quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:
What time is generally the standard time that there is a crew shift change on a destroyer?

All watches are the same throughout the Navy, barring special case circumstances, but specific timing of watch relief might vary slightly depending on the command, duty section policy or particular watch being stood and amount of time it takes to do a proper turnover. The acceptable time of watch relief varies slightly but generally the watch is relieved 15-30 minutes "early". The collision occurred during the midwatch. Midnight to 4 A.M. (00-0400, balls to 4). The team on watch at the time of collision would have relieved the previous watch at 11:30 P.M. (2330) to 11:45 P.M. (2345) and had been on watch almost two hours. They would have relieved the previous watch with enough time for the previous watch to still catch midrats on the mess decks

Then this shouldn't be an issue or cause to the crash. If they were at the beginning of their watch, they may not have been properly notified by the previous crew of the crystals heading or realized it's heading and so forth. On watch for nearly 2 hours, they should have been tracking the crystals movements for a while already.

On many ships, there is a 3 section watch bill. With 4 hour watches, it would mean the same guys get the midwatch evey night, so there is often a "dog watch," say, 4 pm to 6 pm and 6 pm to 8 pm, which results in rotating the midwatch.

That means that one night you get off watch at midnight, the next night you get the midwatch so get off at 4 AM, and the next night you are up at 4 AM, and relieved at 8 AM.

Meanwhile, all the normal activities, responsibilities, training, maintenance, reports have to be accomplished. This is why they don't have jacuzzies on the fantail.

I came into the Navy long after Jallen. 20 years and never had a duty section, watch bill with a dog watch or stood a dog watch ... that I recall. It was however, customary to have a watch (chow) relief assigned for those standing watch during normal meal hours ... or people on watch were simply rotated and allowed to go eat and come straight back, depending on the watches being stood and op tempo.

quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:
I came into the Navy long after Jallen. 20 years and never had a duty section, watch bill with a dog watch or stood a dog watch ... that I recall. It was however, customary to have a watch (chow) relief assigned for those standing watch during normal meal hours ... or people on watch were simply rotated and allowed to go eat and come straight back, depending on the watches being stood and op tempo.

Things do change. At least the decks were steel when I was in.

There were signalmen on the signal bridge, radiomen who knew Morse Code, and used it, the radios had tooobes, and there were no computers. The LORAN gear had its own space, filled with all sorts of mysterious devices, no pocket GPS, and no females in the crew.

First ship I served aboard, you could smoke anywhere onboard except the p-ways and mess decks during meal hours. Every other ship, smoking was banned within the skin of the ship. Wasn't until my last ship (4th) that had females that were assigned to the ship. Other ships and times when they were onboard, it was just temporary duty as part of a det ... usually "spooks".

like many posting here, my knowledge is dated

Over the last 12 years the Navy has moved away from paper charts

Don't know how "upgraded" DDG 62 is at present

For those who want to see the new navigation system:

Voyage Management System and Integrated Bridge System came after DDG 62.

2005:

http://www.sperrymarine.com/ne...paperless-navigation

Electronic Chart System to First U.S. Navy Ship Certified for "Paperless" Navigation


IBS:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...n88mv_jKlKRsRfasyr_w



2008:
“Our VMS Integrated Bridge Systems are currently installed on or under contract for more than 150 U.S. Navy ships.”

Scalable Integrated Bridge Systems for USN

http://www.sperrymarine.com/ne...d-bridge-systems-usn

The contract, valued at $3.7 million, was awarded to Northrop Grumman’s Sperry Marine business unit. Under the contract, the SCIBS packages, running on Sperry Marine’s Voyage Management System (VMS) software, will be back-fitted on 10 guided-missile destroyers, three amphibious ships and three aircraft carriers.

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

One of the many questions is whether DDG 62 had the AIS data displayed anywhere. Either on the bridge or in CIC

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
like many posting here, my knowledge is dated

Over the last 12 years the Navy has moved away from paper charts

Don't know how "upgraded" DDG 62 is at present

For those who want to see the new navigation system:

Voyage Management System and Integrated Bridge System came after DDG 62.

2005:

http://www.sperrymarine.com/ne...paperless-navigation

Electronic Chart System to First U.S. Navy Ship Certified for "Paperless" Navigation


IBS:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...n88mv_jKlKRsRfasyr_w



2008:
“Our VMS Integrated Bridge Systems are currently installed on or under contract for more than 150 U.S. Navy ships.”

Scalable Integrated Bridge Systems for USN

http://www.sperrymarine.com/ne...d-bridge-systems-usn

The contract, valued at $3.7 million, was awarded to Northrop Grumman’s Sperry Marine business unit. Under the contract, the SCIBS packages, running on Sperry Marine’s Voyage Management System (VMS) software, will be back-fitted on 10 guided-missile destroyers, three amphibious ships and three aircraft carriers.

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

One of the many questions is whether DDG 62 had the AIS data displayed anywhere. Either on the bridge or in CIC

The VMS looks exactly like Nobeltech chartplotting software we use on some yachts. It's not as easy to work with as Garmin,Simrad, or Furuno. But not overly complicated either. It also says it has ARPA (Automated radar plotting aid). You mentioned Fitzgerald was built before these were installed. BUT, quite honestly what the Crystal has (the ECDIS bridge system all commercial ships over 500 GT are required to have now) is far more advanced than this Sperry system. A LOT has changed in marine electronics in almost 10 years. Night and day.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
like many posting here, my knowledge is dated

Over the last 12 years the Navy has moved away from paper charts



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

One of the many questions is whether DDG 62 had the AIS data displayed anywhere. Either on the bridge or in CIC

One of the criticisms of the patrol boat crews in the debacle with the Iranians was there were no paper charts, the boat captains had not plotted the approved nav points for the transit on paper charts, and were incompent/inexperienced in the use of the GOGENT nav system.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
like many posting here, my knowledge is dated

Over the last 12 years the Navy has moved away from paper charts



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

One of the many questions is whether DDG 62 had the AIS data displayed anywhere. Either on the bridge or in CIC

One of the criticisms of the patrol boat crews in the debacle with the Iranians was there were no paper charts, the boat captains had not plotted the approved nav points for the transit on paper charts, and were incompent/inexperienced in the use of the GOGENT nav system.

I plot courses and routes at least weekly. I always use paper charts and find them far superior to trying to plot a course on chart plotters for several reasons:

Paper charts have approved magenta colored course lines on them, so you know where the route should be in areas like the Bahamas where you're going between a lot of islands and making a lot of turns.

On chart plotters, you either see a large area (like 100NM area) and very very little detail or no detail at all. Or you can see a small area (16 NM) and detail, but not a large area at the same time. On a paper chart you get both large area AND detail all on the same page.

It's also easy to miss something when trying to do a route on a chartplotter AND, if you write all of your waypoints down on a sheet of paper when doing your route from a paper chart, you have them in case the chart plotter goes tits up and you can plug them into a handheld GPS or whatever.

We had 5 and dimes, 5 and 15s, and 5 and 20s meaning 5 on 10,15,20 off.

Watches were 10-2, 2-7, 7-12, 12-17, 17-2200.

10-2 was short but you had to close logs at 0000 and open new logs.

Usually junior watch stations were rigged to be 5 and dimes to persuade people to qualify better watches.

And before you think life was sweet, those hours don't include training, workdays, drills or anything else, just watch.

quote:

Originally posted by billnchristy:
We had 5 and dimes, 5 and 15s, and 5 and 20s meaning 5 on 10,15,20 off....

....And before you think life was sweet, those hours don't include training, workdays, drills or anything else, just watch.

Yeah, "off" simply means "Not on Watch, doing your 16-18 hour a day regular job".

In my time there were a lot of different watch and relief times depending on where and when you stood watch. Generally combat systems and engineering had their own schedules from the rest of the ship.

In combat systems department I stood a 12on/12off from 7pm to 7am on tracking radar and a 5on/10off in CIC that rotated through that. First day out I had 7 hours off watch, second day was 4 hours off watch, and third day was 3 hours off watch, then it started over 7/4/3... As billnchristy noted, that didn't include training, scheduled work, drills, or any other duties I was required to fulfill.

Best I remember though, navigation, operations, and personnel, had more traditional schedules that were more like 8 hour rotating shifts 0700/1600/0000 with splits for lunch, dinner, and midrats...

Yep, sounds about right stoic-one. Throughout the ship at the time of the collision, I'm sure there was a combination of those who stood duty section watches outside their rating and for which they were qualified and there were those who worked shifts within their rating.

We spoke earlier of both of us having served on board the Bainbridge. As a junior member of Combat Systems and in addition to daily divisional in rate shift work when underway, I had to stand a duty section Combat Systems Roving Patrol watch for four hours every few (three I think) days. We checked mag temps and security of various compartments, reporting hourly to the bridge for example. (Sounds like you stood MEC and WEC in CIC on OJ-194 consoles.)

But even in consideration of the combination of duty section and divisional manning and given the time of the collision, all should have been settled into their job or watch. The collision didn't occur at a traditional time of manning turn-over. I think that's what jimmy123x was basically asking.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/...g-to-fix-hull-breach

A Navy official told USNI News on Wednesday the repair teams at U.S. 7th Fleet faced a difficult challenge patching the hole, since it was larger than existing hull patch kits. Crews had to cobble together enough material to plug the hole in the side of the ship before it could be safely transferred to the dry dock in Yokosuka.

Soon after the destroyer arrived in Yokosuka after being hit by the merchant ship, damage control teams discovered the impact of Crystal not only caved in the hull and smashed the superstructure but also twisted the ship, one sailor told USNI News at the time. The damage required sailors to keep pumping water in and out of the ship to keep the hull stable.

When the ship is stable enough to be relocated to the dry dock, the Navy will determine if the ship will be repaired in Japan or relocated to the West Coast for repairs.



close up

My photobucket account has been locked for 3rd party

I am going back thru this thread to switch to postimage

I hope eventually we will have a much clearer view of what happened and the old images may be of future use

Thanks Sdy I really enjoy your updates.

And again as I look at the damage I am astounded. Those damage control crews actions were absolutely amazing. Anyone who has ever spent time training in the military always wonders if they can do their job when it counts. Well, that crew will never have to wonder again. "You are what you do, when it counts."

We have an amazing Navy gents.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Thanks Sdy I really enjoy your updates.

And again as I look at the damage I am astounded. Those damage control crews actions were absolutely amazing. Anyone who has ever spent time training in the military always wonders if they can do their job when it counts. Well, that crew will never have to wonder again. "You are what you do, when it counts."

We have an amazing Navy gents.

More than just simply amazing. Outstandingly amazing. Remember most of them got woken up in the middle of the night, in the dark, and had to get immediately to their muster stations and damage control.

http://www.businessinsider.com...official-says-2017-6

At least six investigations are being carried out, including two U.S. Navy internal hearings and one by the United States Coast Guard (USCG). The Philippines government is also conducting an investigation.

The U. S. Coast Guard, which is investigating on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board, has interviewed the crew of the container ship.

But the U.S. navy official, who declined to be identified, said warships were afforded sovereign immunity under international law and foreign investigators were not expected to get access to the U.S. crew.

"It's unlikely Japanese or Philippine authorities will have direct access to crew members," said the U.S. official.

The U.S. Coast Guard would instead provide summaries of crew interviews to the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB), which would share them with the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), he said.

Declining access may be viewed by Japanese investigators as falling short of a pledge made by Seventh Fleet commander Vice Admiral Joseph P. Aucoin of full cooperation in the investigation.

"We have asked for access to the U.S. ship and its crew and can't proceed until we hear back from the U.S. Navy," said a spokesman for the JTSB. He said he was unaware that the U.S. side was likely to turn down the request.

A Seventh Fleet spokesman said the navy would "share information in accordance with protocols."



different angle of the damage
must have been a scary sight from the bridge

would the starboard watch stander have been on the wing between the AEGIS radar sensors ?

quote:

would the starboard watch stander have been on the wing between the AEGIS radar sensors ?

Assuming there was a starboard bridge watch, that's exactly where he would have been.

dry dock pics of the patch on DDG 62







https://news.usni.org/2017/07/...35&mc_eid=cd9005089f


Four five foot by 20-foot hull patches have been installed to cover the hull breach welded in place by divers since the ship was been pier-side following the collision.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,