As tragic as it is I'm glad to see the Navy recovered all 7 missing sailors and they have been identified.

I have to imagine that bending a US Navy vessel is bad, but an accident resulting in fatalities must have the potential for some serious charges.

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.

A commercial vessel will not turn around to waste time. She would simply slow down if she somehow found herself ahead of schedule.

A container ship I'd venture to say though is never "ahead of schedule." Don't know if it's even in their vocabulary. If they have a destination to be at, they get there as fast as possible. That's my experience anyway.

Question for the Navy guys. A merchant vessel will always have a voyage plan. They'll know long in advance what their heading will be, and when and where they will change course for the safest and most economical route to their destination. Plots are laid down before they sail. Course corrections of course are made if necessary for weather, traffic, etc. I'm sure this particular vessel knew this route well as it may have been their regular run.

I'm sure Navy ships must have some type of voyage plan when underway, no? Or does it really just depend on the mission?

As I understand and have observed, it isn't uncommon for the captain to state in night orders before retiring, that he expects to be at "X" by a given time. Navigator works it out. In fact, I'd be surprised if a destination wasn't planned even well ahead. I can't imagine the Fitzgerald just doing boxes in commercial shipping lanes.

Just went to the U.S. Navy website to check on latest information that they were providing on the collision.

Think I found their problem.
Too much social engineering, and not enough focus on their actual job.

That's it I am done with this thread.
The Navy needs to be fixed.

Good grief.

And thanks, Hobb. That's what I would expect. Especially if they were in that area, they must've had a course laid out.

Prayers for those lost and their families:

The seven sailors identified were:

– Gunner’s Mate Seaman Dakota Kyle Rigsby, 19, from Palmyra, Virginia

– Yeoman 3rd Class Shingo Alexander Douglass, 25, from San Diego, California

– Sonar Technician 3rd Class Ngoc T Truong Huynh, 25, from Oakville, Connecticut

– Gunner’s Mate 2nd Class Noe Hernandez, 26, from Weslaco, Texas

– Fire Controlman 2nd Class Carlos Victor Ganzon Sibayan, 23, from Chula Vista, California

– Personnel Specialist 1st Class Xavier Alec Martin, 24, from Halethorpe, Maryland

– Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr., 37, from Elyria, Ohio

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/...ilors-flooded-spaces

Rest in peace shipmates. Heartfelt and humble condolences to families and friends :SALUTE:

Looking at the various plot posts, I'm still a bit confused about "our" suspected point of collision. If it's where I think it is, why does the freighter make jog to starboard and then back to port to continue on long before the u turn. It make me think they knew about the collision long before actually making the u turn.

6guns,

I suspect the Crystal knew "something" had happened right when the collision occurred.

The data points are plotted every 2 to 3 minutes so the actual track is much smoother than what is shown.

The Crystal course prior to 130 was 68 deg at 18 kts. At each data point, Marine Traffic shows the heading by the orientation of the symbol.

At 130am, the course was 112 deg. It was turning starboard. The next data point after 130 has course 118 deg at 11 kts

After all the back and forth yesterday about time of collision, here is my current thinking.

I am assuming 130am as time of collision until new evidence disproves it.

Why?
1. this is the first time in the ACX Crystal track where there is a dramatic course/speed change

2. Nippon Yusen has publicly stated the collision was at 130am. Nippon Yusen operates ACX Crystal

3. There is nothing in the Crystal track at 0220am to indicate a collision

4. Crystal contacted the Japanese Coast Guard about 0220. There would have been a delay in that contact after the collision

5. it provides a rational explanation for the “mysterious” 180 deg turn

6. Crystal returns to the approximate 130am point, slows down to less than 3 knots, and lingers for an hour

7. prior to 115am Crystal was on constant course/speed for over 4 hours. That projected track would have passed 1.5 miles south of the assumed collision point. 15 minutes after changing from 85 deg to 68 deg heading, the collision occurred

When an incident like this occurs, the Navy goes into a hard lockdown on information release. They don’t want anything coming out until a comprehensive analysis is completed. Perhaps the reason why they are sticking to 0220 is because that is in the public domain already; they do not want to provide more detail until the investigation is over.

The Navy knows the time of collision. The admiral knows the time of collision.

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

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
6guns,

I suspect the Crystal knew "something" had happened right when the collision occurred.

The data points are plotted every 2 to 3 minutes so the actual track is much smoother than what is shown.

The Crystal course prior to 130 was 68 deg at 18 kts. At each data point, Marine Traffic shows the heading by the orientation of the symbol.

At 130am, the course was 112 deg. It was turning starboard. The next data point after 130 has course 118 deg at 11 kts

Thanks, sdy. It makes me think it took them a while to make the decision of turning back around....maybe in conjunction with communications to the home office, waking the skipper and just shitting their pants. "Normally", we might see them stop at that point, right after the collision and aid the other vessel.

sorry to beat this to death, but look at the next level of detail




The track is steady at 127 am (course 68 deg) but has changed to 112 deg at 130 am (look at the symbol orientation)

So to be even more precise, the collision occurred between 127am and 130 am

also note where the Crystal comes back to. It slows way down and makes a loop just north of the mid point of the former track between 127am and 130 am

The distance between the loop and the former track at 127/130 is 3000 feet

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

Photos of the Crystal seem to have disappeared from the news sites.

quote:

Japan’s coast guard was investigating why it took nearly an hour for the collision to be reported. A Japanese coast guard official said Monday that they are investigating what the crew of the ACX Crystal was doing before reporting the crash.

The coast guard initially said the collision occurred at 2:20 a.m. because the Philippine ship had reported it at 2:25 a.m. and said it just happened. After interviewing Filipino crewmembers, the coast guard has changed the collision time to 1:30 a.m.

Link

Fox News, just right now, is still saying the collision happened at 0230. For chrissakes.

This is ridiculous that they can't get this little but very important detail right.

explains a lot

also from the above report:

A U.S. Navy official said it is sticking with the 2:20 a.m. timing for the crash, the time reported by the Fitzgerald.


When asked about the earlier time cited by the coast guard, Navy spokesman Cmdr. Ron Flanders said, “That is not our understanding.” He said any differences would have to be clarified in the investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
explains a lot

also from the above report:

A U.S. Navy official said it is sticking with the 2:20 a.m. timing for the crash, the time reported by the Fitzgerald.


When asked about the earlier time cited by the coast guard, Navy spokesman Cmdr. Ron Flanders said, “That is not our understanding.” He said any differences would have to be clarified in the investigation.

Daylight savings time?

quote:

Originally posted by kimber1911:
Just went to the U.S. Navy website to check on latest information that they were providing on the collision.

Think I found their problem.
Too much social engineering, and not enough focus on their actual job.

bullshit like this have very little (nothing for most) to do with deck plate performance of their jobs. for every task, there's 2, 3, or more monitoring, verifying, spot checking if it was done correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
To the Navy guys on the board:

How much damage can a modern ship take and still fight effectively? Or even fight at all?

The Stark took a single missile hit and almost sank. The Cole took the equivalent of a single missile hit and almost sank. The damage the Fitzgerald took seems about equivalent to a missile hit and appears to be combat ineffective as a result. British warships in the Falklands were taken completely out of action by single hits, several destroyed outright by fire or sinking. Several US Navy ships hit mines in DS/DS and were crippled.

I mean, these are warships right? Taking hits and damage yet still being able to fight would be part of their design, right?

You can't change physics. A single hit from a missle to a ship is a huge impact. When they build these ships, it's all a balance of strength, speed, and maneuverability. Sure, you could build a destroyer to survive multiple hits ad still fight, BUT then it would only go 10 mph, so what good is that. It would be totally ineffective at fighting due to it's slow speed. Or you could build fast AND strong but so big it wouldn't turn worth a darn and still be ineffective.

Latest NYT story here.

The photo showing the ACX Crystal suggests that it is impossible to see the damage from the bridge. It took ~30 minutes or so to figure out what had happened and turn around as required to render aid.

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.

a large container ship would never do a 180 like that to "waste time". Only time they would do that is if they hit something or Man Overboard or something of that nature or to scrub speed in an emergency situation. It takes a long time to turn or slow down a container ship.

If they wanted to waste time, they'd simply slow the freighter down to a crawl. Many of them are capable of maintaining a course at 1-2 mph. Then if still early will anchor outside of the port. I saw several freighters sitting, maintaining direction and barely moving in deep water outside of Freeport, Bahamas on Friday.

Everything I see, tells me the collision occurred before the 180 and the freighter did the 180 and stopped to render assistance to the destroyer after it was hit.