1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Navy question guys....

Discussion in 'Topical Discussions (In Depth)' started by latemetal, Jun 17, 2017.



  1. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  2. Zed

    Zed Size doesn't count! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    9,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Nuclear Technician
    Location:
    Springfield
    For the non nautical peeps here...

    This is basically what I think happened.

    [​IMG]

    With the navy vessel approaching from behind and travelling faster.

    These where her legitimate options.

    [​IMG]

    What ever occurred she ended up with the merchant vessel in the sector to which she must always yield. The merchant vessel was correct in "standing-on", that is up to the point that a collision was obvious THEN she was compelled to take any action necessary to avoid the collision.

    [​IMG]

    The damage on the navy vessel is indefensible under maritime rules unless she was stationary or at anchor. 99.9% of the time she will be deemed to have caused the accident, no mystery there. It is a bit like hitting a car from behind, yes there can be mitigating circumstances but 99.9% of the time you are screwed and YOU wear it.

    The last rule is avoid collision at all costs. The merchant vessel will bear some responsibility in this but the lions share goes to navy!
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  3. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zed likes this.
  4. Zed

    Zed Size doesn't count! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    9,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Nuclear Technician
    Location:
    Springfield
    historyrepete likes this.
  5. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,940
    Likes Received:
    11,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've been to Yokosuka, Japan and at the base a couple times. I've overheard quite a few troubling statements from several drunken sailors.

    If war ever breaks out over there, we had better hope that the enemy is as disorganized and unprepared as we are.

    When I heard that this had happened I was not shocked. It's a bunch of college age kids who lack discipline over there. They are very disrespectful to Japan; they seem to take their job about as seriously as someone who works at McDonald's would.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
    Scorpio, Zed, searcher and 2 others like this.
  6. Thecrensh

    Thecrensh Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I spent 6 years in the Nav...can't speak about todays Navy, but in the late 80s, we did a lot of drills while at sea so just because people party hard on shore doesn't mean they don't know their job at sea. Drill, stand down, evaluate, repeat. Ugh.
     
    searcher, ArkWv and Mujahideen like this.
  7. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle
    Lame Cherry hypothesizes a terror attack

    https://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2017/06/analysis-of-uss-fitzgerald-and-acx.html
    The convoluted course the Crystal took just before the collision leads me to believe they were searching for the Fitz. The crew thought the Crystal was going to pass to the stern when all of a sudden it swerved and smashed the Fitz broadside right in the crew compartment.

    BF
     
    Son of Gloin and Lt Dan like this.
  8. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We are not talking about a Ferrari here........ ships that size don't speed up, turn or slow down on a dime or even a mile for that matter. Even if it was where was the avoidance move from the US ship? Lots and lots and lots and lots of people and systems NOT PAYING ATTENTION....... or were they?

    Look at it this way...... what if it was a fishing vessel loaded with bombs....... more than one was asleep at the wheel.
     
    Son of Gloin and Mujahideen like this.
  9. Weatherman

    Weatherman In GIM since 2006 Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,453
    Likes Received:
    2,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A huge container ship does not "swerve". Turning those monsters is a slow and long process.

    turning-circle.jpg

    http://shipsbusiness.com/turning-circle.html

    My bet is that the Fitz was on a parallel path too close to the container ship. The Fitz would have been on the left and half her length ahead of the container ship. Then either human error or electronic control error caused the Fitz to turn hard to the right, into the path of the container ship.
     
    Son of Gloin and searcher like this.
  10. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Son of Gloin and Weatherman like this.
  11. Bottom Feeder

    Bottom Feeder Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    1,491
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Seattle
    Heh, yeah, yer right, got a little over zealous there...

    BF
     
  12. Thecrensh

    Thecrensh Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There should have been lookouts forward and aft on the Fitzgerald. There should have been a navigational radar watch manned as well, but that may have gone unmanned for some reason. IF there was a lot of haze/fog in the area, the radar *should* have been monitored closely. IF there was an outage with the navigational radar, the bigger search radar may not have tracked the freighter when it got within a short distance (I don't know the minimum range of the SPY radar, but every radar has a minimum range, which is the time period immediately after the transmission occurs that the radar turns off the receiver so that any reflected radar energy doesn't fry the sensitive receiver components).

    A combination of electronic problems and visibility restriction could be a simple explanation for this collision.
     
  13. Zed

    Zed Size doesn't count! Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Messages:
    11,162
    Likes Received:
    9,105
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Nuclear Technician
    Location:
    Springfield
    I'd have thought that modern radar on a navy boat would sound an alert if an isolated contact came within 'x' nautical miles! No watching required! Not to mention other contact detection measures they have, sonar and what ever else. I mean if a cargo ship can 'sneak up' on these MOFO's then ANYTHING can!!!!!!!!
     
    Uglytruth and Son of Gloin like this.
  14. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Question........ are our Navy ships, subs and planes locations not monitored from land at all times?
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  15. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Take this fwiw.................


    Seven dead sailors 'were trapped ALIVE inside flooding USS Fitzgerald after their comrades were forced to shut them in to stop the stricken vessel from sinking' after collision with cargo ship
    • Seven US sailors died as a result of Saturday's collision with a cargo ship just outside Tokyo Bay
    • The ACX Crystal's protruding hull punctured the Fitzgerald's hull under the water line - and into a sleeping bay
    • It's now believed some of the men may have been trapped alive as hatches closed to contain flooding
    • It's not known how the US destroyer was hit by a cargo vessel but the Crystal may have been on autopilot
    • The cargo ship sailed away from the stricken vessel for seven miles before it turned around to help
    • That's why it only called in the crash 50 minutes later - a discrepancy that vexed investigators yesterday
    • The 30,000-ton Crystal outweighs the 8,000-ton US ship; it's speculated the crew didn't know about the hit


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4621656/US-sailors-trapped-ALIVE-USS-Fitzgerald-sank.html#ixzz4kYSMz9LO
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  17. <SLV>

    <SLV> Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,712
    Likes Received:
    2,963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Intentional?
     
  18. Crockett

    Crockett Seeker

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Maybe the GPS satellites were hacked, maybe the freighter autopilot was hacked, and the freighter was simply following a hacked route into the destroyer.

    Maybe somehow the unbelievable systems failure on the destroyer were also due to hacking.

    A show of ability perhaps?
     
  19. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gee............ sounds like another great reason to have autonomous ships........ :dduck:
     
    Crockett and Son of Gloin like this.
  20. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    REVEALED: Selfless Navy sailor, 37, sacrificed himself to save up to 20 of 'his kids' aboard doomed USS Fitzgerald as he repeatedly dived into flooding berth before shipmates were forced to close hatch to stop ship from sinking
    • Seven US sailors died as a result of Saturday's collision with a cargo ship just outside Tokyo Bay
    • The ACX Crystal's protruding hull hit the Fitzgerald under the water line - puncturing a sleeping bay
    • The most senior of the seven, Gary Rehm Jr, reportedly saved as many as 20 sailors, according to his family
    • Rehm died when his colleagues were forced to close a hatch he had jumped into
    • It's now believed some of the men may have been trapped alive as hatches were closed to contain flooding
    • The cargo ship sailed away from the stricken destroyer for seven miles before it turned around to help
    • That's why it only called in the crash 50 minutes later - a discrepancy that vexed investigators yesterday
    • The 30,000-ton Crystal outweighs the 8,000-ton US ship; it's speculated the crew didn't know about the hit


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4624052/Navy-sailor-chose-save-kids-himself.html#ixzz4keF2uBPM
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
    Crockett and Mujahideen like this.
  21. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why.

    June 19, 2017 by John Konrad2

    [​IMG]
    A Navy Captain observes the fleet replenishment oiler USNS Rappahannock (T-AO 204) and the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) from the bridge of his ship. (U.S. Navy photo by Kyle Carlstrom)


    By Captain John Konrad (gCaptain) Every ship, regardless of nationality or purpose, is required to carry one terse book . This book is titled the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions but is better know by its acronym “COLREGs”. The chapters are short and to the point and ship officers are required to make marks of 90% on COLREGs tests taken to keep up their licenses. In order to pass this stringent requirement sailors have developed mnemonic aids to help them remember the contents. When the crew loses control of steering, the COLREGs demands that the ship display two red lights in a vertical line. The mnemonic for this rule is “Red over Red, the Captain’s dead”. Sailboats are required to display a red and green light and its said “Red over Green, sailing machine”. There are many more like this but one important rule for avoiding collisions with Navy warships is missing: “If it’s grey stay away.”2

    While the media, with a very little hard data, attempts to understand the erratic maneuvers of the containership ACX Crystal on the night of her collision with the Destroyer USS Fitzgerald… professional mariners are certain that a long investigation will find the US Navy ship at fault.

    Is this conclusion the result of professional arrogance? Or maybe because of resentment and jealousy over the fact that Navy captains are praised and decorated by the public and media while merchant ship captains live mostly unnoticed. Or is it because they are correct?

    As a ship captain along with years working with the U.S. Navy both aboard ships and ashore – here are the reasons why I believe they are correct. The USS Fitzerald was at fault.

    Communication Failure
    Despite recent advancements in electronic collision avoidance tools like automatic identification systems (AIS), the three most important tools for avoiding a collision are a Captain’s eyes, tongue and ears.

    Eyes, looking out the windows of his ship, are important because they can process information – like erratic course changes – faster and more accurately than electronic RADAR and charting systems.

    A tongue because the quickest and most effective way to predict how a ship is going to maneuver in the minutes before a collision is to call the Captain of the other ship on the VHF radio and ask.

    Ears are important because language barriers and cultural differences are prominent at sea and you must listen intently to the other ship’s reply if you want any chance of understanding her intentions.

    The USS Fitzgerald’s Captain used only one, or possibly none, of these tools when communicating with the ACX Crystal.

    In the moments leading up to a collision a merchant ship captain has to do everything but steer the ship himself. With the help of one officer he has to watch the RADAR and AIS, plot the relative courses of nearby vessels, communicate with the Engine Room, talk with other ships on the VHF radio and issue orders. But on a navy ship each of these jobs is performed by a small team of sailors who report changes to, and obey orders from, the officer of the deck (OOD). The OOD relays the important information to the Captain.

    This system of many team members – each working on equipment they have been very well-trained to operate and reporting through a command structure that filters all but the most important information to the captain – is highly effective in war when a warship is exchanging salvos of high speed torpedoes and missiles with numerous hostile targets (anyone doubting this should read Jeff Edward’s excellent book “Torpedo). But this structure is ineffective when dealing with a single slow moving merchant ship.

    An eye on the target and direct communication – Captain to Captain – is the most effective means of avoiding collision but this never happens on Navy ships. When a merchant ship attempts to call a U.S. Navy warship he first has to establish contact. Calling another merchant ship is relatively easy, you find the name of the ship on your AIS and hail it on the VHF. But the US Navy often turns off its AIS transmitter to prevent enemy’s from tracking warships via internet sites like MarineTraffic.com which pick up the AIS signal via commercial satellites and publish the positions online.

    The alternative way to contact a Navy ship is by calling out its hull number (painted in huge white numbers on the bow) but, for various reasons, the Navy doesn’t always respond to this number.

    Provided you do establish contact with the oncoming destroyer you run into another major obstacle. The person who responds to your call is not the Captain but a junior enlisted radioman who relays the message to the Communications Watch Officer who then relays the message to the Officer Of The Deck who relays it to the Captain. The Captain’s response then has to go back down the chain where time and information is lost, mistakes are made and the delays occur. Hard data is, more often than not, conveyed accurately, but more nuanced information – like the sound or anger, hesitation or exhaustion in the captain’s voice – is lost.

    The communication problems don’t stop there. Navy ships require that information from complex systems move quickly between officers and they carry this out with a large vocabulary of acronyms, abbreviations and units of measurement that are highly effective for communication between American naval officers but are gibberish to foreign ship captains.

    For example… a foreign ship captain will order his helmsman to turn port or starboard but an American captain orders left and right turns. Merchant Captains prefer true bearings based off the compass but Navy Captains prefer relative bearings based off the centerline of his own ship. And most frustrating of all, merchant mariners use Nautical Miles to denote distance but the Navy measures everything in yards.

    Small differences? Maybe but a series of small discrepancies can lead to big problems.

    Was VHF contact established between the two vessels before the collision? Why was the USS Fitzgerald Captain in his stateroom and not on the bridge looking out the window? Was he tuned into the VHF radio monitoring the conversation? Was the containership captain fluent in English and, if not, did the navy radioman listen with patience and speak with simple clarity? Did they communicate externally with international accepted standards or use U.S. Navy centric jargon?

    This is important because basic communication problems have been found to be a primary cause in nearly every multi-vessel incident gCaptain has reported on in the last ten years.

    The Lack Of Specialists
    In the not so distant past, merchant ship captains holding a “Master Unlimited” license, the highest license issued by the Coast Guard, were legally sanctioned to command any ship of any size upon oceans. The only limitation placed on that license was large sailing ships (Tall Ships). While that is still technically true today, a containership company would not hire a tanker captain and a cruise ship company would not give a large cruise ship to a containership captain. They want people having experience aboard similar types of ships.

    It takes a bachelor’s degree from a Maritime Academy plus approximately 10 years and the completion of weeks worth of intense testing to earn a Master Unlimited license. There are ways around some of these requirements (like having a college degree) depending on the flag state, but all maritime nations have strict rules governing how many days of those 10 years were spent at sea. A civilian ship captain will spend at least a few hours on the bridge of the ship every day of work. That translates to a lot of experience avoiding collision.

    The U.S. Navy also has specialized strict standards for enlisted sailors. If you want to operate a RADAR, for example, you must pass general examinations, be selected, attend the Navy’s challenging “A” school and commit to a five year service obligation. Then enlisted sailors have to prove their ability aboard ship under the watchful eye of non-commissioned officers.

    Each individual piece of critical equipment aboard a navy ship has a highly trained and competent person(s) assigned to it. The total number of people working, on both the bridge and the Combat Information Center (CIC) to navigate the ship exceeds a dozen.

    The merchant ship captain, who has to operate all equipment himself, often has to use his experience and expertise to fill in gaps of information. But the Naval officer has the opposite problem. He is often working with too much information as it comes in from all the enlisted people who work for him… and he has to use his knowledge and experience to filter out unnecessary data. The question is, how much experience does he have?

    The captain of a merchant ship does not work in an office, he never gets sent to the engine room to stand a watch, and with just two dozen people aboard his ship at any one time he is free of most of the administrative and disciplinary duties that come with commanding a Navy destroyer with five times the number of sailors.

    But unlike the merchant captain and the enlisted specialists working on navy ships, the U.S. Navy Captain and his bridge officer (OOD) are generalists. A large percentage of their careers are spent working shoreside jobs and their shipboard time was spent rotating through positions: the engine room, the combat information room, in administrative positions and elsewhere.

    In short, the merchant ship captain and bridge officers have significantly higher number of hours spent on the bridge then their naval counterparts.

    Why Was The Navy Captain In His Cabin
    One myth that persists among the general public is that Captain Joseph Hazelwood, master of the Exxon Valdez, was drunk at the wheel of his ship when she grounded on Bligh Reef. The truth is far different.

    Captain Hazelwood rightfully shouldered the blame for that incident because a Captain is responsible for the actions of his crew but his level of intoxication, if any (blood alcohol tests were inconclusive) was found not to be a primary cause of the incident. How could it be? He was not on the bridge of the ship when it grounded. He was in his cabin! The ship was grounded not by Hazelwood but by a junior officer he trusted to navigate the ship safely.

    Ship Captains never take the wheel and drive the ship, helmsmen and autopilots do that job. Ship captains spend most of their time in the office doing paperwork or managing people all around the ship. The actual navigation of the vessel is done on the bridge by a junior officer called the Officer In Charge Of The Navigational Watch (OICNW). The US Navy operates the same way but that officer is the Officer Of The Deck (OOD).

    It is this officer’s duty to navigate the ship safely according to the voyage plan laid out by the captain. This officer is in charge of communicating with and avoiding other ships. He is the one responsible for avoiding collisions and he holds this responsibility with important caveat; it is his duty to call the captain whenever there is possible risk of collision or danger of any kind.

    And it is the Captain’s duty to go to the bridge whenever he is called for help.

    But the captain of the USS Fitzgerald, like Captain Hazelwood, was not on the bridge. He remained in his cabin where he was injured during the collision. Did the OOD fail to call him up to the bridge for help managing the situation? Did he ignore the OOD’s call for help? Or, like the Exxon Valdez, did the bridge team not realize they were in trouble until it was too late?

    Either way, a major error was made by someone aboard the USS Fitzgerald.

    Available Resources
    USS Fitzgerald
    Let’s take a quick look at just some of the resources the USS Fitzgerald’s captain had at his disposal prior to the collision.

    The USS Fitzgerald is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer with a top speed well in excess of 30 knots. Speed is helpful in preventing collision because it allows you to put more distance between you and a dangerous ship in the same amount of time. (Yes, speed can also be dangerous.)

    She is powered by four gas turbine engines with over 100,000 horsepower available to turn her propellers. Gas turbines are expensive and burn lots of fuel but the Navy uses them because they can provide an immense amount of torque in a very short period of time. Torque translates to acceleration and acceleration is important if you need to get out of the way of something fast.

    The Arleigh Burke class destroyer has highly advanced AN/SPY-1 three dimensional RADAR, variable pulse width surface RADAR, AIS transceivers and a hull mounted sonar array tied into an Electronic Warfare Suite capable of tracking objects of small size moving at a high speed in real time.

    The USS Fitzgerald is highly maneuverable with a very tight turning radius. While the exact figures are not public information this video of an Arleigh Burke Destroyer turning 180 degrees is very impressive.

    Containership ACX Crystal
    The Containership ACX Crystal however… has a theoretical top speed of 25 knots but is rarely pushed that fast.

    She has a single 8-cylinder diesel engine capable of pushing one propeller with 29,200 horses for 3/10ths the amount of power of the destroyer. The acceleration of a ship like this is measured in miles, not minutes like the destroyer. Diesel engines like hers are the size of a modest house and are locked into a certain speed at night. The bridge officer can cut speed immediately but at the risk of damaging equipment. Changing speed safely requires that the engineers wake up, change into work clothes and walk down to the engine room to check the equipment before moving the throttle.

    She has two RADAR sets of modern design that is likely able to overlay digital charts. Said RADAR system requires a minimum of 3 minutes of pinging to properly calculate another ship’s change in course and/or speed.

    She also has an AIS receiver that plots the position, course, speed, rate of turn and other useful information on the RADAR display in (close to) real time. In turn, her AIS system transmits her information to other ships including warships. She must, by law, transmit this information at all times. Her AIS unit does not, however, receive any data from Navy ships who cloak their positions.

    She weighs four times as much as the destroyer. She can also stop and turn on a dime… but only if that dime is owned by giants and has a diameter measured in nautical miles.

    She has 8 officers, a captain and around a dozen unlicensed sailors… versus the destroyer’s 33 officers, 38 chief petty officers and 210 enlisted sailors.

    But I thought the Containership Was At Fault?
    The media has been publishing reports on “crazy ivan turns” and erratic behavior all based on incomplete and one sided AIS data which can not yet be correlated with the exact time of collision. It is too early, and information too scant, to publish a list of her faults.

    That said, she is at fault! Remember the COLREGS? What I failed to mention in the beginning of this article is that, while terse, the book is littered with terms like “safe speed”, “all available means” and “Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate”. These words are nebulous and have remained so for centuries for a reason… so that no captain can ever shirk his responsibility for avoiding a collision. The COLREGS are terse, specific and targeted when it comes to assigning blame but soft and imprecise when it comes to removing responsibility and blame. Thus, every modern admiralty court trial of ships colliding has found fault with both ships, even if one is securely anchored!

    Under COLREGS, whenever two ships touch each other, both ships are to blame.

    For this reason I am 99.9% confident the USS Fitzgerald will be found at fault… and so will the ACX Crystal.

    http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/
     
  22. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    U.S. Coast Guard Interviews ACX Crystal Crew After Warship Collision

    June 20, 2017 by Reuters1



    [​IMG]
    Philippine-flagged merchant vessel ACX Crystal, damaged after colliding with the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgeraldis, is seen off Shimoda, Japan in this photo by the Japan Coast Guard June 17, 2017. Japan Coast Guard/Handout via REUTERS
    [​IMG]

    By Tim Kelly and Kiyoshi Takenaka TOKYO, June 20 (Reuters) – The United States Coast Guard will on Tuesday start interviewing the crew of a Philippines-flagged container ship which collided with a U.S. warship in Japanese waters killing seven American sailors.

    The U.S. coast guard investigation is one several into the incident on Saturday involving the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal. The cause of the collision at night and in clear weather is not known.

    “We are scheduled to interview the crew members,” said U.S. Lieutenant Scott Carr told Reuters, referring the crew of the merchant ship. The USS Fitzgerald crew will also be interviewed.

    The U.S. coast guard, which is undertaking the investigation on behalf of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, will gather electronic data and ship tracking information from the USS Fitzgerald and ACX Crystal.

    The investigation will also look into a time discrepancy in the ACX Crystal’s initial report of the incident south of Tokyo Bay, said Scott. “There is a contradiction. It will be part of the investigation,” Carr said.

    The Japan Coast Guard has already spoken to the Filipino crew and is also probing the inconsistency. It is in talks with the U.S. Navy for access to its crew members and data from the destroyer, a spokesman for the organization said.

    The U.S. Navy did not immediately respond when asked if it would release tracking data to the Japan Coast Guard.

    The ACX Crystal reported the collision at 2:25 a.m. (1725 GMT) prompting Japanese authorities to initially log the incident at 2:20 a.m.

    The Japan Coast Guard subsequently revised the time to 1:30 a.m. meaning the container ship waited 55 minutes before contacting the coast guard, according to the Japan Coast Guard.

    Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows the merchant ship chartered by Japan’s Nippon Yusen KK, made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m. on June 17.

    The Fitzgerald did not contact local authorities. The Japan Coast Guard radioed it after receiving the first report of the collision.

    Many of the crew on the U.S. ship were asleep when the collision tore a gash under the waterline on the warship’s starboard side, flooding two crew compartments, the radio room and the auxiliary machine room.

    When asked on Sunday if the damage indicated the U.S. ship could have been at fault, Seventh Fleet commander Vice Admiral Joseph P. Aucoin declined to speculate on the cause.

    Complicating the inquiries could be issues of jurisdiction. Although the collision occurred in Japanese waters, international maritime rules, could allow the U.S. Navy to claim some authority over the investigations.

    The incident was the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen’s Aden harbor in 2000, when 17 sailors were killed and 39 injured

    (Reporting by Tim Kelly and Kiyoshi Takenaka; Editing by Michael Perry)

    (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

    http://gcaptain.com/u-s-coast-guard-interviews-acx-crystal-crew-warship-collision/
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  23. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    COLREGs – Give Way or Stand On

    June 20, 2017 by Grant Livingstone

    [​IMG]
    Cunard Line’s Queen Mary 2 navigating in a busy harbor
    by Captain Grant H Livingstone

    Part Two out of Three Part articles on COLREGS.

    Are some professional mariners unintentionally violating COLREGS in a conscientious effort to avoid close quarters situations with small boats? A review a few of the most common violations professional mariners are being found at fault for or debate in inland waters with small boats is worthy of discussion.

    The first is the classic crossing situation Rule 15; “When two power driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision the vessel which has the other on her starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall if the circumstances of the case permit avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.” The obligation of the stand on vessel triggers Rule 17(c). In brief a power driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation to avoid collision shall if the circumstances of the case permit not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

    This is very common in inland waters as small power boats (or sailboats) on the ships port bow are not yielding or giving way in a crossing situation. The small boat appears to be set on crossing the ships bow port to starboard. This is where professional mariners Prudent Seamanship (common sense on the water) kicks in. If there really is a risk of hitting the small boat (crossing our bow from port) by maintaining our course as stand on vessel, then altering course to starboard might increase the risk of collision…..depending on the circumstances. By altering course to starboard, we potentially chase the small boat crossing our bow to starboard.

    Therefore many professional mariners may see a turn to port (common sense) as the most expedient and safest way to clear the small boat heading to our starboard. We’ll pass astern of the give way vessel to avoid collision if they won’t give way. The fatal flaw in that common sense view is when the small boat gives way at the very last second and turns to their starboard or stops to avoid crossing our bow. In that case, small boat giving way off our port bow, the odds of collision go up dramatically if we turned our ship to port.

    In case after case the professional mariner that turned to port to avoid a small boat crossing to starboard from its port bow (violating Rule 17(c)) are found at fault. Very similar is Rule 19 under Conduct of Vessels in Restricted Visibility; Rule 19(i) an alteration of course to port for a vessel forward of the beam other than a vessel being overtaken ….. shall be avoided.

    Mariners often find themselves trying to outguess the small boat crossing their bow. If we are the stand on vessel at what point do we give way? Any decision based on “outguessing” falls under the COLREGS admonishment not to make decisions based on scanty information. Rule 17(b) ends with; If collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give way vessel alone, she (stand on vessel) shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision. The professional mariner shall take action to avoid collision but it cannot be a turn to port for a vessel off the port bow.

    In part three of this series we look into what may be the Grand Daddy of COLREG debate and interpretation among professional mariners; Rule 34. Traditionally referred to as the ‘Danger Signal’.

    Next: Read Part 1 of this series: Are Ships The Careless Giants Of The Sea?

    http://gcaptain.com/colregs-give-way-stand-part-two/
     
  24. Crockett

    Crockett Seeker

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He lost his life saving others, now that is a genuine HERO.
     
  25. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Crockett, Hystckndle and Son of Gloin like this.
  26. Son of Gloin

    Son of Gloin Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    3,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Delivery boy.
    Location:
    USA
  27. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Movements of Container Ship ACX CRYSTAL involved in a Collision with USS Fitzgerald
    VesselFinder



    Published on Jun 19, 2017
    Movements of Philippine-flagged Container ship ACX CRYSTAL, which collided with US Destroyer USS Fitzgerald south of Tokyo Bay in Japan in a rare incident on busy waterway.

    USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) was involved in a collision with the container ship ACX Crystal, while operating about 56 nautical miles southwest of Yokosuka, Japan.

    The US Navy has identified seven sailors who were killed when their destroyer collided with the container ship.

    The coastguard said none of the 20 crew members on board the container ship ACX Crystal were injured.

    Full story of the collision:
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/news/951...

    ACX CRYSTAL ship details:
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/...

    Current position of ACX CRYSTAL:
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/?imo=936...

    Place of the collision:
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/?lat=34....

    Video copyrighted by: https://www.vesselfinder.com/ and can not be distributed without an appropriate accreditation to www.vesselfinder.com

    For AIS position data inquiries:
    https://www.vesselfinder.com/historic...

    Connect with VesselFinder
    Web: https://www.vesselfinder.com/
    Email: info@vesselfinder.com
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/VesselFinder
    Twitter: https://twitter.com/VesselFinder
     
  28. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,940
    Likes Received:
    11,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    One defense expert suggested that the collision occurred simply because nobody on the Crystal was there to see it happen.

    'I suspect, from the data, that the ACX Crystal was running on autopilot the whole time, and nobody was on the bridge,' Steffan Watkins, an IT security consultant and ship tracking analyst for Janes Intelligence Review, told DailyMail.com on Monday.

    'If anyone was on the bridge, they had no idea how to turn off the autopilot.'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-chose-save-kids-himself.html#ixzz4keF2uBPM
     
    searcher and Son of Gloin like this.
  29. tom baxter

    tom baxter back from 2004

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    625
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired now
    Location:
    Australia
    Crockett, Son of Gloin and Mujahideen like this.
  30. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,940
    Likes Received:
    11,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a hero if I've ever heard of one.
     
    Crockett, searcher and Son of Gloin like this.
  31. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hystckndle and Mujahideen like this.
  32. Son of Gloin

    Son of Gloin Gold Member Gold Chaser Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    2,393
    Likes Received:
    3,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Delivery boy.
    Location:
    USA
    I used to watch that show called JAG. This is just the kind of situation that would have made a great, dramatic episode. Not making light of the loss of life and destroyed careers, just musing about the complexity of events, the mystery and finding of blame, etc.
     
    Weatherman and searcher like this.
  33. Uglytruth

    Uglytruth Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Messages:
    3,893
    Likes Received:
    4,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/freighter-autopilot-hit-us-destroyer/

    Freighter on auto pilot.......

    For the Navy, investigators are trying to determine why the ship's radar and other sensors did not detect the Crystal in time to take steps to avoid the 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.
     
  34. Thecrensh

    Thecrensh Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    Likes Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They may have been in an EMSEC state (no radar transmissions) but regardless, the lookouts (both fore and aft) should have seen the ship.
     
    Hystckndle likes this.
  35. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Son of Gloin and Hystckndle like this.
  36. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Japanese cargo ship WAS on autopilot when it collided with the USS Fitzgerald - and five of the seven sailors who died in the crash were 'incapacitated' almost instantly
    • New details emerge in deadly crash of USS Fitzgerald Navy destroyer Saturday
    • Seven US sailors died as a result of collision with cargo ship outside Tokyo Bay
    • Defense official confirms early indications that Japanese ship was on autopilot
    • Says five of the killed sailors were incapacitated almost instantly in the collision
    • Possible that the other two died while heroically trying to save their crew mates
    • Rear Admiral Brian Fort was named on Friday to head the US Navy investigation
    • Data recorder from ACX Crystal cargo ship hoped to yield new clues to crash


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4633284/ACX-Crystal-autopilot-crash-USS-Fitzgerald.html#ixzz4kqet1Edr
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
     
  37. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    4,028
    Likes Received:
    3,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Even if the ACX was on auto pilot, surely there would have been someone on the bridge watching where the ship was going, no?

    Airplanes use auto pilot all the time, but there's always at least one pilot there monitoring things. Seems stupid to turn a ship loose on auto pilot while the crew goes off to play grab-ass or whatever they do other than drive the ship.
     
    Son of Gloin likes this.
  38. latemetal

    latemetal Platinum Bling Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    2,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I keep hearing more ships might go crewless as technology advances, going "Bump" in the night will have meaning.
     
    Uglytruth likes this.
  39. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Modal Operator/Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,487
    Likes Received:
    30,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Tech
    Here's one for the conspiracy theorists...


    Chinese EMP Hit the Fitzgerald-Nimitz Racing to Scene As War Is Close

    I publicly stated, on June 21, that the USS Fitzgerald was hit by an EMP. My belief is rooted in several factors which will be discussed by the end of the article. However, the foundation for my belief comes from a two-year-old declassified intelligence report.

    The Chinese Make EMP Weapons a Priority
    A 2015 declassified intelligence report, obtained by the private National Security Archive, provides details on Chinas EMP weapons as well as the plans for their use.

    The report details how much of China’s military is developing EMP weapons that the Chinese plan to use against targeted U.S. aircraft carriers with regard to any future conflict over Taiwan. Parts of the National Ground Intelligence Center study on the lethal effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and high-powered microwave (HPM) weapons revealed that the arms are part of what China refers to as the “assassin’s mace”. This arsenal of EMP weapons allows a technologically inferior China to defeat U.S. military forces while leaving much of the surrounding infrastructure intact. It is like the neutron bomb of EMP weaponry.

    The report further states “For use against Taiwan, China could detonate at a much lower altitude (30 to 40 kilometers) … to confine the EMP effects to Taiwan and its immediate vicinity and minimize damage to electronics on the mainland.” After I aired my opinion that the Fitzgerald was hit by an EMP, I heard from an old reliable deep cover source, as well as a new source, in which both sourcesstated pretty much the same story. The Fitzgerald was hit with a Chinese based EMP and that the new generation of Chinese EMP weaponry is capable of targeting a select area and take down a tank, a plane or a ship without damaging surrounding electronics.
     
  40. searcher

    searcher Mother Lode Found Site Supporter ++ Mother Lode

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    124,277
    Likes Received:
    36,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault, Part 2 – Questions And Answers

    June 23, 2017 by John Konrad

    [​IMG]
    Captain John Konrad, Founder and CEO of gCaptain

    The recent editorial The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why. has been read 103,667 times, shared by 9,699 people via social media and ignited a firestorm of over 500 facebook comments, forum posts, emails and phone calls to gCaptain HQ. Feedback I have received from Navy brass, journalists, pilots and Merchant Mariners working aboard commercial ships has been positive. We also received some highly negative comments from both current and former members of the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare community. This is my reply to them… specifically to Navy sailors who have stood watch on the bridge of a warship.

    Why is a reply necessary?
    A large portion of the negative comments we received fall into two categories. The first questioned editorial decisions we made as journalists covering the story. Decisions such as publishing the article while the memories of fallen sailors are still fresh in the minds of the community. Decisions such as the choice of title, the flow of the article and my choice to shift blame from the USS Fitzgerald to both vessels at the very end of a long read. The second group questioned my personal level of experience, as author of the article, working with the Navy.

    This reply was not written to answer those questions, nor do I intend to retract or justify the choices I made as a journalist. Why? Because these articles were not written for journalists. They were written for Navy and merchant sailors and the people who lead and manage them ashore.

    The fact that my lack of professional expertise in Naval Operations was mentioned by some Naval officers, in comments that also criticize my choices as a journalist is hypocritical because, as Naval Officers, they lack professional expertise as journalists. But this reply is not to defend either myself or the article.

    The primary reason for this response is the same reason I wrote the original article. It is also, I believe, the primary reason gCaptain has grown from a small blog to the most widely read maritime publication in the world. And it is the reason gCaptain articles have been included in the President’s daily security briefing, are included in the syllabus of the nation’s top law schools and are discussed at conferences organized by professional maritime organizations such as The Nautical Institute and The Naval War College.

    The reason is, we listen.

    The article I wrote has over twenty-seven hundred words and was the result of two long days of interviews, research and writing, but we have found that, in the decade gCaptain has been online, the real value of our articles is not in the research or words we write (although our track record of accurate reporting is very important to us!), but in the millions of conversations gCaptain has sparked between maritime, offshore and naval professionals with centuries of combined experience. It is YOU, not gCaptain, who provides the bulk of information published on this site and YOU, not gCaptain, who – in discussing both problems and solutions we all face – are responsible for making maritime operations more efficient and our oceans safer.

    As the article began going viral just hours after it was published – and with the help of the gCaptain team and a dedicated group of volunteers – I personally tracked and replied to the dozens of comments posted about the article on Facebook and our forum. I did so because of my eagerness to listen and learn and improve both the article itself and my abilities as a journalist and mariner.

    I replied to each one of the dozens of comments, emails and phone calls I received from sailors around the world because this topic matters to both gCaptain, our readers and myself. But, due to the growing popularity of the article, I can no longer respond individually to the men and women working aboard ship. This response, in a FAQ format, is the best alternative solution we came up with.

    Why so little blame on the containership?
    As stated in the article I have very little doubt that the containership ACX Crystal and the Captain will be found at fault for the collision. Some evidence suggests that the majority of the fault may fall upon the civilian ship.

    We have not yet enumerated the possible blame that will fall upon her for a few reasons. The first was a journalistic decision to keep the article short and to the point. It was decided to write the second article titled “The ACX Crystal is at fault. This is why.” today (that article has been delayed to write this one).

    Why did we choose to write the article blaming the USS Fitzgerald first? The reason for this is simply that the US Navy operates with a lot more clarity, purpose and sense of responsibility than most containership companies. The Navy does have answers and information which they are not releasing publicly but they are proactive in their response, and with the information they have published we feel comfortable taking at face value.

    Commercial ships are, for legal reasons, owned, managed, manned and insured by a series of interlocking companies that, even when these companies have good intentions, obfuscate the facts. There are also significant language barriers that exists between gCaptain and the civilian authorities involved with this case…. barriers which don’t exist between us and the Navy.

    Others have asked why I did not bring up other problems frequently found in investigation reports of civilian ship collisions. Problems such as undermanning, inattentive lookouts, sleep deprivation, tightwad owners, VHF caused accidents, bridge resource management failure, etc. The reason we did not bring up those topics specifically is because they are problems well know to our readers who have read dozens of articles about each one of these topics on gCaptain.

    An article equally critical of Merchant Ships in general, and the ACX Crystal specifically, is forthcoming but will take more time for us to publish.

    Why did you not mention the names of the fallen sailors?
    The fallen sailors were at the top of my mind throughout writing the article but were not mentioned, nor was the Captain’s name and personal details mentioned, because I did not believe they belong is an article which was critical of the ship and organization they died protecting.

    Why do you condone reliance on VHF radio communication?
    This question mostly came from professional mariners.

    The answer is I do not condone reliance on VHF communications to avoid a collision. I also do not believe, as some captains do, that the VHF should be avoided. The VHF radio is simply one tool we have for avoiding collisions, a tool which both cause and you alleviate confusion.

    The reason I mentioned it specifically here is that navy ships often have a slightly smaller radar target, transmit no AIS data and can be more difficult to see due to less deck illumination. More importantly, they sometimes move erratically. A short VHF conversation can with a warship can help you positively identify the ship and her intentions.

    Note: My original article was wrong about the title of the Naval equivalent to the OICNW. That officer is the Officer OF The Deck (OOD) not OOW. I was also wrong about VHF calls being routed through the Combat Information Center. I have up dated the original article to correct both mistakes.

    Does Captain Konrad Have Enough Naval Experience To Write This Article?

    As mentioned in the article my experience is limited. Not mentioned, is the fact I have never been on the bridge of a navy ship while underway. This, however, is true of most journalists. The most respected publications in the world do not expect their reporters to have an extensive background in the topics they write about. Journalists are expected to conduct interviews to get the facts straight and that was done here.

    Journalists are not expected to read and respond to each comment and update the original article to remove mistakes but gCaptain took this extra step with this article because I care about getting the facts straight.

    gCaptain welcomes officers and crew from Naval vessels from around the world, and has done so since our inception, but the Navy is not our core audience. Our core audience are civilians working on ships and oil rigs, I wrote this article from the perspective of a ship captain, for ship captains, not for naval officers specifically. Therefore it does come with some degree of bias.

    Are Captain Konrad’s Opinions Shared By Other Ship Captains?
    There were three distinct groups of responses. Naval Officers and sailors who have worked only on navy ships overwhelmingly came to the defense of the US Navy’s ability to communicate and avoid collisions with commercial vessels. Most of the officers with experience in both (e.g. Maritime Academy graduates with naval commissions) pointed out my lack of experience aboard Navy ships but acknowledged the overall premise of the article (i.e. that both vessels are at fault).

    Read the comments! The over 100 Facebook and forum comments from 100% civilian mariners, however, most agreed that they have a low degree of confidence predicting the response and/or communicating with US Navy warships in busy shipping lanes.

    My personal belief is the US Navy either needs to review their watch-standing practices in congested waterways or make improvements in their Public Relations with civilian mariners of all nationalities.

    If correct, why is gCaptain the only publication with these opinions
    We are not the only publication. There are several editorials (some written by former Naval Officers) in other media outlets assigning some degree of blame to the USS Fitzgerald. The U.S. Naval Institute has provided excellent coverage of the incident including articles from naval commanders calling on the US Navy to adopt the technology and practices used aboard civilian ships.

    Why are there so many negative comments?
    We have written similar articles after every major collision in the past ten years and there are always negative comments. The difference this time is the negative comments mostly state that we are publishing too soon and being too critical of the USS Fitzgerald.

    Typically the negative comments are just the opposite, gCaptain gets criticized for being one of the last publications to publish our views on the subject (as we where this time) and for going too easy on the ships and Captains that where at fault.

    Why do civilian mariners ask us to be harsh while Naval officers want us to ease up? I can’t speak for the Navy but here are the views of one civilian mariner which ring true: “Controversial articles lead to better discussions within the community which lead to a more rigorous investigation which I can study it and hopefully not make the same mistakes.” Said one civilian mariner concluding, “I think professional mariners feel the same.”

    Why didn’t you say anything positive about the Navy?
    Read the article more carefully. My critical comments were restricted to two people, the Captain and Officer Of The Deck. I also included many positive comments including the Navy’s ability in combat, the enlisted Navy Operations Specialists, NCO’s and the command/communication system aboard ship.

    Isn’t this irrelevant? The Navy Does Not Move Goods, We Defend The Nation During War.
    This question hits the nerve of every patriot sailer in the US Merchant Marine.

    My answer is yes, but so do we!

    “U.S. Flag commercial ships constitute hundreds of mobile U.S. bases which can be utilized by our government in many ways for furtherance of our national interests.”-Admiral Zumwalt, From the book Fourth Arm Of Defense by Salvatore R. Mercogliano

    This question also gets to the crux of my personal inexperience with Naval Operations.

    Here are some questions I posted to civilian mariners on the forum: How many of you know how to navigate your ship in a convoy? How many know how to maneuver to avoid a mine or submarine? How many know how to communicate with the submarine protecting you from Torpedo during war? How many know how to use a maneuvering board to track contacts? How many know how to use encrypted radio equipment or otherwise communicate with a naval vessel securely?

    Total positive responses: ZERO

    Personally, I don’t know the answers to any of these questions…. and not because I haven’t tried to learn (I’ve sent many requests to the Navy to join their PR tours on active navy ships) but because the US Navy has made zero attempt to teach US Merchant Marine captains these skills. And the few worthwhile programs that do exists have been left to slowly atrophy (e.g. Mariner Outreach System (MOS)) or simply canceled (e.g. navy ops classes offered by the, now defunct, GMATS).

    Naval destroyers have never been, and never will be, the first American ships to be attacked during times of war… that distinction has always been, and will always be held by the US merchant fleet.

    The Navy flew me literally half way around the world last year to advise them on why gCaptain gets some on scene information before Naval Intelligence does. And the reason is that merchant mariners and offshore workers are the eyes and ears of the ocean and gCaptain simply gives them a platform to share that information. If the navy wants civilian mariners to send them the information before posting it to gCaptain, then they must start by acknowledging the fact that the US Navy does not have the market cornered on the subject of naval war, combat and national defense because THE US MERCHANT MARINE also plays a vital role in both.

    It is no secret that many civilian mariners hold some animosity for our Navy counterparts. Several petitions have been started within our ranks to shut down MARAD and Kings Point. Personally, I disagree. I would like congress and the US Navy to increase support and funding of both and return them to the core mission for which they were established…. to supply and protect this island nation called America during times of war.

    (Congress and the US Navy can start down this road by giving the US Merchant Mariner’s WWII combat veterans full benefits and status they deserve!)

    As stated above, the number one critical comment on my article about the USS Fitzgerald was that I have no clue how the Navy operates. Ok well, those commenters may be right but having 4 years as a navy midshipman, having worked aboard a ready reserve ship, having obtained a Master’s ticket issued by the US Military (yes, the USCG is military), having patriotically registered with MOS to serve my country during times of war and having spent my career eagerly looking for opportunities for naval education and training…. who is at fault for the assumption that I (along with most civilian captains) still have “no clue how the navy operates”?

    Why would the US Navy take advice from Civilian Mariners?
    The U.S. Navy already does take advice on preventing collisions at sea in the form of Harbor Pilots. When a navy ship enters a harbor they typically board a pilot to maneuver the warship through dangerous or congested waters, such as harbors or river mouths. The pilot is typically a former ship captain and a highly experienced shiphandler who have detailed knowledge of the particular waterway is a navigational expert for the port of call and an expert in preventing collisions at sea.

    The US Navy’s Military sealift Command (MSC) employees over seven thousand civilian mariners aboard over 100 U.S. government-owned vessel that supply and support Navy’s warfighters and war fighting platforms around the world.

    Over two thousand merchant marine officers, most working aboard civilian ships, serve as US Navy Reserve officers as part of the Strategic Sealift Officer Program (SSOP). According to SSOP literature Merchant Marine Officers have been working with, advising and supporting the U.S. Navy in one form or another since the birth of our nation.

    Why Is There Animosity Between US Navy and Civilian Mariners?
    As mentioned thousands of civilian mariners work for Military Sealift Command and, while many have gripes typical of any workplace, the majority have a positive attitude towards and respect for the Navy officers they work closely with. The Navy officers I’ve talked with share this view.

    There is, however, some degree of animosity between civilian mariners and US Naval officers. In truth I rarely hear Naval officers say anything negative about civilian marines… mostly they don’t talk about them at all. And it is this general lack of understanding or knowledge or wish to learn how civilian ships operate that rub some civilian mariners the wrong way.

    But the majority of animosity arises from the fact that both Navy ships and civilian ships have high risk and stressful jobs operating in the same congested waters but rarely communicate beyond a few passing remarks over the VHF. Whenever two groups of people work together on a daily basis but do not socialize, share story’s or otherwise get to know each other as people, some level of hostility will arise.

    Both civilian and Naval ship officers are highly skilled professionals that live in highly insulated social environments and – until they have the opportunity to learn more about each other, ask questions, share stories and socialize – there will continue to be some level of animosity between the two groups.

    Does Captain Konrad hate the US Navy?
    Absolutely not! I believe the Navy does an admirable job in defending the nation and, as stated in the article, I believe the combat ability of a US Navy Destroyer is second to none.

    I believe the officers and crew of a Destroyer are highly trained, highly effective and deserve a very high level of respect. My criticism come not from a lack of respect but from the knowledge that even the best run organizations have things they need to improve… and, for the US Navy, avoiding collisions with civilian ships in congested waters certainly needs improvement.

    How do I respond to this article?
    You can respond to my first Editorial The USS Fitzgerald Is At Fault. This Is Why via Facebook or via the article’s gCaptain Forum post.

    Final Thoughts – A Personal Story
    My passion for maritime safety comes from my father, John “Jack” Adam Konrad IV, who was an airmen in Vietnam decorated with two Bronze Stars. Just before I was born he left the Air Force and was working alongside veteran medics and corpsman with the Fire Department Of New York to bring the lessons learned in the battlefields of Vietnam to the streets of New York. From these efforts the FDNY’s first Ambulance Corpsman (now Emergency Medical Technicians) were trained to treat injuries on scene. Thousands of servicemen were lost in the early years of Vietnam while these ideas where being developed… and those live have saved countless more since.

    After training some of the first classes of Ambulance Corpsman, my father applied to be the medic aboard Rescue 3, the Bronx’s heavy rescue unit. Unlike most other unit transfers, appointment to Rescue 3 required an extensive interview with the unit’s officers. My father, a lifelong naval history buff, passed that interview when he learned of a family connection between an officer and a family named Sullivan. They talked for hours about Naval history and dad was offered the job.

    My father was a big tough fireman and I can count the number of tears I’ve seen him shed on my fingers. One of those tears was when he told my brother and I the story of the Sullivan family and, years later, I could not stop crying after visiting his grave at Arlington National Cemetery. That day I found solstice while looking for the markers of the Sullivan brothers because, as much pain as I was in that day, I knew that brave military families like the Sullivans have survived far worse tragedy.

    Today a sister ship of the USS Fitzgerald bears the name of a family who knows something I hope never to experience, a family that knows what it truly means to loose part of your family to the sea. That ship is the USS The Sullivans (DDG68).

    This editorial has hit a nerve among Navy sailors who grieve for lost brethren. And while I do not know what seven families are experiencing right now, I did learn what it felt like to be among a community suffering from tragedy when my father’s FDNY family lost 8 brothers on 9/11. And any criticism I have published comes with the memory of that pain but also the passionate desire that we push each other to question why these lives where lost and work together to communicate our failures and prevent future loss of life at sea. A passion I learned from my father.

    You can also respond to this article (Part 2) directly via Facebook or the gCaptain Forum.

    Filed Under: Collision, Navy Tagged With: editorial, U.S. Navy, USS Fitzgerald

    http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault-part-2-questions-answers/
     
    Goldhedge and Someone_else like this.

Share This Page