quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


just guessing, and don't how much to rely on the data points, but collision may have been between 1740 and 1752

230 am Japan would be 1730 UTC

Balze, sound right ?

doesn't that 180 deg turn at 1705 seem odd ?

Yes, local time in Japan would be +9 hours UTC time.

And your assumptions in regards to the track are as good as mine right now.

And I really don't know what to make of that 180 degree turn. Maybe they initially changed course to avoid something (the destroyer) then decided to turn back to investigate. Honestly though, it's inexplicable to me knowing nothing else.

Maybe they saw the destroyer, didn't identify it and thought it was a ship in distress so turned back? I really don't know.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balzé Halzé, June 17, 2017 04:53 AM

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:
dreadnaught is correct. Looking at the damage, this was entirely the fault of the destroyer. Nautical rules of the road have at least one thing in common with automobiles in the US - when you get to an intersection at the same time, the car/ship on the right has the right-of-way, and the car/ship on the left stays clear. If you've got damage on your right side, you've managed to do absolutely everything wrong.

Maybe. From the look of the damage on the freighter, it may be that the freighter struck the naval obliquely from behind. In that case, it may very well be that the overtaking vessel is at fault.
If that freighter t-boned the naval ship, the navy ship would most likely have sunk. The damage give the impression of a t-bone, but I doubt that was how the naval ship was struck.

Intentional?

With the way the container ship turned back, could it have been an intentional act? Possibly the sailors on watch didn't pick up on the turn of the freighter (thought it was a non-issue and didn't pick up on the turn)?

Do we know the nationality of the crew of the container ship?

I don't understand this either...

Yeah, I am starting to wonder as well.
ISIS has been pretty active lately in The Philippines.

Philippine-Flagged vessel

I wondered that as well once I saw it made that turn.

One might think if there were malicious intent, there was ample time to turn around and hit it again. The cargo ship just kind of hung around for over an hour, then was back on original course though? Still, the 180 is quite puzzling

Looking at the map it seems like the Fitzgerald could have been sitting dead in the water.
Cargo ship saw him, took a little jog to the right, turned 180, came back and slammed into it.
However that wild speculation would not jive with the slow down to 8.5 knots.

Pretty amazing that a 21,000 ton cargo ship can sneak up on a destroyer like it did, unless the destroyer was truely sitting dead in the water.

Are there any maps or info on the USS Fitzgerald's path?

Looking at those maps again I bet the slow down to 8.5 knots was after the collision.
Collision probably occurred around the 17:27 UTC mark at 14.6 knots.
I am betting it was intentional.

The article did say something to the effect that after the collision, the ship made port but with limited steering. Don't think the area of damage would cause limited steering, but available speed and current conditions making way to port could certainly impact steering. Maybe there was an equipment casualty and loss of steering and the Destroyer was virtually DIW at the time of impact. Maybe that turn before the 180 was to avoid the destroyer and the 180 was a turn to render assistance or just a look-see, but doesn't sound entirely plausible for a commercial vessel under the circumstances or facts thusfar. Unless maybe there were comms between the ships and the destroyer's cautions about limited steering and/or DIW (if that was the case) was misunderstood as a distress by the commercial ship and they made a 180. The captain may have been frantically involved since he was one of two initially medevac'd from the ship. Everything is speculation at this point. Hope the facts come out in the coming days.

quote:

Originally posted by Hobbs:
The captain may have been frantically involved since he was one of two initially medevac'd from the ship.

My understanding is that the Captain's stateroom was right around the part of the ship that was struck and that is why he was one of the injured.

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:
dreadnaught is correct. Looking at the damage, this was entirely the fault of the destroyer. Nautical rules of the road have at least one thing in common with automobiles in the US - when you get to an intersection at the same time, the car/ship on the right has the right-of-way, and the car/ship on the left stays clear. If you've got damage on your right side, you've managed to do absolutely everything wrong.

So there is no other possible scenario?

U.S. Navy photo

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy, July 07, 2017 06:28 PM

Pure speculation here on my part, but wonder if the the Fitzgerald was dead in the water due to some operational consideration (sub?) and running dark with no comm and then the cargo ship saw it on radar, turned around for a look? Will be interesting to see what story develops.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:
dreadnaught is correct. Looking at the damage, this was entirely the fault of the destroyer. Nautical rules of the road have at least one thing in common with automobiles in the US - when you get to an intersection at the same time, the car/ship on the right has the right-of-way, and the car/ship on the left stays clear. If you've got damage on your right side, you've managed to do absolutely everything wrong.

So there is no other possible scenario?

You can't possibly say whose fault this is at this point without all the information.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:

quote:

Originally posted by whanson_wi:
dreadnaught is correct. Looking at the damage, this was entirely the fault of the destroyer. Nautical rules of the road have at least one thing in common with automobiles in the US - when you get to an intersection at the same time, the car/ship on the right has the right-of-way, and the car/ship on the left stays clear. If you've got damage on your right side, you've managed to do absolutely everything wrong.

So there is no other possible scenario?

There are millions of possible scenarios where this isn't the destroyer's fault. The trouble is, they all have some huge factor that's so glaringly obvious that even our press couldn't miss it.

Scenarios that are plausible, during independent steaming, during peacetime, with exonerating details that weren't already reported? I can't come up with any, other than lots and lots of human error on the part of the give-way vessel.

I'm sure I'm not the only former surface line officer on here, and the others will all tell you the same - the first assumption of the operational commander is that this was human error, because human error's been the cause so frequently with previous collisions.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


U.S. Navy photo

That photo shows a deck line that no longer looks right to me. Is the Fitzgerald buckled to the keel? Who here has an experienced eye for these things?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
<image>

U.S. Navy photo

Given the damage on the Crystal, she must have been coming up from behind at an angle.

The entire bridge team missed this, there is also an entire watch team inside CIC that should have seen this coming also!

quote:

Originally posted by preten2b:

That photo shows a deck line that no longer looks right to me. Is the Fitzgerald buckled to the keel? Who here has an experienced eye for these things?

Yup, the starboard damage is severe. Just looking at the lines, she does look like the compartments in that area are collapsed and maybe it goes all the way to the keel (maybe not), but she will be scrapped.

For those reading the tracking information, the Japanese Coast Guard said today that they received the distress call at 1720 GMT, not 1730 as initially reported.

quote:

The Japanese coast guard said it received an emergency call from the container ship, the ACX Crystal, reporting the collision at around 2:20 a.m. (1720 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.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s...=2017-06-17-09-21-07

The story also says that area is very busy with sea traffic and that conditions were clear at the time of the crash.