. What if (and I am speculating here, so don't take any of this as being the situation) the destroyer (D) was steaming along, was seen by the Container ship (CS) on its port bow, and the CS calculated no risk as they would pass the D with a mile and a half CPA (closest point of approach), but then, at three miles separation, the D made a 15 degrees planned alteration of course to starboard, creating the risk of collision?  Now we are all supposed to pay attention while at sea, but in practice, merchant ship owners are cheap, so there is likely only a single officer on the bridge and a helmsman, who is only paying attention to his heading, not traffic. So they fail to notice the new circumstances until it's too late. Etc.

Also, there are other rules applicable that can come into play, such as Rule 17 (a) and (b): Basically, when it becomes clear to you that the vessel that does not have the right of way is not manoeuvering, the stand on vessel may take any action it sees fit to avoid the collision (i.e. it is relieved from the obligation to stand on its course and speed), when it is clear that no action by the vessel who must give way will avoid the collision by itself, then the stand on vessel must also manoeuvre to avoid the collision. These two rules combined are some times referred to as the "there is no excuse for a collision at sea" rules  ;D.

Then, you have to take into consideration Rule 2 on general responsibility, which is the good mariner's practice rule. Was there a breach of it here? Who knows at this time. But a sub (b) of that rule states: "In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger." Now, more junior naval officers may not think in such terms at this point of their career, but as I have indicated above, Arleigh Burke destroyers are "stealthy" radar signature ships and that is certainly a ship limitation I would take into consideration - together with the fact that as a warship I may not be exhibiting the lights of a ship my size (for us in Canada, many UK warships too, and I don't know about the Arleigh Burke but suspect it is the case, we show a single masthead light - which would normally be associated with a ship smaller than 50 meters in length) and I am not sending out AIS info identifying me as a destroyer - in thinking about how I must be perceived by traffic around me. I would then take that into consideration in planning my own actions.

Anyway, FJAG, all this to say that it may not be as simple, clear or straightforward as Fox news makes it sound and the actual application of the rules at sea is not always clear and unambiguous, so until all the facts are known and clearly established, it is better not to cast a final judgement on liability, if any, of either party involved. 

Offline MARS

  • Mentor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 55,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 768
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2017, 14:40:32 »
crap...I lost my post...

Summary:

This things might start with Rule 1: governments deeming certain vessels to be 'special construction' (i.e. warships) and thus not being lit at night or sounding signals IAW a vessel of her dimensions;

Rule 27 might apply - if Fitzgerald was Restricted in her Ability to Manoeuvre, she would be the 'privileged vessel' in certain situations; finally:

The Collision Regulations do not apply to multiple 'situations' applying concurrently to either vessel.  If there was another radar contact or light that either vessel thought was a third vessel to which they were already reacting, there is no clear rule for that except what OGDB's comments mentioned, which vastly complicated things.

And after all of that, then add the too-common Bridge Resource Management failures into the mix that Lumber mentioned...
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 14:49:03 by MARS »
"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,597
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,501
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2017, 15:47:25 »
I'll start by saying that I know nothing of navigation at sea. I thought I saw a picture of the Crystal's route and it seemed a tad convoluted. Almost wandering with no sense of direction. Was there anything odd about the way she was maneuvering, before the collision?
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2017, 19:33:24 »
Unless Crystal approached from behind and decided to pass the DDG. Then they noticed the Fitz and hit that ship,then adjusted course away from the Fitz.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 198,004
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,450
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2017, 19:58:49 »
Unless Crystal approached from behind and decided to pass the DDG. Then they noticed the Fitz and hit that ship,then adjusted course away from the Fitz.

I'm not sure that works given the damage geometry. It looks like the Fitz was struck on the starboard side, by something coming towards it. The Crystal made contact on the port side, near the nose. That makes it appear that they were traveling abreast at some point, and one vessel swung into the other. A crossing maneuver is another possibility, but I don't see Fitz purposefully turning so tightly with Crystal that close. Odds on that Crystal banked to port and not registering the size of Fitz (actual or radar), smacked into her.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: USS Fitzgerald Collision 17.06.17
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2017, 20:11:39 »
Leadership and Damage Control video. Its very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un01zw62n70