Jump to content

How is it Possible That a Container Ship Collided with a USN Destroyer Near Japan?


mnocket
 Share

Recommended Posts

If they didn't scrap the Roberts, which was essentially broken in two, and had to be strapped together in a Bahrainian shipyard in order to even be lifted on a heavy lift ship for a "dry tow" back the US, then I doubt they'll scrap this one.

 

If memory serves me correctly (which it doesn't always) they eventually put the Belknap back into service after her run in with the John F Can-opener (aka Kennedy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on the news this morning, that several offricers were asleep at the time of the incident. Another who was supposed to be on t he bridge, was not and they have been removed from their duties. Not really good for their c arreers, I would guess. ::eek

 

 

 

It was the middle of the night and it is standard for the big three(CO, XO and CMC) to be asleep.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If memory serves me correctly (which it doesn't always) they eventually put the Belknap back into service after her run in with the John F Can-opener (aka Kennedy).

 

Yep, and that one took 4.5 years to put back into commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they didn't scrap the Roberts, which was essentially broken in two, and had to be strapped together in a Bahrainian shipyard in order to even be lifted on a heavy lift ship for a "dry tow" back the US, then I doubt they'll scrap this one.
So far the brass is swearing that Fitz will return to duty. It won't be soon, though, and it won't be cheap.

 

I heard on the news this morning, that several offricers were asleep at the time of the incident. Another who was supposed to be on t he bridge, was not and they have been removed from their duties. Not really good for their c arreers, I would guess. ::eek
Given the hour of the collision, I would expect that probably 75% of the crew was asleep or off duty. However the OOD is supposed to call the CO if there is any problem or concern. That didn't happen. And just as we've seen with respect to cruise ship captains on these boards, the captain is ultimately responsible.

 

From reading the report, it appears that the damage control team did its job extremely well. It's something these folks drill and practice for and hope they'll never need, and in this instance they saved the ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the brass is swearing that Fitz will return to duty. It won't be soon, though, and it won't be cheap.

 

Given the hour of the collision, I would expect that probably 75% of the crew was asleep or off duty. However the OOD is supposed to call the CO if there is any problem or concern. That didn't happen. And just as we've seen with respect to cruise ship captains on these boards, the captain is ultimately responsible.

 

From reading the report, it appears that the damage control team did its job extremely well. It's something these folks drill and practice for and hope they'll never need, and in this instance they saved the ship.

 

Yes, the DC teams on the Fitz did a good job, but if you want to read about some real MacGyver DC work, again the Roberts, where they wound cables around the superstructure to keep it from breaking in half.

 

And until the Navy's or Japan's investigation into the causes of the collision comes out, the best you can say is that the OOD didn't either notice the contact inside the CPA (closest point of approach) specified in the CO's night orders, or just didn't notify the CO. Either way, he/she pooped in their flat hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see mention that the Captain's quarters were damaged

 

from:

SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INQUIRY AND LINE OF DUTY

 

 

DETERMINATION REGARDING INJURIES AND THE DEATHS OF SEVEN

 

 

SAILORS ABOARD USS FITZGERALD (DDG 62) ON OR ABOUT 17 JUNE 2017

 

39. The CO was in his cabin at the time of the collision. The CRYSTAL’s bow directly struck

 

 

his cabin, located above the waterline. The impact severely damaged his cabin, trapping him

 

 

inside. The CO called the bridge requesting assistance.

 

 

40. Five Sailors used a sledgehammer, kettlebell, and their bodies to break through the door into

 

 

the CO’s cabin, remove the hinges, and then pry the door open enough to squeeze through. Even

 

 

after the door was open, there was a large amount of debris and furniture against the door,

 

 

preventing anyone from entering or exiting easily.

 

 

41. A junior officer and two chief petty officers removed debris from in front of the door and

 

 

crawled into the cabin. The skin of the ship and outer bulkhead were gone and the night sky

 

 

could be seen through the hanging wires and ripped steel. The rescue team tied themselves

 

 

together with a belt in order to create a makeshift harness as they retrieved the CO, who was

 

 

hanging from the side of the ship.

full report (redacted) available on the Navy Freedom of Information Act web site

http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/USS%20Fitzgerald/Supplemental%20Inquiry%20USS%20Fitzgerald.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CH has suggested that the repair methods of USN are wrong and add to repair time ....

 

It was recently in the news that an aircraft carrier completed a 4 YEAR over haul ......

a wrong repair method ... could have been done in weeks

 

I would offer that the maintenance philosophy of a 'merchant' or even more, 'cruise ship' deferrers WIDELY from than of USN. CH implies they are WRONG .... are there basic differences????

 

A cruise ship earns when it sails .... every day not sailing is no revenue ... OK, I get it. here the theory is do enuf to keep moving ... but move as much as you can ... moving is $$

 

Were there no requirement for a cruise ship to be dry docked routinely, I doubt any company would do it!!!! (Who's requirement is a different discussion)

 

A war ship needs to be battle ready .... To this end the USN's typical schedule has a ship 'on the line' only 30% of the time! They are on a 1.5 year cycle (minor ships). 6 mo deployed, 6mo yard, 6 mo work up for deployment. Could a cruise ship work like this? NO. (I was involved in discussions with USN when they looked at USCG who got 50% utilization ..... vs their 30)

 

Also remember that merchants (including cruise) are built to BUSHIP standards .... not MILSPEC. If you don't think there's a difference look at the pictures in the report I've previous linked .... and lets not forget that the damaged areas of F include the SONAR and COMMUNICATIONS spaces ... to wit the redacted pictures ..... you don't send 'anyone' into spaces with highly classified equipment ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CH has suggested that the repair methods of USN are wrong and add to repair time ....

 

It was recently in the news that an aircraft carrier completed a 4 YEAR over haul ......

a wrong repair method ... could have been done in weeks

 

I would offer that the maintenance philosophy of a 'merchant' or even more, 'cruise ship' deferrers WIDELY from than of USN. CH implies they are WRONG .... are there basic differences????

 

A cruise ship earns when it sails .... every day not sailing is no revenue ... OK, I get it. here the theory is do enuf to keep moving ... but move as much as you can ... moving is $$

 

Were there no requirement for a cruise ship to be dry docked routinely, I doubt any company would do it!!!! (Who's requirement is a different discussion)

 

A war ship needs to be battle ready .... To this end the USN's typical schedule has a ship 'on the line' only 30% of the time! They are on a 1.5 year cycle (minor ships). 6 mo deployed, 6mo yard, 6 mo work up for deployment. Could a cruise ship work like this? NO. (I was involved in discussions with USN when they looked at USCG who got 50% utilization ..... vs their 30)

 

Also remember that merchants (including cruise) are built to BUSHIP standards .... not MILSPEC. If you don't think there's a difference look at the pictures in the report I've previous linked .... and lets not forget that the damaged areas of F include the SONAR and COMMUNICATIONS spaces ... to wit the redacted pictures ..... you don't spend 'anyone' into spaces with highly classified equipment ....

 

I have not said that the Navy's repair methods are "wrong", but that they are not cost effective. I never mentioned maintenance philosophy in any way. And, once again, you are incorrect that merchant ships are built to "BUSHIP" standards, since BUSHIP is a Navy bureau, and again I suspect you mean ABS (American Bureau of Ships) or other class societies.

 

As to "sending anyone into spaces with highly classified equipement", who said anything about that, and why can't the shipyard workers who work on Navy vessels (and are security cleared) couldn't work in a different method to save the taxpayers some money (pre-fabricating modules and/or limiting time "on the blocks" in a drydock. Its never about saving the taxpayer anything, remember the $600 toilet seats?

 

I have personally experienced situations where an unexpected repair is discovered when a ship drydocks, and when the owner's representative asks the US shipyard for a quote, you get "I'll have the estimator set up a time, maybe tomorrow, when he can look over the repair, and we can have a quote for you in a couple of days", while a foreign shipyard will have the estimator walking the ship with the owner's and shipyard's representatives, and will have a quote within 5 to 10 minutes, so the owner can decide immediately on scheduling the job and where it puts his budget. Our shipyards are so used to the US Navy model of ship building and repair that they have lost the ability to think on the fly and adjust to changing requirements in a timely fashion.

 

But, I get your personal vendetta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not said that the Navy's repair methods are "wrong", but that they are not cost effective. I never mentioned maintenance philosophy in any way. And, once again, you are incorrect that merchant ships are built to "BUSHIP" standards, since BUSHIP is a Navy bureau, and again I suspect you mean ABS (American Bureau of Ships) or other class societies.

 

As to "sending anyone into spaces with highly classified equipement", who said anything about that, and why can't the shipyard workers who work on Navy vessels (and are security cleared) couldn't work in a different method to save the taxpayers some money (pre-fabricating modules and/or limiting time "on the blocks" in a drydock. Its never about saving the taxpayer anything, remember the $600 toilet seats?

 

I have personally experienced situations where an unexpected repair is discovered when a ship drydocks, and when the owner's representative asks the US shipyard for a quote, you get "I'll have the estimator set up a time, maybe tomorrow, when he can look over the repair, and we can have a quote for you in a couple of days", while a foreign shipyard will have the estimator walking the ship with the owner's and shipyard's representatives, and will have a quote within 5 to 10 minutes, so the owner can decide immediately on scheduling the job and where it puts his budget. Our shipyards are so used to the US Navy model of ship building and repair that they have lost the ability to think on the fly and adjust to changing requirements in a timely fashion.

 

But, I get your personal vendetta.

 

After working in the US Government, and having the US Government as my customer,,,, I have come to the conclusion that it is illegal to save the US Government money. They will fight, kick, and scratch rather than try to save a dime. The old process is the only process that can possibly work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not said that the Navy's repair methods are "wrong", but that they are not cost effective.

 

...

 

But, I get your personal vendetta.

 

Your going into such detail on their inefficiency and wastefulness sure sounded as though you were saying the methods were wrong.

 

Please knock off the "personal vendetta" BS -- we all know that you believe merchant seamen stand head and shoulders above Navy - you are entitled to your opinion, but it does get tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your going into such detail on their inefficiency and wastefulness sure sounded as though you were saying the methods were wrong.

 

Please knock off the "personal vendetta" BS -- we all know that you believe merchant seamen stand head and shoulders above Navy - you are entitled to your opinion, but it does get tiresome.

 

I'm sorry if I've given the impression that I feel merchant seamen are "above" the Navy, they are two different breeds and do two different things, I recognize the US Navy for their great contribution to the US. My problem with BJ is that he feels that only "those who have sat in the Captain's chair" know what goes on on a ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know what happened but they apparently just fired/released quite few of the senior on board folks apparently as a precursor to the final report. Does not look like it will be pretty.

 

During my career I saw the migration inside various military organizations from very expensive customized components to RPF's and Requirements Docs that specified COTS, consumer off the shelf product.

 

Saved the military countless dollars over the years Not just in acquisition but in sparing, training, and repair/rework. There was always pushback on this from those who had part of their careers wrapped around this. Most especially in IT and board components. It also meant much lower profit levels for the vendors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the middle of the night and it is standard for the big three(CO, XO and CMC) to be asleep.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

Likely so and I have no intent to judge them. I merely repeat what I heard on a news report. those of us who know nothing more, are apt to think there must have been some infractrion or why have they been removed from their duties? And was there no senior officer on the bridge? Surely someone was in command?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Officer of the Deck is an officer (or possibly a very experienced Petty Officer) who is qualified to be the senior person on the bridge. Normally the CO has standing orders instructing the OOD to inform him of all contacts with a predicted closest approach under some distance (say 10,000 yards/5 miles) and the CO may choose to come to the bridge at any time based on any report or otherwise.

 

The Fitzgerald was the more maneuverable of the two and ultimately the collision is the result of an error of commission or commission by some watchstander(s) onboard - the men in watch should have seen the Crystal, tracked its CPA, informed the CO and taken appropriate action to prevent the incident. In that instance it's not unusual for the CO, XO, and/or Command Master Chief to lose their jobs since any actions or inactions ultimately arise from their inability to prepare the crew to operate the ship safely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Likely so and I have no intent to judge them. I merely repeat what I heard on a news report. those of us who know nothing more, are apt to think there must have been some infractrion or why have they been removed from their duties? And was there no senior officer on the bridge? Surely someone was in command?

 

It is long-standing practice in the Navy that a captain (CO) is responsible for the safety of his ship. Naturally, he cannot be on the bridge at all times, but he is responsible for determining the qualifications of those more junior officers to serve as Officer of the Deck (OOD). He is also responsible for setting forth in his "night orders" precisely when he should be notified by the OOD (typically when another vessel will pass within five miles - or some other specified distance).

 

If he had appointed an incompetent officer as OOD, or if his night orders did not require sound practice, the fault is deemed to be his. It is axiomatic that, while a senior officer can delegate authority, he cannot delegate responsibility: whatever happens to, or on, a ship is presumed to be the captain's responsibility. Obviously, if he was in his cabin, he was cannot be held directly responsible for conning the ship -- but he was held responsible for putting someone on the bridge who was not up to the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other things being equal, yes the less maneuverable has right of way-- but there are a number of other governing conditions: in an overtaking situation, the ship being passed has right of way, in a crossing situation the one to starboard of the other has right of way - among many others.

 

 

 

It is pointless to speculate right now, given the lack of information.

 

 

 

3 senior navy officers from the ship were reprimanded the other day because of their inaction. Should answer your question.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 senior navy officers from the ship were reprimanded the other day because of their inaction. Should answer your question.
Actually, the action taken on those officers was expected regardless of the specific details regard the incident. It doesn't tell us anything about what happened, just that the senior personnel bear responsibility as NBT has explained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's happened again near Singapore.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-john-s-mccain-collides-merchant-ship/

 

Sent from my iPad using Forums

 

10 US Navy sailors missing after destroyer collides with merchant ship

 

This time it's with an oil tanker. Destroyer had steering problems, but were reportedly corrected before collision.

 

The McCain collision marks the fourth incident involving a US Navy warship in the Pacific this year.

 

 

On June 17, the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship off the coast of Japan. That collision resulted in the deaths of seven US sailors. It will be transported to the US for repairs.

 

 

On May 9, the guided-missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain was struck by a small fishing boat off the Korean Peninsula.

 

 

And in late January, the guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam ran aground while trying to anchor in Tokyo Bay.

 

This sure looks bad for the USN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Officer of the Deck is an officer (or possibly a very experienced Petty Officer) who is qualified to be the senior person on the bridge. Normally the CO has standing orders instructing the OOD to inform him of all contacts with a predicted closest approach under some distance (say 10,000 yards/5 miles) and the CO may choose to come to the bridge at any time based on any report or otherwise.

 

The Fitzgerald was the more maneuverable of the two and ultimately the collision is the result of an error of commission or commission by some watchstander(s) onboard - the men in watch should have seen the Crystal, tracked its CPA, informed the CO and taken appropriate action to prevent the incident. In that instance it's not unusual for the CO, XO, and/or Command Master Chief to lose their jobs since any actions or inactions ultimately arise from their inability to prepare the crew to operate the ship safely.

 

Thank you for this great explanation. Very helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't look good for the world's most powerful Navy! How can something like this happen again?

 

Sent from my LG-LS993 using Forums mobile app

 

All four incidents are quite different.

 

I've seen reports that the McCain had immediately before or during the incident suffered steering problems.

 

Given the scope and frequency of operations I doubt 4 accidents is statistically meaningful. Nonetheless, there is cause for serious concern whenever lives are imperiled or lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...