Jump to content
Planned Temporary Forum Outage Friday 18th January from 21:00 Read more... ×
BANGKOK 19 January 2019 06:51
rooster59

U.S. Navy destroyer, Philippines merchant vessel collide off Japan

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Patriot1066 said:

Yes in normal circumstance that is correct but they have identified several issues with the civilian vessel including it on autopilot and lack of supervision.

 

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-destroyer-crash-that-killed-seven-u-s-sailors-1796462864

 

This is an older post which sort of makes some sense.

 

good link, thanks

 

must say though, not much impressed with what is uttered

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

good link, thanks

 

must say though, not much impressed with what is uttered

 

Yes I agree with you, interesting. I wonder if there is something going on, they are not actually releasing?

 

I would respectfully defer to your better knowledge of the rules and protocols though, rather me reading internet articles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

I do recommend reading this;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/worse-than-you-thought-inside-the-secret-fitzgerald-probe-the-navy-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-14-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

what is revealed here is way more than average interesting,

here many of the deficiencies and shortcomings re destroyer Fitzgerald are highlighted

 

Quite frightening really

 

There is no easy and no speedy way for the US Navy to sort this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the above report snippets

one (at least I) has to ask;

 

To what extent is the complete mess described re the Fitz specific to that ship?

Or would all USN destroyers be similarly messy, in one way or the other.

What about other USN ships? Messy or streamlined?

 

From what the navy as published, report wise, earlier (last year),

it looks as if shortcomings in marine competence, seamanship and ability to drive a warship safely

is a general problem in the USN (they said so themselves).

(and USN is not alone here)

 

But apart from that, what about the rest that is reported and highlighted in the prev. few posts,

specific to the Fitz or a general problem?

 

Would have been interesting to have a McCain (the off SIngapore crash) report and compared the two.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

Guys,

I do recommend reading this;

 

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/worse-than-you-thought-inside-the-secret-fitzgerald-probe-the-navy-doesnt-want-you-to-read/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navy Times 1-14-19&utm_term=Editorial - Navy - Daily News Roundup

 

what is revealed here is way more than average interesting,

here many of the deficiencies and shortcomings re destroyer Fitzgerald are highlighted

 

Quite frightening really

 

There is no easy and no speedy way for the US Navy to sort this one.

Very informative post Thankyou 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 8:31 AM, quadperfect said:

Ais ,radar ,watch  command .

As a american i am truly embarrassed.

This should never happen ever. Remember the uss cole incident.

 

I'm glad you volunteered that, far too many collisions involving US warships.

 

But the Cole was actually damaged in a terrorist attack. - quite different. 

 

I know from experience that they don't like to give way (even if they don't have right of way) but what's the point of risking collision if they are not actually fighting? These ships are so well equipped that the only acceptable excuses for a collision are mechanical or technical failure, or a deliberate ramming in combat. 

Edited by nauseus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm glad you volunteered that, far too many collisions involving US warships.

 

But the Cole was actually damaged in a terrorist attack. - quite different. 

 

I know from experience that they don't like to give way (even if they don't have right of way) but what's the point of risking collision if they are not actually fighting? These ships are so well equipped that the only acceptable excuses for a collision are mechanical or technical failure, or a deliberate ramming in combat. 

 

if you skim through the links I have posted today, (and also earlier for that matter),

 

you will see that major factors here are not less than lack of competence, lack of experience, lack of preparedness re driving vessels - the list goes on and on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

if you skim through the links I have posted today, (and also earlier for that matter),

 

you will see that major factors here are not less than lack of competence, lack of experience, lack of preparedness re driving vessels - the list goes on and on

Yes, all unacceptable failures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Yes, all unacceptable failures.

well, not acceptable, by all means - but some of these accidents are not easily avoidable

 

I refer you to the American sociologist Perrow and his Normal Accidents theory,

widely accepted as "good stuff" today, all over the world. 

 

In his Normal Accidents book, he explains a series of events/accidents as close to unavoidable, (bound to happen)

includes marine/US Coast Guard accidents, Three Mile Island accidents, the Korean 747 shot down over Sakhalin,

the US Space Shuttle that was blown into fragments minutes after takeoff - just to name a few.

 

if I should try at giving a hint of the gist of the Normal Accidents theory;

it is not mundane factors like a dense fog, forgot steaming lights, AIS screwed, lack of sleep/tiredness that

cause the accidents,

the accidents come as almost necessary consequences of the whole sociological structure

within which the actors live and operate.

 

anyway,

from all the reports from the USN that I have read since the off Japan and off Singapore crashes it seems

that the USN has understood that the Normal Accidents thinking is indeed relevant to these crashes

(they have other crashes too, in similar categories)

some of it they already address in adequate (we hope) manners, some will take years and years and more crashes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

well, not acceptable, by all means - but some of these accidents are not easily avoidable

 

I refer you to the American sociologist Perrow and his Normal Accidents theory,

widely accepted as "good stuff" today, all over the world. 

 

In his Normal Accidents book, he explains a series of events/accidents as close to unavoidable, (bound to happen)

includes marine/US Coast Guard accidents, Three Mile Island accidents, the Korean 747 shot down over Sakhalin,

the US Space Shuttle that was blown into fragments minutes after takeoff - just to name a few.

 

if I should try at giving a hint of the gist of the Normal Accidents theory;

it is not mundane factors like a dense fog, forgot steaming lights, AIS screwed, lack of sleep/tiredness that

cause the accidents,

the accidents come as almost necessary consequences of the whole sociological structure

within which the actors live and operate.

 

anyway,

from all the reports from the USN that I have read since the off Japan and off Singapore crashes it seems

that the USN has understood that the Normal Accidents thinking is indeed relevant to these crashes

(they have other crashes too, in similar categories)

some of it they already address in adequate (we hope) manners, some will take years and years and more crashes.

 

 

I read the basic theory, which is OK so far as it goes. But the USN is having a very bad run recently and especially with the Fitzgerald with two collisions in as many yearsI don't think the Admirals will regard this accident frequency as "normal" or acceptable. But these days...who knows? 

 

The recent USN serious marine accident list is below and it seems only one or two of these occurred when the US was officially at war. If there is no need for close approach then it is not worth the risk but I have seen USN ships do exactly this. During peacetime, risk can generally be reduced for a patrolling warship by just keeping clear of all traffic - they can still easily monitor whatever it is they are interested in and still be in range for their weapons - if there is a war on then that obviously all changes. The supply and support ships listed better fit Perrow's theory; they have to make close approaches as a regular part of their replenishment at sea duties. 

 

Link: https://www.statista.com/chart/10782/us-naval-collisions-are-becoming-more-frequent/

 

 

Infographic: U.S. Naval Collisions Are Becoming More Frequent  | Statista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I read the basic theory, which is OK so far as it goes. But the USN is having a very bad run recently and especially with the Fitzgerald with two collisions in as many yearsI don't think the Admirals will regard this accident frequency as "normal" or acceptable. But these days...who knows? 

 

The recent USN serious marine accident list is below and it seems only one or two of these occurred when the US was officially at war. If there is no need for close approach then it is not worth the risk but I have seen USN ships do exactly this. During peacetime, risk can generally be reduced for a patrolling warship by just keeping clear of all traffic - they can still easily monitor whatever it is they are interested in and still be in range for their weapons - if there is a war on then that obviously all changes. The supply and support ships listed better fit Perrow's theory; they have to make close approaches as a regular part of their replenishment at sea duties. 

 

Link: https://www.statista.com/chart/10782/us-naval-collisions-are-becoming-more-frequent/

 

 

Infographic: U.S. Naval Collisions Are Becoming More Frequent  | Statista

 

I miss the destroyer mishap in Hormuz, maybe about 5 years ago, same kind of destroyer as Fitz,

no fatalaties.

 

My "favourite" mishap was in the 70s, a US Coast Guard training vessel

early evening on its way up the river from the Bay, almost cut in two by a container vessel

coming down the river from the Washington DC area,

sank within minutes - several fatalities

Gigantic misunderstandings developed in an unsound sociological structure- typical Normal Accidents

kind of mishap

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of Philippine, and into Japanese waters...

 - they forgot to glide on the other side of the road!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sponsors
×