What does running on autopilot have to do with whether or not there are live crewmen on the bridge on watch?

Only this. If there are crewmen, autopilot might be in use. If there are no crewmen, then Iron
Mike is on.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
What does running on autopilot have to do with whether or not there are live crewmen on the bridge on watch?

Only this. If there are crewmen, autopilot might be in use. If there are no crewmen, then Iron
Mike is on.

It's what the story claims.

"After shifting through the data of the Crystals tracks at sea Watkins has concluded the cargo carrier mistakenly blindsided the Fitzgerald as the ship was without a human pilot at the time.
According to the the tracking data 15 minutes after the presumed 1.30am collision with the Fitzgerald, the ship righted it's course, and increased speed, readjusting for the change in course the collision had made.
'This is, to me, proof that a computer was driving. No captain shakes off a collision with a US Navy Destroyer and resumes course so perfectly,' said Watkins.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...n.html#ixzz4kVmYPyXV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"

Under international maritime rules, the Fitzgerald would be expected to give the ACX Crystal the right of way and real-time charts appear to show the Filipino-crewed vessel was sailing on that side.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...n.html#ixzz4kVmrRJHA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

OF course the ship was on Autopilot. What's that idiot going on about? For chirssakes, we run on autopilot even in the river.

The fact that the ship made a course change at 0115 means someone was there to make that adjustment to the autopilot.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

Under maritime law, the container ship had an obligation to avoid a collision if it was trying to overtake the destroyer from behind.
But if the container vessel was approaching from the US ship’s right side, the destroyer had the obligation to give way, another Japanese coastguard spokesman said.

Whether it was an overtaking situation or a crossing situation will depend on the angles. A shipmate mentioned the degrees to me yesterday but I don't recall them exactly now so I won't guess, but an overtaking situation can sometimes look like a crossing situation especially to the naked eye. The angles can be that severe.

This is one of the bigger questions I have. Was the ship overtaking the Fitzgerald or was the fitzgerald crossing? We can't know until we have the second track.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
OF course the ship was on Autopilot. What's that idiot going on about? For chirssakes, we run on autopilot even in the river.

The fact that the ship made a course change at 0115 means someone was there to make that adjustment to the autopilot.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

Under maritime law, the container ship had an obligation to avoid a collision if it was trying to overtake the destroyer from behind.
But if the container vessel was approaching from the US ship’s right side, the destroyer had the obligation to give way, another Japanese coastguard spokesman said.

Whether it was an overtaking situation or a crossing situation will depend on the angles. A shipmate mentioned the degrees to me yesterday but I don't recall them exactly now so I won't guess, but an overtaking situation can sometimes look like a crossing situation especially to the naked eye. The angles can be that severe.

This is one of the bigger questions I have. Was the ship overtaking the Fitzgerald or was the fitzgerald crossing? We can't know until we have the second track.

Yes that is the question. Until the track of the Fitzgerald is known, no telling.

Somebody changed course at 1:15 and went back to the mess deck, or cabin. I don't believe there was a live crewman on the bridge of the ACX Crystal in the critical minutes before the collision.

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

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Somebody changed course at 1:15 and went back to the mess deck, or cabin. I don't believe there was a live crewman on the bridge of the ACX Crystal in the critical minutes before the collision.

I have a very hard time believing that. At least from the perspective of an American crew.

Even for a Filipino crew, I find it hard to believe. That's stunningly egregious if true.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Somebody changed course at 1:15 and went back to the mess deck, or cabin. I don't believe there was a live crewman on the bridge of the ACX Crystal in the critical minutes before the collision.

I have a very hard time believing that. At least from the perspective of an American crew.

Even for a Filipino crew, I find it hard to believe. That's stunningly egregious if true.

What competent live watch stander would observe what was about to happen and do nothing?

Radar on both ships kaput, dark night, destroyer maybe running dark (although I don't think this is ordinarily done unless there is an op underway, not just transiting), and nobody does nothing? Pretty long odds of all that.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Somebody changed course at 1:15 and went back to the mess deck, or cabin. I don't believe there was a live crewman on the bridge of the ACX Crystal in the critical minutes before the collision.

I have a very hard time believing that. At least from the perspective of an American crew.

Even for a Filipino crew, I find it hard to believe. That's stunningly egregious if true.

What competent live watch stander would observe what was about to happen and do nothing?

Radar on both ships kaput, dark night, destroyer maybe running dark (although I don't think this is ordinarily done unless there is an op underway, not just transiting), and nobody does nothing? Pretty long odds of all that.

Couple of things. First, from talking with those who have worked on vessels in regular contact with destroyers (Navy tugboats, Military Sealift Command, etc), it was not uncommon for them to have to radio over to the destroyer and remind them to put on their running lights. And that was after they were able to identify that the vessel was indeed a navy destroyer because all it was was a dark vessel and just a spot on their radar.

Second, from behind, those destroyers don't have much of a radar signature at all. And if the ship did not have the ARPA (automatic radar plotting aid) active on their radar, it's possible that they never even saw the destroyer or could anticipate where he was or where he would be.

But again, that's just me finding it hard to believe that the bridge was unmanned. It very likely could have been, but if so...Jesus.

I'd be curious to know if the Crystal has a system similar to what we have on our bridge, BNWAS which stands for Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm System. It is essentially a motion detection system that will alarm while the ship is underway if movement is not detected on the bridge after a set amount of time, usually only a minute or two.

BNWAS is an IMO requirement, so I would expect that they did have it.

I must admit that it has been 40 years since I was on the bridge of a ship, and most of the systems you mention did not exist.

It was called the "mid watch" because you were supposed to watch. They didn't drag you out of the rack at midnight just to eat baloney sandwiches and drink awful coffee or play with your Gameboy.

The radar(s) were manned, lookouts looked out, the OOD had binoculars around his neck usually and occasionally put them to use. If CIC called out a bogey, the bridge team looked.

Can we assume the container ship was displaying required lights at least?

I'm with Alan. I find it very hard to believe there was no bridge watch on the container ship.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I'm with Alan. I find it very hard to believe there was no bridge watch on the container ship.

I don't know if I care.
A properly trained USN bridge crew should have avoided that collision. Terrible to lose 7 sailors over what almost has to be incompetency...

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
A collision at sea should be impossible, assuming a competent bridge crew. USN has so many watchstanders, with an OOD, Conning Officer, lookouts, folks down below in CIC watching the radars, etc.

Standing watch on the bridge involves constant scanning of the horizon, both with 7x50 binos and naked eye, looking for CBDR (constant bearing, decreasing range) contacts. Standing orders usually involve waking the Captain when contacts are going to be within certain range. In heavy traffic areas, there are more folks involved.

Which is why a bunch of people are going to be rightfully fired, at minimum, and maybe court-martialed. As it should be.

You say that but there are idiots and they manage to succeed through all regulations and barriers. My friend was a submariner stationed and Guam and they drove the submarine into and underwater mountain. The scariest thing he's ever encountered.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

Somebody changed course at 1:15 and went back to the mess deck, or cabin. I don't believe there was a live crewman on the bridge of the ACX Crystal in the critical minutes before the collision.

I have a very hard time believing that. At least from the perspective of an American crew.

Even for a Filipino crew, I find it hard to believe. That's stunningly egregious if true.

What competent live watch stander would observe what was about to happen and do nothing?

Radar on both ships kaput, dark night, destroyer maybe running dark (although I don't think this is ordinarily done unless there is an op underway, not just transiting), and nobody does nothing? Pretty long odds of all that.

Couple of things. First, from talking with those who have worked on vessels in regular contact with destroyers (Navy tugboats, Military Sealift Command, etc), it was not uncommon for them to have to radio over to the destroyer and remind them to put on their running lights. And that was after they were able to identify that the vessel was indeed a navy destroyer because all it was was a dark vessel and just a spot on their radar.

Second, from behind, those destroyers don't have much of a radar signature at all. And if the ship did not have the ARPA (automatic radar plotting aid) active on their radar, it's possible that they never even saw the destroyer or could anticipate where he was or where he would be.

But again, that's just me finding it hard to believe that the bridge was unmanned. It very likely could have been, but if so...Jesus.

I'd be curious to know if the Crystal has a system similar to what we have on our bridge, BNWAS which stands for Bridge Navigational Watch Alarm System. It is essentially a motion detection system that will alarm while the ship is underway if movement is not detected on the bridge after a set amount of time, usually only a minute or two.

BNWAS is an IMO requirement, so I would expect that they did have it.

I too find it extremely hard to believe the bridge was unmanned on the freighter. They did a course change 15 minutes prior, which means someone was awake, plotted the course, and physically changed the autopilot setting. I've called freighters many times in the middle of the night in both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and have always gotten a response within seconds on the first call. On a smaller yacht when you hold a course at night at night at hull speed, you drift left/right 5 degrees or so back and forth so your radar targets also drift back and forth on your screen. SO I'd call them if it looked like we'd pass less than a mile, they'd know my exact position, heading, speed, and how far we'd pass and how. Meaning they've been plotting me the entire time as well as any other target.

NOW, if any bridge was unmanned, it was the Navy Destroyers. It had all of the advantages of avoiding a collision. Faster, much more maneuverable, smaller, state of the art radar and technology. Some of the best trained radar observers in the world. A USN warship is supposed to be constantly on the lookout for enemy attacks and avoiding any boats/ships within a mile of it or even further......

I also believe the destroyer was most likely dark ship, and they do sometimes hardly reflect a radar signal, and sometimes the signal only shows every 5th sweep of the radar or so. Also given the color, it's quite possible the freighter never even saw the fitzgerald with a person on lookout until a few hundred yards away. I find them very hard to see sometimes, and sometimes if they're doing some sort of secret ops they won't answer the vhf radio until you call them several times.

Also, no matter how poorly tuned your radar is, a freighter that's as long as a city block with containers stacked 3-6 high on the deck always shows up as a HUGE target on your radar. So how did the destroyer not see it and was not keeping an eye out for it. I would say with 99.9% certainty the freighter had it's navigational lights on.

quote:

NOW, if any bridge was unmanned, it was the Navy Destroyers.

Words cannot possibly describe how unlikely that would be. Offhand that is a minimum of 4 crew members not at their duty station, just on the bridge.

Edit:
That's OOD, quartermaster, helmsman, and boatswain's mate of the watch. Minimum, and that's just on the bridge and doesn't include lookouts or CIC.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

NOW, if any bridge was unmanned, it was the Navy Destroyers.

Words cannot possibly describe how unlikely that would be. Offhand that is a minimum of 4 crew members not at their duty station, just on the bridge.

Edit:
That's OOD, quartermaster, helmsman, and boatswain's mate of the watch. Minimum, and that's just on the bridge and doesn't include lookouts or CIC.

So how did they not see a freighter that's a city block long and 100' high? How did the radar observer not see the target on radar? How did they allow a freighter to get even within a mile of them? My guess is they were all distracted BS'ing or watching a movie or something or having a meeting on the bridge.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

NOW, if any bridge was unmanned, it was the Navy Destroyers.

Words cannot possibly describe how unlikely that would be. Offhand that is a minimum of 4 crew members not at their duty station, just on the bridge.

Edit:
That's OOD, quartermaster, helmsman, and boatswain's mate of the watch. Minimum, and that's just on the bridge and doesn't include lookouts or CIC.

So how did they not see a freighter that's a city block long and 100' high? How did the radar observer not see the target on radar? How did they allow a freighter to get even within a mile of them? My guess is they were all distracted BS'ing or watching a movie or something.

Well that is indeed the $64k (or multi-million dollar) question.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

NOW, if any bridge was unmanned, it was the Navy Destroyers.

Words cannot possibly describe how unlikely that would be. Offhand that is a minimum of 4 crew members not at their duty station, just on the bridge.

Edit:
That's OOD, quartermaster, helmsman, and boatswain's mate of the watch. Minimum, and that's just on the bridge and doesn't include lookouts or CIC.

So how did they not see a freighter that's a city block long and 100' high? How did the radar observer not see the target on radar? How did they allow a freighter to get even within a mile of them? My guess is they were all distracted BS'ing or watching a movie or something.

Well that is indeed the $64k (or multi-million dollar) question.

Perhaps they were all looking for the missing strawberries...

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I'm with Alan. I find it very hard to believe there was no bridge watch on the container ship.

I don't know if I care.
A properly trained USN bridge crew should have avoided that collision. Terrible to lose 7 sailors over what almost has to be incompetency...

Amen.

Well we know the Navy is lying, just read this quote from the NY Time this morning. Take note of the spokesman to see how I came to this conclusion:

quote:

Japanese officials said on Monday that the accident had occurred nearly an hour earlier than previously believed, and on Tuesday the United States Navy appeared to accept the revised timeline. “We’re not disputing what the Japanese Coast Guard is saying” about the timing of the collision, said Cmdr. Bill Clinton, a spokesman for the Seventh Fleet at the American base in Yokosuka, Japan, south of Tokyo.

I keed, I keed about the Navy lying on this incident. They only lie when offering young men and women a full ride scholarship at Great Lakes University and Newport, RI.

quote:

Originally posted by jimmy123x:

NOW, if any bridge was unmanned, it was the Navy Destroyers. It had all of the advantages of avoiding a collision. Faster, much more maneuverable, smaller, state of the art radar and technology. Some of the best trained radar observers in the world. A USN warship is supposed to be constantly on the lookout for enemy attacks and avoiding any boats/ships within a mile of it or even further......

I also believe the destroyer was most likely dark ship, and they do sometimes hardly reflect a radar signal, and sometimes the signal only shows every 5th sweep of the radar or so. Also given the color, it's quite possible the freighter never even saw the fitzgerald with a person on lookout until a few hundred yards away. I find them very hard to see sometimes, and sometimes if they're doing some sort of secret ops they won't answer the vhf radio until you call them several times.

Also, no matter how poorly tuned your radar is, a freighter that's as long as a city block with containers stacked 3-6 high on the deck always shows up as a HUGE target on your radar. So how did the destroyer not see it and was not keeping an eye out for it. I would say with 99.9% certainty the freighter had it's navigational lights on.

It appears you have never been on a USN ship's bridge at 0100 while underway. The DDG's bridge was manned and her running lights were lit (or at least they were supposed to be once twilight hit). At night, and during a clear day, the haze gray paint scheme doesn't matter at ranges of 6,000 yds, so if the ship were white, gray, or black, only its lights would be seen (at night). Been there on carriers to know. If this was an area of higher ship traffic (I am not familiar with that part of the ocean), additional watches would have/should have been assigned.

Next - the waning moonrise was ~0040 (with 30% to 40% illumination) in that part of the world, about 35 degrees above the horizon (if my memory serves correctly) at 0130 and a bit higher an hour afterwards. Unless local weather was overcast, the ships' watches, if awake and alert, were able to see one another at 2,000 yds (greater for 20 year-old eyes)

In this situation, law of physics states the larger, less maneuverable ship has the right-of-way. The smaller, more agile ship should have avoided collision.

With the USN reassessing time of collision we should consider initial assessments were likely based on when the DDG reported the collision to the fleet.

I fall back to my initial conclusions, the bridge of the DDG was lollygagging around and not standing a proper and disciplined watch which leads to the question - was this just the nature of those individuals on watch which was amplified when the four to six of them were together; was this watch section so familiar with the routine they lost situational awareness; or was this watch section indicative of all the watch sections under this CO's command?

Mixing what we think is true with some speculation, here is one possible scenario

Crystal was at 18.5 kts (21 mph) on course 68 deg at time of collision. Collision was either 0128 or 0129 local time

(above is very likely given Marine Traffic data)

The angle between DDG 62 and Crystal was in the range of 20 to 30 degrees

(a guess given the damage area of the Crystal was only on the port bow)





With Crystal at 68 deg, this would make DDG 62 heading roughly east at 90 deg or so

Crystal at 18.5 kts was moving faster than DDG 62.

This “coming from behind” geometry is probably not where most of the DDG 62 bridge watch would be focused. And it is poor from a visibility standpoint given the ship structure.



Not saying this is the scenario geometry, just saying it is a possible one from what we know.

*************
adding originally posted by LS1 GTO,

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...s-investigation.html

Japanese officials said on Monday that the accident had occurred nearly an hour earlier than previously believed, and on Tuesday the United States Navy appeared to accept the revised timeline. “We’re not disputing what the Japanese Coast Guard is saying” about the timing of the collision, said Cmdr. Bill Clinton, a spokesman for the Seventh Fleet at the American base in Yokosuka, Japan, south of Tokyo.

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

strange way of correcting themselves.

but hope that statement means what it appears to

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