The navy could at least get its facts straight so conspiracy theories aren't blowing up all over the place. If not, it's better not to say anything at all.

Anyone know what time Japan Coast Guard responded? I can't find anything about it other than they were requested to assist. One might think that would give some idea of a collision timeline. Or at least another fact to the matter for consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The navy could at least get its facts straight so conspiracy theories aren't blowing up all over the place. If not, it's better not to say anything at all.

The Navy's Public Affairs Officers aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:
Anyone know what time Japan Coast Guard responded? I can't find anything about it other than they were requested to assist. One might think that would give some idea of a collision timeline. Or at least another fact to the matter for consideration.

I tried to find direct Japanese CG statements but am not having any luck.

The confusion seems to be in the time of the collision, the time of the first call to the Japanese coast guard, and when the Navy first was contacted, etc.

The destroyer had its radio room wiped out, communications were impaired.

quote:

Others caution that there are potentially many other contributing factors to the collision. Tracking data sent by the cargo ship, the ACX Crystal, showed it reversed course around 2:05 a.m. local time, shortly before the time of the collision given by the U.S. Navy of approximately 2:20 a.m.

However, Nippon Yusen K.K . , the Japanese shipping company that operates the 728-foot-long ACX Crystal, has stated that the collision occurred around 1:30 a.m. That discrepancy hasn’t been resolved. “She did not reverse the course before the collision. She did after the collision,” a Nippon Yusen company spokesman said.

Link

This plot shows the cargo ship changing course just before the collision point at 0130hrs.
Destroy simply did not recognize that the cargo ship had turned in front of it.

To me this map clearly shows where the collision occured, if the map is accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The navy could at least get its facts straight so conspiracy theories aren't blowing up all over the place. If not, it's better not to say anything at all.

The Navy's PAOs aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

Can you explain what PAO is? Thanks.

i am not really following every post in this thread or the news on this incident. But,

What is really disturbing is that even the smallest of vessel's could do harm to any Navy vessel and crew. Especially in the world today.

So being on guard and vigilant 24/7 is mandatory. And these ships are outfitted and staffed to avoid all threats all the time. So something like this is just inexcusable at all levels. I don't care if there was a lot of boat traffic. That should of only increased the monitoring level.
Loosing seven sailors to something like this is maddening and heartbreaking.

http://www.kvoa.com/story/3568...zzle-over-ship-crash

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.

*************

I remember other reports citing a 220am call also.

The call to the Coast Guard would certainly be some time after the collision.

My interest is to keep conspiracy theories down too.

I do not want the Navy to look stupid.

PAO Public Affairs Officer

Yeah, so there is no way the collision happened at 2:20am if they called it in at that time.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I do not want the Navy to look stupid.

I know, but it's a little late for that, considering...

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The navy could at least get its facts straight so conspiracy theories aren't blowing up all over the place. If not, it's better not to say anything at all.

The Navy's PAOs aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

Can you explain what PAO is? Thanks.

Public Affairs Office / Officer.

The media for the Navy.

quote:

Originally posted by OKCGene:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The navy could at least get its facts straight so conspiracy theories aren't blowing up all over the place. If not, it's better not to say anything at all.

The Navy's PAOs aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

Can you explain what PAO is? Thanks.

Public Affairs Officer

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The navy could at least get its facts straight so conspiracy theories aren't blowing up all over the place. If not, it's better not to say anything at all.

The Navy's PAOs aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

I'm not Navy, but retired USAF.

Every flag officer (Generals/Admirals) has a literal army of staffers. Heck, they have senior officers (O-6s; Bird Colonels/Navy Captains) running coffee errands for them. They also have staffs to build and approve briefing points. I've seen this process up close and personal. I would help build a brief. We would brief the O-5. The O-5 would brief the O-6. The O-6 would brief the General. EVERY STEP OF THE WAY were dozens of people nit-picking the heck out of those briefs. It would be virtually impossible for a major detail like the time of a collision to get through without somebody catching it.

That announcement had to be reviewed by dozens of people before the Admiral got to it. It's inexcusable, to me, that such a high-ranking officer would give bad info following such a high-profile incident. Unless, some E-5 in the Public Affairs Office wrote it and it was briefed without being fact-checked? That, in itself, would be a gross incompetency. . .

Balzé Halzé, still can't figure the 180. Is it something a commercial vessel would do as a time waster if ahead of schedule or something under any circumstance or do they just always stay the course and continue to destination, get in the queue and anchor out. I think you gave thoughts earlier, just wondered if you've given more thought.

I was Navy and considering the confusion of when the time was reported and the emphasis the Navy places on concentrating on the families of the deceased and figuring out what happened, 2:20 vs 1:20 to keep the armchair commandos from starting a riot isn't one of their concerns.

Is it a mistake? Sure. Inexcusable? Really?

Obviously different priorities between the services, with sailors killed and their families being the priority.

The telling fact is they aren't concerned about the possible rogue ISIS container ship making it's way in the minds of those on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:
Balzé Halzé, still can't figure the 180. Is it something a commercial vessel would do as a time waster if ahead of schedule or something under any circumstance or do they just always stay the course and continue to destination, get in the queue and anchor out. I think you gave thoughts earlier, just wondered if you've given more thought.

They figured out they hit someone, and turned around to check...

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
They figured out they hit someone, and turned around to check...

In a perfect world, that's the only logical conclusion. What other reason could there possibly be? I got nothing.

Hobbs,

We are thinking the collision occurred at 130am.
(although that is not what the Navy is saying)

The 180 was at 203am.

So the cargo ship was turning around to return to the scene of the accident.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Hobbs,

We are thinking the collision occurred at 130am.
(although that is not what the Navy is saying)

The 180 was at 203am.

So the cargo ship was turning around to return to the scene of the accident.

Understood. Just trying to frame it around the promulgated timeline somehow. It just doesn't fit in your minds nor mine at this point. In either time case of collision 0130 or 0220 only opinions have been offered at this point. Sides are being chosen on opinion and defended (vehemently?) as though fact. We just don't have enough facts ... for facts. Too long as a Chief and answering to O-types. Don't assume anything, hold the "thing" up to the light and examine from all sides before reporting facts. Does that mean I will be shocked if you are 100% correct? ... No sir

Problem for the Navy is everyone has access to maps and timeline of the ACX Crystal.
They need to get there story inline with the information soon.