SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!
How could a guided missile destroyer collide with a huge freighter in good visibility? Why did the freighter continue his course for a half hour after the collision, before turning around?
Lots of lying and misconception going on. No naval officer involved is going to admit that someone under their command was incompetent or not aware of their surroundings, just as they are not going to admit that perhaps there is some device that can cause US Navy radar to not see them. This incident smells of Chinese involvement and incompetence in the US Navy high command, just as the Navy was filled with career buttkisers at the start of WWII it is permeated with yes men now. Anyone surprised?
I started this thread in the 'Seamanship and Navigation' forum. These comments do not belong here. If you want to discuss your interpretation of what caused the accident, please do so in an appropriate forum.
Very strange for this to happen. Even if the Freighter was on autopilot with no one on the helm. The Fitzgerald should have had more than a few eyeballs on it. Perhaps it's a case of too much technology and not enough eyeballs and common sense. The Greg Brown song about his father Billy growing up in the non tech area of the Ozark Mountains comes to mind. Where skills and common sense is what kept you alive:
It's a drifting time, people are fascinated by screens
No idea what's on the other side
We stare at doom like an uptight groom
And live our lives like a drunken bride
Tonight I feel something on the wind
Deep inside where we have to die or kill
Something I know I didn't know I knew
I learned from Billy from the hills
Possible, but I consider that highly unlikely. The navy has well established procedures. It is not like the captain gets a new, say, radar and tells his people 'nevermind the lookout, we don't need you guys anymore staring through those stupid binoculars, I have it under control right here.' There WAS a lookout on the starboard side of the destroyer, and he MUST have seen a huge freighter bearing down on them on a straight course. Nevermind the people on the bridge, and all the electronics that tells a a ship like this what is around it.
Don't ask me for an explanation, I don't have any. Maybe the Fitzgerald made a very rapid course change and drove into the path of the freighter. Somewhat unlikely though that they were doing dramatic stuff with the captain asleep.
I surely don't want to go off into conspiracy theory land but I am very curious to what we will learn about this.
This all could have been a simple hydrodynamic anomaly.
Two ships passing head on and close aboard one another, in a channel, etc., will create high velocity water between them (venturi effect). Couple this with the waves generated/propagated (bow and stern and with a large trough between the two waves) with the normal water velocities/directions in those troughs going going 'under' each boat due to propeller action ... all (venturi effect + large troughs at mid-ships) combine to 'suck' the two ships together - CRASH !!!!! The shallower the water the greater the combined effect due to wave 'reflection' off the bottom.
This is the reason that most large ships and barges, when in channels, etc. slow down to nearly 'dead slow' when passing. The larger and heavier the ships the greater the 'suck together and crash effect'.
So, there's a good chance that either the container ship or the destroyer or both was/were simply going too fast during a head-on, too-close 'pass' ... and simply were 'sucked together', including an out of control and 'surprise' adverse turning (stern-to or bow-to) episode.
This all could have been a simple hydrodynamic anomaly.
Two ships passing head on and close aboard one another, in a channel, etc., will create high velocity water between them (venturi effect).
Couple this with the waves generated/propagated (bow and stern and with a large trough between the two waves) with the normal water velocities/directions in those troughs going going 'under' each boat due to propeller action ... all (venturi effect + large troughs at mid-ships) combine to 'suck' the two ships together - CRASH !!!!!
The shallower the water the greater the combined effect.
This is the reason that most large ships and barges, when in channels, etc. slow down to nearly 'dead slow' when passing. The larger and heavier the ships the greater the 'suck together and crash effect'.
So, there's a good chance that either the container ship or the destroyer or both was/were simply going too fast during a head-on, too-close 'pass' ... and simply were 'sucked together', including an out of control and 'surprise' adverse turning episode.
The Crystal turned hard to starboard right before the collision. It is possible that they never saw the Fitzgerald until the last minute. The Fitzgerald may have been running dark AND have some sort of stealth technology which made it blind to the Crystal's RADAR.
What was going on with the Fitzgerald where it didn't keep far enough away? Who knows.
I can see 30 min to stop a big container ship, inspect to make sure it isn't headed to the bottom in the next hour or less, and turning around to go back...
Someone just screwed up - BIG TIME! Having spent four years in the US Navy, I can assure you that there were at least 4 lookouts on watch when that collision occurred, one on the bow, one on the stern and two on the flying bridge. And, I can also be certain that they called that information from their post to the bridge. It's SOP that every sailor in the Navy that has been through boot camp knows by heart. You can also bet your bottom dollar that someone is gonna fry for this.
Its also true that they will try to move the blame (as much as possible) to an enlisted person.
I had a friend who was on duty on the USS Enterprise when it struck Bishop's rock. They were trying to move the blame to him, when he had been calling the bridge LONG in advance with warnings that they were on course for the rock. Then there was the helmsman who saw the rock and spun the wheel... unfortunately not in time.
So they tried to say his attempt to turn the ship to avoid it caused the collision.
The incident almost sank the carrier.
**************
You can bet that they'll attempt to blame the lookouts first.
One of my High School classmates was discussing the Fitzgerald incident and recounted this impressive maneuver from his Navy days.
"While serving on Carrier X I helmed while we unrepped; a supertanker was projected on collision course & could not be hailed;
We, my ship & the refueling tanker, were directed to change course 140 degrees to avoid collision; while fully connected. Talk about a white knuckle maneuver (140 separate, incremental & synchronized 1 degree course change commands to both ships)."
Looking at other scwrewups; the Andrea Doria got ramed and sunk by the Stockholm in open seas. Just operating radar on wrong scale gave the allusion of lots of miles between them. BC ferry rammed the Duke Point dock ,same misread. Sometimes local knowledge (and experience) helps. Surface running sub leaves Esquimalt harbour. Four miles away .a freighter anchored on Constance Bank. Sub harshly demands its intentions repeats, repeats .Finally Slavic accent responds ,states 'Uh, we're anchored.' A less quivery voice from sub ,Oh ,maintain course and speed, over and out. A manly Russian accent from a ship rounding Race Rocks 12 miles away also confirms that's what they will do too. The distance between good humoured embarrassment and multi fatality accident can be a finger snap. depending on your scale
The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down
Of the big lake they called 'gitche gumee'
The lake, it is said, never gives up her dead
When the skies of November turn gloomy
With a load of iron ore twenty-six thousand tons more
Than the Edmund Fitzgerald weighed empty
That good ship and crew was a bone to be chewed
When the gales of November came early.
Though unfortunate, his condition not withstanding he is relieved of command, that's just the way its done in the USN. Not much to debate here, I've lived my whole life in a Navy town you wont get anyone to tell you any different. Of course I and everyone hope for a recovery, personally this guy is in a bad way even if not injured.
just google uss porter collision audio (newbie...can't post links)
It was another incident in 2012. I've been in the simulator when the replay was run. It's pitch black and all you can see is a little while light off on the starboard and a few minutes later....boom!
(I have a great job, I work on the trainers and get to drive these ships every day.)
Having servd 4 years in the US Navy, I can assure that only one person should have been disciplined, the officer in charge of the bridge at the time of the accident. He, or she, makes and approves all the decisions while underway - NO ONE ELSE! I have seen situations similar to this many times and usually, the lowest person on the totem pole is the one who gets the shaft. Nothing new about this.
I'm also ex-Navy, and I respectfully disagree. Regardless of what happens to anyone farther down the line, an incident like this is almost automatically a career killer for command personnel.
And according to today's news reports, the ship's two senior officers and senior chief have been relieved of duty and are facing disciplinary action.
I'm more interested to find out what really happened and how, than to see people punished (which they should be, of course, as people died for no fault of their own). Right now the Navy is saying nothing in that regard.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
SailNet Community
1.7M posts
173.8K members
Since 1990
A forum community dedicated to Sailing, boating, cruising, racing & chartering. Come join the discussion about sailing, destinations, maintenance, repairs, navigation, electronics, classifieds and more