What's new

US ship involved in accident.

USS Fitzgerald: bodies of some missing sailors found in stricken ship
US navy says the search for the crew has eneded, suggesting they have all been found dead after the collision with container vessel off Japan

  • Justin McCurry in Tokyo
  • Sunday 18 June 2017 07.59 BST
  • First published on Sunday 18 June 2017 06.38 BST
The US navy has ended its search for seven sailors who went missing after their destroyer collided with a container ship near Japan, suggesting that all of the crew members’ bodies have been recovered.

Vice-admiral Joseph Aucoin, the commander of the US navy’s 7th Fleet, did not specify how many bodies had been found inside the stricken vessel while their next of kin are still being notified.

Earlier on Sunday, the 7th fleet said “a number” of bodies had been recovered from flooded areas of the USS Fitzgerald.

“We have found the remains of a number of our missing shipmates, and our deepest sympathies go out to the families of those shipmates,” Aucoin told reporters at the Fitzgerald’s home port of Yokosuka, south of Tokyo.

“We owe it to our families and the navy to understand what happened” Aucoin said, adding that he would oversee an investigation into the cause of the accident.

He praised the “heroic efforts” of the Fitzgerald’s crew in preventing their ship from sinking after it collided with the ACX Crystal 100km from Japan’s east coast in the early hours of Saturday morning.

“They prevented the ship from foundering, or even sinking, last night. As to how much warning they had, I don’t know. That’s going to be found out during the investigation, but it was a significant impact that the crew had to fight very hard to keep the ship afloat.”

Aucoin confirmed that the Fitzgerald had been seriously damaged below the waterline and near its keel, causing a “tremendous” influx of water. “The damage was significant,” he said. “There was a big gash under the water.”

The ship’s commander, Bryce Benson, was “lucky to be alive” as his cabin, where he had been resting at the time of the collision, had been destroyed, Aucoin said.

Benson was reportedly in a stable condition after being airlifted to the US naval hospital at the Yokosuka base, the navy said. Two other injured crew members were treated at the hospital for cuts and bruises.

The 7th fleet said in a statement earlier on Sunday that “a number” of the missing sailors had been found.

“As search and rescue crews gained access to the spaces that were damaged during the collision this morning, the missing sailors were located in the flooded berthing compartments,” it added.

The bodies were being transferred for identification to the US naval hospital in the Fitzgerald’s home port of Yokosuka, south of Tokyo.

“The families are being notified and being provided the support they need during this difficult time,” the statement said. “The names of the sailors will be released after all notifications are made.”

The ACX Crystal, which is more than three times the size of the Fitzgerald, berthed at Tokyo’s Oi wharf, where its crew were being questioned by investigators. All 20 of the Filipino sailors aboard the vessel were safe, its Japanese operator, Nippon Yusen KK, said.

Search teams were only able to inspect the damaged mid-right side of the Fitzgerald after water had been pumped out. The ship limped back to Yokosuka with the help of tug boats on Saturday evening.

Before Sunday’s announcement, Donald Trump expressed his thanks to Japan for its help in the search mission, tweeting: “Thoughts and prayers [are] with the sailors of USS Fitzgerald and their families.”

Trump had earlier been criticised on social media for not commenting publicly on the accident for several hours.

Several Japanese self-defence force and coast guard vessels were involved in the search and rescue mission, along with the USS Dewey and naval aircraft.

While the cause of the accident remains a mystery, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK said the ACX Crystal had made a sharp turn shortly before the collision.

But that account was later challenged by the ship’s skipper. “(We) were sailing in the same direction as the US destroyer was and then collided,” he was quoted as saying by Jiji Press.


Japanese and US officials were discussing how to conduct the investigation. Japan is permitted to investigate since the collision happened in its waters, but under the countries’ status of forces agreement the US has primary jurisdiction over incidents involving vessels such as the Fitzgerald.

Japan’s coastguard and the US navy plan to question crew members from the ACX Crystal, and could treat the collision as a possible case of endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence, Kyodo news said.

“We can’t comment on the accident as it’s being handled by the Japanese coastguard,” a spokesman for Nippon Yusen told AFP. “We will fully cooperate with authorities investigating the case.”

Maritime safety experts contacted by the Guardian said it was too early to comment on the possible cause of the accident.

CNN’s national security analyst, John Kirby, reflected the confusion over what had happened under darkness in the sea off Japan in a commentary for the network’s website.

“We do not know whether the warship’s radars were operating sufficiently. We do not know what decisions the men and women who were standing watch aboard the destroyer made – or failed to make – that could have averted the danger. We do not know what actions, if any, were taken by the crew of the freighter to either cause or avoid this tragedy,” he said.

Kirby, a retired rear admiral in the US navy, added that he expected officials would be punished once the navy had completed its “thorough” and “clear” investigation.

“It won’t be just the navy that gets the lash here,” he said. “Careers will be dashed. People will be punished. Short of battle at sea, navy warships are not supposed to hit anything – not the ground, not each other, and certainly not container ships in the middle of the night.


USS Fitzgerald: bodies of some missing sailors found in stricken ship | US news | The Guardian
 
.
Talked to my friend in the Navy

The unofficial accounts interviewing witness on USS Fitzgerald at this point is that the Cargo ship ACX Crystal was travelling at the same direction with the Destroyer at about 086, Cargo Ship is doing about 14 knots and USS Fitzgerald is doing about 16 Knots, the bearing was constant but 13 minutes before the collision, The cargo ship change its course and due at 220 setting collision course toward the Destroyer, destroyer turn port to avoid the Cargo Ship, and 2 minutes later the ships collided.

Fitzgerald Captain was not on the bridge at that time, and was resting in his quarter, OOD in charge of navigation and alarm did not sound because the turn was sudden. The Cargo ship hit the exposed Starboard Side of the Fitzgerald and the Sailor that was killed was resting in the compartment that's flooded.

All the Ship crew from the ACX Crystal was detained in Japan and was assisting the investigation by Japanese Coast Guard and NCIS. NCIS is currently interviewing the captain of ACX Crystal.

This is what my friend in the Navy told me at this moment.

@F22Raptor @Hamartia Antidote @KAL-EL
 
. .
yes, the captain will have to answer to this even if it was not at fault, because for a Naval Captain, the ship's crew is under his command, and if an accident is avoidable and even it was not at fault, he will still be on hook for command failure resulting death or serious injury to person or persons under his/her command

We need more information to assign blame, but I can see the Captain career is all but over.



Read post #23

you are not required to turn on the surface radar when you are transiting the high seas, the naval ship could have been on EMCON, where they may only posted look out.

Even if the radar is turned on, and they spot the ship, they cannot know that is on collision course until both ship's communicate to each other. Either by radio contact, signal or blast horn. If not, the only thing the Navy ship can do is to sink the cargo ship using harpoon.....with a radar lock

Also, it's appear that ACX Crystal change course within 30 minutes before the collision. According to online Marine Traffic monitor, Crystal make a U-Turn on 1729 UTC. (approximately 20 minutes before the collision)

So there is no doppler radar that can help determine the speed and direction of a moving object?
Then how does a ship track its targets and enemies?

I think Naval ships are far more agile due to higher power density and hydrodynamic design specifically for faster speeds so it should have changed course to avoid the collision with a far more bulkier and slower cargo ship.
 
.
I find it strange that US sailors were unable to prevent this collision. US Navy is supposed to be professional. Nethertheless let's wait for more informations.
I agree. I am no expert but don't they have the most sophiticated detection system and sensors?
 
. .
After investigations, say that The containership is at fault. Will the owner or its country of origin pay for damages ?
 
.
So there is no doppler radar that can help determine the speed and direction of a moving object?
Then how does a ship track its targets and enemies?

I think Naval ships are far more agile due to higher power density and hydrodynamic design specifically for faster speeds so it should have changed course to avoid the collision with a far more bulkier and slower cargo ship.

Both ship have Search Radar and Automatic Collision avoidance system, but turning them on and use them is another matter altogether, under IMO rule, radar and other navigation aids can be use to help navigation, but there are no rule to govern the use of Radar, Radar can be turned off, given if you have posted enough look out, which is required as per Rule 5.

On a clear night like on the 16th, ship's captain can simply post lookout instead of turning on radar to maintain a skeleton crew (minimal crew that needed to run the ship) at 0230 Zulu which is under First Watch.

Automatic Collision System can be turned off due to the fact that both ship are in busy shipping lane, there can be false reading if left on. Again, there are no rule govern the use of such system by IMO.

Also, the size of the ship is not the consideration in collision avoidance, especially so if one of the ship is not at its constant bearing (The Cargo Ship made a U-Turn before collide with the Destroyer) In nautical law, each ship maintain its own clearance by keep watch on their constant heading, so it is both responsibility to avoid collision, being heavier does not excuse this responsibility.

In this case, the preliminary evidence suggest that the Cargo ship turn unsafely and cause this accident. If the Cargo Ship indeed turn 180 degree, then the Destroyer would have run out of room to manoeuvre. Due to the fact that they are in a narrow sea lane.

After investigations, say that The containership is at fault. Will the owner or its country of origin pay for damages ?

The insurance company of whoever insure the ship is responsible for the damage.
 
Last edited:
.
Can we rule out the possibility of foul play ?
Given durte rhetoric on US ?
 
.
Well all these calculation and laws are good and fancy but in the end a warship is capable of such evasive maneuver while you can't say such thing about a containership


Well I don't know who is responsible but I believe the crew of Fitzgerald had the power to stop the disaster if they reacted in time .


And for lightening the mood
 
.
such weak ship consider what will happen if missile strike it
Bro,

Have you ever seen a cargo ship? They are metal behemoths and they can literally rip a smaller vessel into two with a single hit.

That American warship is really strong for withstanding a blow from a huge cargo ship.
 
Last edited:
.
Can we rule out the possibility of foul play ?
Given durte rhetoric on US ?

Pretty sure we can rule this out, if anything, Trump seems to be liking Duterte, so I wouldn't imagine Duterte taking this risk, now that there's a chance of improving relations and let's not forget, the Phillipines still need American support.
 
.
actually, judging from the photo in Post 1. Where the US ship was hit on the side (suffer damage on Starboard) and the cargo ship is damaged at the bow, under maritime law term "Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range" the fault is with the Philippine Cargo ship, not the Naval Destroyer.

IN a ship, when visual cue is lacking (like at night, during this crash) the ship's constant momentum would require the ship on course with intercepting traffic to look out for traffic, basically, the same as you drive a car, if you are going forward, you need to constantly look forward.

Since at sea, there are no traffic light available, the "Give Way" system is in use, and like the Give way system on road traffic, the ship that going ahead have to give way to ship that cross into its traffic.

This incident is much like the 2012 Hong Kong Ferry Collision when Sea Smooth hit another ship (Lamma IV) in port (Left) instead Fitzgerald's Starboard, the ship at fault in that case is Sea Smooth as it hit a crossing traffic. While both captain was arrested and sentence to jail, the Captain of Sea Smooth (the ship that hit Lamma IV on the side) was the one that was charged with 39 counts of Manslaughter by virtual of negligent

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr12-13/english/panels/edev/papers/edev0527-rpt20130430-e.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Lamma_Island_ferry_collision

The only instant the US Destroyer is at fault is when the ACX Crystal cannot turn for some reason and had been noticing the collision with USS Fitzgerald but Fitzgerald failed to act.

It's not easy to spot a ship crossing into you especially ship basically only require to look and scan where you are going, and from the photo, it was the Crystal that hit Fitzgerald. Not the other way around.

Destroyer crash offers lesson on sea rules
Source:Global Times Published: 2017/6/18 23:33:39

Seven US navy sailors were killed after the USS Fitzgerald, a US Navy destroyer, collided with a Philippine-flagged container ship on Saturday. The incident occurred about 56 nautical miles off Yokosuka, Japan, when the Fitzgerald was heading back to its home port following a mission in the South China Sea.

The sailors who lost their lives in a non-combat situation deserve sympathy. Such a severe collision between a US destroyer and a commercial ship is inconceivable.

So far, there is no official account of the reason for the mishap. But many analysts hold the collision could be caused by operational blunders by the US destroyer.

A crash between large vessels is rare, so that a US destroyer was involved in a disastrous collision perhaps is built on the high frequency of voyages US warships undertake in the West Pacific.

The Fitzgerald often sails in the West Pacific, including in the coastal waters of China. Certain rules need to be followed to avoid collisions on the sea. It is an unspoken rule that the smaller ship should give way to the bigger one. At about 29,000 tons displacement, the Philippine container ship is more than three times the size of the 8,315-ton Fitzgerald. In the face of such a larger vessel, the Fitzgerald obviously did not show due prudence.

The incident took place in the coastal waters of Japan, where the authority of the US Navy is least likely to be challenged. It's believed that the Philippine container ship must have wanted to avoid a collision with the Fitzgerald, but unfortunately, the ship's bow struck the starboard side of the destroyer.

The two ships crashed at about 2:30 am on Saturday, in the dark of night. Cargo ships often have lights on during night navigation so as to be identified from a long distance while the Fitzgerald is a small-sized destroyer which employs stealth technology. Under normal circumstances, it should have spotted the Philippine container ship first. From this perspective, the US side should bear more responsibility.

Given US' influence, no countries in the Asia-Pacific region want their vessels to get into trouble with US warships. This may have led to the US sailors' carelessness. The accident happened in the early hours when many sailors were asleep and relying on automatic instruments. Sailors won't have a bigger sense of caution when encountering US ships even though their governments are in awe of the US.

The ship that collided with the US destroyer is a Philippine-flagged vessel chartered by a Japanese shipping company. There are also many Chinese and Russian commercial ships in the West Pacific. If one of them crashed into the US destroyer, the situation would be more complicated and a geopolitical crisis might have been triggered.

Therefore, US warships which are frequently seen in the West Pacific should be cautious. Whether a US ship collides with a small boat or a barge, it would be a tragedy and be open to over-interpretation.

It is believed the commander of the Fitzgerald and people found liable will be punished. We hope all US warships in the West Pacific should draw a lesson from the incident, not only for their own safety, but also for the peace of the sea passages in the region.
Source: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1052322.shtml

It seems that I was right that US Navy is to blame for the collision. I'm not from the "USA" so I'm unbiased observer here. But let's wait for more informations.
 
.
Bro,

Have you ever seen a cargo ship? They are metal behemoths and they can literally rip a smaller vessel into two with a single hit.

That American warship is really strong for withstanding a blow from a huge cargo ship.
u.s will never accept the fault of their weapon because it reduces its valuation that it falsely claim to fool world to earn money
 
.
Bro,

Have you ever seen a cargo ship? They are metal behemoths and they can literally rip a smaller vessel into two with a single hit.

That American warship is really strong for withstanding a blow from a huge cargo ship.

Definitely don't want to get hit by this thing

It goes pretty fast near land...must be faster at sea.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom