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

[navybankerteacher]

Sometimes. They may even have been operating darkened ship and without nav lights depending on what maneuvers they were engaged in. BIG maybe though. I'm not suggesting that's what they were doing.

 

One thing I do know is, ACX Crystal's AIS was on. You can see it on Marine Traffic. They had a consistent course and made a last minute turn to starboard, which accounts for there being more damage to their port bow.

 

A last minute turn to starboard just prior to colliding with the starboard side of the destroyer suggests that the two might have been approaching virtually head on - about to pass starboard to starboard, obviously at close range - but it is surprising how quickly range can evaporate.

[mnocket]

Obviously two ships can "actually collide";

 

Failure to avoid close approach;

Failure to follow rules of the road;

Failure to communicate intent;

Failure to comprehend other vessel's intent;

Mechanical failure;

 

are just some of possible contributing causes. And, there can be any number of prior factors contributing to each of the above possible immediate causes.

 

The old OOD's adage applies: "A collision at sea can ruin your whole day".

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

I understand your first 4 examples which I would categorize as "human error" (which my original post's "only plausible explanation" comment inarticulately attributed to bridge crew not paying attention). I understand that in any scenario human error can really screw things up. I'm really interested in your fifth example - "Mechanical Failure". What sort of failure(s) would have to occur in order for alert crews on both ships to find collision unavoidable? If we set aside human error, this is at the heart of my question "How is this possible?".

[Aquahound]

A last minute turn to starboard just prior to colliding with the starboard side of the destroyer suggests that the two might have been approaching virtually head on - about to pass starboard to starboard, obviously at close range - but it is surprising how quickly range can evaporate.

 

The damage is on ACX Crystal's port bow. The starboard to starboard meeting wouldn't make sense.

 

Now, if ACX Crystal was overtaking Fitzgerald on the starboard side and Fitz altered to starboard, that would be a scenario in which Fitz was the stand-on and with the right of way.

 

Just playing these out in my head. Based on the damage I'm seeing, the overtaking scenario is really all I'm coming up with that would put ACX Crystal at fault.

[navybankerteacher]

Thanks for the reply.

 

...

 

- "Mechanical Failure". What sort of failure(s) would have to occur in order for alert crews on both ships to find collision unavoidable? If we set aside human error, this is at the heart of my question "How is this possible?".

 

Conceivable (although unlikely) catastrophic failure in hydraulic ram(s) causing rudder to go hard over. Human error (including lack of proper maintenance) is virtually always the root problem - but not always the immediate cause.

[navybankerteacher]

The damage is on ACX Crystal's port bow. The starboard to starboard meeting wouldn't make sense.

 

Now, if ACX Crystal was overtaking Fitzgerald on the starboard side and Fitz altered to starboard, that would be a scenario in which Fitz was the stand-on and with the right of way.

 

Just playing these out in my head. Based on the damage I'm seeing, the overtaking scenario is really all I'm coming up with that would put ACX Crystal at fault.

 

Your overtaking scenario seems most likely explanation of damage to port bow vs. starboard side - but that also could be due to ACX Crystal swinging to port while passing. Outside possibility might be my head on passing - with ACX Crystal swinging so far around to explain damage to port bow.

 

What seems inexplicable, given my understanding that collision occurred in open sea with ample maneuvering space, that the two ships ever closed sufficiently to permit extremis situation to exist. They should have kept miles apart- and the destroyer (at least) would have been monitoring closest point of approach.

[Aquahound]

What seems inexplicable, given my understanding that collision occurred in open sea with ample maneuvering space, that the two ships ever closed sufficiently to permit extremis situation to exist. They should have kept miles apart- and the destroyer (at least) would have been monitoring closest point of approach.

 

That's a great point. Regardless of right of way, all ships have a duty, per the nav rules, to take action to avoid collision. The fact these 2 ships even closed to such a short distance is a head scratcher.

[Flatbush Flyer]

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.

 

 

 

Plus 1.

Interesting side note here: the undergraduate education at neither the US Naval Academy nor USCG Academy includes training or experience sufficient to qualify their graduates as USCG unlimited licensed deck or engineering officers. For that, a "young" mariner would need to attend one of the state academies (e.g., Cal Maritime, Maine, Mass., et al.) or the Kings Point federal merchant marine academy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

[sail7seas]

Hmmmm, One wonders, Where IS the OP: Navybanker when we need his honest and knowledgeable input when we need it. I hope they do find those missing sailors. I was always under the impression that actual collisions between ships, regardless of nations, were extremely rare, or possibly not given any news coverage.

 

Mac.

 

oNE NEWS report I heard said this is the second collision this DESTROYER HAD IN RECENT MONTHS? aLSO.... i WAS HALF ASLEEEP but I think I heard the Commander was not on the bridge AT THE TIME. . real or fake news :eek: I don't know.

Edited June 17, 2017 by sail7seas

[Aquahound]

oi WAS HALF ASLEEEP but I think I heard the Commander was not on the bridge AT THE TIME. . real or fake news :eek: I don't know.

 

Doesn't really matter. There's nothing unusual about that.

[navybankerteacher]

Doesn't really matter. There's nothing unusual about that.

 

Of course the CO cannot be on the bridge at all times - his Officer of the Deck is entrusted to maneuver the ship pursuant to CO's standing orders - which include those situations - such as very close approaches - when the CO is to be advised. The CO is responsible for only qualifying (and trusting) competently trained OOD's.

 

Whatever happens is always the CO's fault - except when in the Panama Canal and after having entered a dry dock.

[Capt_BJ]

some observations from one who's sat in the Captain's Chair and run an investigation of two:

 

1) when you get hit on your starboard side, be prepared to explain why rule 15 did not apply. This rule says when 2 ships are crossing the one with the other to starboard stays out of the way .... when the impact is starboard side to port bow .... hmmmmmmm ("shall keep out of the way" IS the wording in the international rules .... it continues "avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel.")

 

2) when a starboard side impact is due to another vessel overtaking on the starboard side, the impact is typically at a very shallow angle IME ... more of a side to side scrape ... impact suggests this was nearly 'crossing the T'

 

3) I'm not sure what folks are reading into the AIS track of the civilian vessel but here's the track surrounding the time of the incident if you are curious. Note that the direction of the icon may not indicate the heading of the vessel as the track denotes movement ... a drifting vessel (stopped after an incident) my 'move' very different from their heading.

 

 

zoomed in

 

 

some one asked about AIS on the USN vessel. Yes they have AIS but for obvious reasons they have 'permission' to turn it off, as does for example Coast Guard vessels, for obvious reasons. Fitz was 'on maneuvers' according to reports so it is safe to say they had the AIS off (not broadcasting their info, but they WOULD be receiving not to mention 'combat' watches)

[rkacruiser]

Not knowing where the Captain's cabin is located and not asking for information that ought not to be known to the general public, since the Commander (CO) of the Fitzgerald was severely injured and the Bridge does not seem to have been impacted by the collision, maybe he was not on the Bridge and the OOD was in charge. If that is the case, the Bridge Team has many questions to answer, I think.

 

Prayers for the 7 missing sailors!

[mnocket]

 

3) I'm not sure what folks are reading into the AIS track of the civilian vessel but here's the track surrounding the time of the incident if you are curious. Note that the direction of the icon may not indicate the heading of the vessel as the track denotes movement ... a drifting vessel (stopped after an incident) my 'move' very different from their heading.

 

The abrupt course change from a northerly? heading (no compass shown) to port looks strange to me, but then I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to such matters. My question is What Do You Think About the AIS track?

[dsrdsrdsr]

The only plausible explanation is that the bridge crew on both ships weren't paying attention for an extended period of time. Don't modern ships have collision avoidance alarms?

 

If this could happen to a USN Destroyer, it's not out of the question that it could happen to a cruise ship. Makes one wonder.

Is it essential at sea that both ships must be at fault when there's a collision? It's perfectly possible when on land that two vehicles collide and there's nothing one of them could do about it. Could it be like that?

 

Is it known that the US ship was under full power at the time? I was once on a P&O ship, Canberra from memory though it may have been Oriana, when a container ship sailed within (unofficial crew estimate) 50 feet of the ship. The container had no-one paying attention on the bridge and was sailing on autopilot. My ship was stationery and waiting to enter harbour, and couldn't easily dodge.

[Capt_BJ]

"Now, if ACX Crystal was overtaking Fitzgerald on the starboard side and Fitz altered to starboard, that would be a scenario in which Fitz was the stand-on and with the right of way."

 

Incorrect, see rule 17, action by stand on vessel: Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed

 

If Fitz was being overtaken on stbd side and altered course to stbd, they'd break this rule.

[Capt_BJ]

The abrupt course change from a northerly? heading (no compass shown) to port looks strange to me, but then I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to such matters. My question is What Do You Think About the AIS track?

 

I believe this abrupt change is the result of forward motion being stopped by the collision, followed by maneuvering/drifting following the incident until such time the local authorities cleared them to continue to port ... where they were when I checked this afternoon.

 

It has been proposed that the AIS track shows a last minute turn to starboard for the commercial vessel: I don't see this myself but offer

 

) the AIS track is not continuous but typically plots once every several minutes

 

) struck on the port bow one would expect the motion of the civ vessel to be to starboard

 

my guess from what I see here, now.... Both vessels should have very detailed records from their respective 'systems'

 

"can both vessels be at fault?" YES, the courts have often found BOTH vessels to have contributed equally to the incident. BUT I'd add that when a government vessel, like a USN one, operates outside of the rules and international 'requirements' for safe navigation - like say turning off AIS and or lights and or not responding to radio calls in practice .... they must accept liability for potential results of these actions.

 

As CO of a Cutter patrolling the Carib' in the heyday of drugs and illegal migration I ROUTINELY ran without lights at night, WAY too close to other vessels, in direct violation of certain rules of the road and more. And not for ONE MINUTE did I as CO believe that this title would hold me blameless in case of 'an incident'. In did mean I had to be 200% careful and require that much more of my deck officers before I considered them qualified to run the bridge watch. IMO this is encompassed in the title Command Afloat

[CruiseGal999]

They didn't see each other? Or neither one wanted to move from what they thought was their "given" route. Unbelievable!

 

Really? A deadly game of 'Chicken' on the open seas? VERY scary. :o

[navybankerteacher]

...

As CO of a Cutter patrolling the Carib' in the heyday of drugs and illegal migration I ROUTINELY ran without lights at night, WAY too close to other vessels, in direct violation of certain rules of the road and more. And not for ONE MINUTE did I as CO believe that this title would hold me blameless in case of 'an incident'. In did mean I had to be 200% careful and require that much more of my deck officers before I considered them qualified to run the bridge watch. IMO this is encompassed in the title Command Afloat

 

A great definition of the term "command at sea" - a fair bit more than dress whites and receiving salutes.

[TruckerDave]

Not knowing where the Captain's cabin is located and not asking for information that ought not to be known to the general public, since the Commander (CO) of the Fitzgerald was severely injured and the Bridge does not seem to have been impacted by the collision, maybe he was not on the Bridge and the OOD was in charge. If that is the case, the Bridge Team has many questions to answer, I think.

 

Prayers for the 7 missing sailors!

 

 

The CO's cabin/stateroom is generally pretty close to the bridge (nothing top secret about this. You can go on any museum ship and see how close the co's cabins are to the bridge and cic). The main damage being just below the bridge there is a chance he was injured while in in cabin. This incident did happen about 2-3am so he was probably sleeping.

[TruckerDave]

A great definition of the term "command at sea" - a fair bit more than dress whites and receiving salutes.

 

 

The downside of command. (A boot camp seaman gets a paper cut and it is the co's responsibility.) I don't think I could have handled the stress of being in command. You can train and train, pass inserv, oppe, reftra (or whatever they are all called these days), get everyone qualified for their watches and still if they make a big enough mistake its your career is over.

[Aquahound]

"Now, if ACX Crystal was overtaking Fitzgerald on the starboard side and Fitz altered to starboard, that would be a scenario in which Fitz was the stand-on and with the right of way."

 

Incorrect, see rule 17, action by stand on vessel: Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed

 

If Fitz was being overtaken on stbd side and altered course to stbd, they'd break this rule.

 

Totally familiar with rule 17, and you are correct. I mis-spoke.

 

I'm grasping for a scenario in which Fitz was not at fault, but I'm not seeing it based on the observable damage on both ships. It appears to be a direct impact rather than a sideswipe.

 

Off topic...but by chance, did you command VALIANT?

[CPT Trips]

Just saw a report on the track (no scale, no north arrow) on ABC World News and it look nothing like the track posted. Assuming north is top. Civilian heading NE, military heading WNW. Civilian bears off to starboard and passes aft of military and continues on ENE course for what looks to be a significant distance. The civilian turns to port, almost 180 degrees, overtaking military and colliding port bow to starboard side of military. Military appeared to maintain course throughout.

 

ETA: there's your out for military not being at fault.

[rkacruiser]

The CO's cabin/stateroom is generally pretty close to the bridge (nothing top secret about this. You can go on any museum ship and see how close the co's cabins are to the bridge and cic). The main damage being just below the bridge there is a chance he was injured while in in cabin. This incident did happen about 2-3am so he was probably sleeping.

 

You have confirmed my thinking. The Bridge Team has many questions to answer.

[sapper1]

oNE NEWS report I heard said this is the second collision this DESTROYER HAD IN RECENT MONTHS? aLSO.... i WAS HALF ASLEEEP but I think I heard the Commander was not on the bridge AT THE TIME. . real or fake news :eek: I don't know.

It's not unusual for the captain to not be on the bridge at all times. On cruise ships they have even been known to leave the bridge to host a dinner table with passengers. ;)

[mnocket]

From an AP report....

 

The Japanese coast guard said it received an emergency call from the container ship, the ACX Crystal, reporting the collision around 2:20 a.m. (17:20 GMT Friday). It was questioning crew members of the ACX Crystal, which is operated by the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen K.K., and was treating the incident as a case of possible professional negligence, said Masayuki Obara, a regional coast guard official.