US ship involved in accident.

[LeGenD]

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,

It is not like that.

We are discussing an accident here in which a much larger vessel (cargo ship) collided with an American naval vessel and damaged it. This was like an 18 wheeler Truck ramming a coach.

 

[Piotr]

According to Maritime Record

http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...mmsi:548789000/imo:9360611/vessel:ACX_CRYSTAL

the USS Fitzgerald is a 9,600 tons ship, ACX Crystal have an empty weight of 29,060 tons and fully loaded dead weight almost 40,000 tons, it was 3- 4 times weight than the USS Fitzgerald, the Fitzgerald is actually quite strong to survive a crash like that. The force of 20,000 tons (if the ACX Crystal is empty) at 10 second contact at 16.8 knots would mean 30 millions newton of force in case you don't know, it's equal to a ~0.3kt Nuclear Bomb. Which is greater than any missile power in the world (Bar nuclear missile)

Calculate the N/s here

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calculator.html

First of all USS Fitzgerald is not an unbreakable wall but a moving object so IMO your calculations are wrong. But even if we assume that USS Fitzgerald was a wall we neither know the speed of ACX Crystal nor we know the time contact during impact.

And a hit like that and the ship is still under power itself is saying something..

The fact that USS Fitzgerald returned to its base, only with the assistance of tug boats is saying something.

The fact that USS Fitzgerald nearly sunk is also saying something.

The fact that Seven US Sailors are dead is also saying something.

Bro,

It is not like that.

We are discussing an accident here in which a much larger vessel (cargo ship) collided with an American naval vessel and damaged it.

Or we are discussing an accident here in which a US naval vessel collided with a cargo ship and damaged it ? Bear in mind that ACX Crystal was also damaged.

This was like an 18 wheeler Truck ramming a coach.

It seems that a “coach” is to blame for the collision.

 

[jhungary]

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.

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.

Under IMO rules (THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION) EVERY SHIP, Give Way or Stand On, HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID COLLISISON. It is not an "Unspoken" Rule like this CHINESE ARTICLE said that smaller ship need to be give way to bigger ship, there are no such things as "Unspoken" rules applies anywhere. Each ship are there on its own, you have your watch where you are going, I have to watch where I am going, that is according to IMO rules, not some Chinese Source.

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.

It is RECORDED by GPS Position reporting system that ACX Crystal, MAKE A DRASTIC TURN immediately BEFORE the Collision. A drastic turn mean it make a U turn immediately prior to the collision. It is not an evasive action.

This is the ACX CRYSTAL GPS position (AIS reporting system) as recorded

It does not make sense for the captain of the Cargo ship to claim he make a U-Turn to avoid collision, the collision is on the starboard side of the Destroyer, so the collision must have hit on course AFTER the U-turn. Which mean the U-Turn is basically does to put the Cargo Ship into a collision course with the destroyer

Under maritime rule, the one that change course have to yield to all other traffic present, meaning, it's highly likely it's the Cargo Ship Fault that he did not clear all traffic before making a drastic turn on a limited passage.

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.

All lights are visible to each other, by IMO rules, all light have to be visible within 6 nautical mile, be that lights on the Cargo ship or the lights on the destroyer. Both ship "Should Have" spotted each other because the speed that was travelling within that range, since we do not know for sure if the destroyer have change course, but we do know the cargo ship from its AIS reporting system have change course and reduced speed prior to the collision, The fault, seems as is either the Cargo Ship ALONE, or if both ship changed course but did not take appropriate action, then both are responsible.

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

Yeah, its seems that you are "unbiased" to claim a "Chinese" articles that did not put forward a lot of evidence and assign blame on "Some" or "Many" expert believe, The Japanese authority is actually HOLDING the crew of the Cargo Ship and questioning them, they are also awaiting NCIS agent to interview those crew, usually this suggested the Philippine Crew is culpritable.

But yes, let's see how the investigation goes.

First of all USS Fitzgerald is not an unbreakable wall but a moving object so IMO your calculations are wrong. But even if we assume that USS Fitzgerald was a wall we neither know the speed of ACX Crystal nor we know the time contact during impact.

We do know the speed of ACX Crystal at that time, ACX crystal have a AIS system that is turned on and was fitting the parameter, such as speed, heading, GPS location to AIS mainframe, the only data missing needed to calculate is the actual weight of ACX Crystal, the calculation I use is using their empty hull in a elastic collision (but ship separated after contact instead of combine)

The ship was travelling at 17.3 Knots at 1630 UTC, 14.6 at 1729 UTC which is the time of the distress call from USS Fitzgerald was made (0230 Zulu)

The fact that USS Fitzgerald returned to its base, only with the assistance of tug boats is saying something.

The fact that USS Fitzgerald nearly sunk is also saying something.

The fact that Seven US Sailors are dead is also saying something.

The fact that it was hit by a 70,000 tons (if Fully loaded) which is 7 times heavier than the Fitzgerald and survive the impact is SAYING SOMETHING. You do know from past experience, a 9000 tons ship got hit by similar vessel, none of them survive.

And just saying, the ship is STILL UNDEROWER, travelling at 3 knots before joining the tug boat and other US Destroyer , the need of tug boat is to help with stabilising the ship so the SAR crew can work on immediately, the ship is listed because of flooded compartment, which the crew was killed.

The Fitzgerald does not necessarily needed the Tug boat help to limp back to port. If it was under power

 

[jhungary]

Latest report on June 18

Extract as follow

7th Fleet claim the collision occurred at 0220 Zulu (1720 UTC) Which will put the collision at 34.55479 139.1448. 11 minutes before ACX Crystal change course from heading 064 to Heading 263 according to AIS Reporting on ACX Crystal

At that time, the USS Fitzgerald path is unknown.

AIS shown data for ACX Crystal is as follow

Speed 13.7 Knots
Location 34.55479 139.1448
Heading 256

7 Sailor Killed in the incident are named

• - 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

The ship suffered severe damage rapidly flooding 3 large compartments that included 1 machinery room and 2 berthing areas for 116 crew. The Commanding Officer's cabin was also directly hit, trapping the CO inside.

Japanese Coast Guard ships and helicopters were the first on scene and our first medevac

A Joint JMSDF-USCG investigation is ordered by 7th Fleet, Activities Yokosuka

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/...-press-conference-in-front-of-uss-fitzgerald/

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

so my sources account is matching quite nicely (on the time and heading) to the Crystal's AIS data provided

 

[VCheng]

Some history similar to the present incident:

 

[Nan Yang]

Latest report on June 18

Extract as follow

7th Fleet claim the collision occurred at 0220 Zulu (1720 UTC) Which will put the collision at 34.55479 139.1448. 11 minutes before ACX Crystal change course from heading 064 to Heading 263 according to AIS Reporting on ACX Crystal

At that time, the USS Fitzgerald path is unknown.

AIS shown data for ACX Crystal is as follow

Speed 13.7 Knots
Location 34.55479 139.1448
Heading 256

7 Sailor Killed in the incident are named

• - 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

The ship suffered severe damage rapidly flooding 3 large compartments that included 1 machinery room and 2 berthing areas for 116 crew. The Commanding Officer's cabin was also directly hit, trapping the CO inside.

Japanese Coast Guard ships and helicopters were the first on scene and our first medevac

A Joint JMSDF-USCG investigation is ordered by 7th Fleet, Activities Yokosuka

http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/...-press-conference-in-front-of-uss-fitzgerald/



so my sources account is matching quite nicely (on the time and heading) to the Crystal's AIS data provided

US Navy is lying. Collision occurred at 1:30am. Crystal was on auto pilot and all crew was asleep. After collision the crew made a U turn to find out what they hit. At 2:20am Crystal return to the site of the collusion and reported they had hit the US ship.

 

[Piotr]

Under IMO rules (THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANISATION) EVERY SHIP, Give Way or Stand On, HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO AVOID COLLISISON. It is not an "Unspoken" Rule like this CHINESE ARTICLE said that smaller ship need to be give way to bigger ship, there are no such things as "Unspoken" rules applies anywhere. Each ship are there on its own, you have your watch where you are going, I have to watch where I am going, that is according to IMO rules, not some Chinese Source.



It is RECORDED by GPS Position reporting system that ACX Crystal, MAKE A DRASTIC TURN immediately BEFORE the Collision. A drastic turn mean it make a U turn immediately prior to the collision. It is not an evasive action.

This is the ACX CRYSTAL GPS position (AIS reporting system) as recorded

View attachment 404774

It does not make sense for the captain of the Cargo ship to claim he make a U-Turn to avoid collision, the collision is on the starboard side of the Destroyer, so the collision must have hit on course AFTER the U-turn. Which mean the U-Turn is basically does to put the Cargo Ship into a collision course with the destroyer

Under maritime rule, the one that change course have to yield to all other traffic present, meaning, it's highly likely it's the Cargo Ship Fault that he did not clear all traffic before making a drastic turn on a limited passage.



All lights are visible to each other, by IMO rules, all light have to be visible within 6 nautical mile, be that lights on the Cargo ship or the lights on the destroyer. Both ship "Should Have" spotted each other because the speed that was travelling within that range, since we do not know for sure if the destroyer have change course, but we do know the cargo ship from its AIS reporting system have change course and reduced speed prior to the collision, The fault, seems as is either the Cargo Ship ALONE, or if both ship changed course but did not take appropriate action, then both are responsible.

Maybe this article will help you better understand sea rules:
Incident With USS Fitzgerald Puts Its Readiness for Real Combat Into Question
21:27 19.06.2017(updated 21:33 19.06.2017)

The USS Fitzgerald destroyer hit a Philippine merchant vessel southwest of the Japanese city of Yokosuka on Saturday. All seven previously missing sailors from the destroyer were found dead on Monday. Sputnik spoke with military expert Constantine Sivkov and Vladimir Evseev in an interview about why the destroyer suffered major damage.

“Such accidents are always the result of a violation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions [at Sea] by one of the parties,” Sivkov said.

In this accident there was a human factor: a watch officer of the US destroyer showed negligence on his post.

“It is known that the blow came to the starboard side. According to international rules, the destroyer was obliged to give way, as it was observing the Philippine container ship on the starboard side. Since it did not do so, the fault lies entirely with the commander and the watch officer of the destroyer,” Sivkov said.

It was noted that the US destroyer received unusually heavy damage from the collision; the repairs will take a long time at the factory.

“Judging by the photographs, the blow came on the area of the central command post of the ship, or the ship's bridge. It was almost completely swept away,” the expert said.

“This means that the system which on the whole ensures the vital activity of this ship and its central management was destroyed. The destroyer has lost its combat capability,” Sivkov noted.

Seven of the crewmembers were killed and the destroyer’s captain, Bruce Benson, was evacuated by a helicopter due to severe injuries.

According to the information provided by the command of the 7th US Navy, the elimination of the threat of ship flooding required the heroic efforts of the crew.

Meanwhile, doubts about the suitability of destroyers of the USS type "Arleigh Burke" (Fitzgerald was the 12th ship in this series, it joined the fleet in October 1995) were raised earlier too.

The inadequacy of the ship’s protection was demonstrated back in October 12, 2000, when in the port of Aden, during refueling, the US destroyer of the same type, namely “Cole,” was attacked by suicide bombers on a boat with an explosive charge.

The Japanese kamikaze like attack was devastating to the ship. The explosive pierced a huge hole from the port side, killing 17 and injuring 39.

The cockpits and engine room were flooded and a violent fire erupted.

The destroyer was towed to the United States for repairs and rejoined the fleet in April 2002.
(...)
Source: https://sputniknews.com/military/20...ald-raises-doubts-for-real-combat-capability/

Yeah, its seems that you are "unbiased" to claim a "Chinese" articles that did not put forward a lot of evidence and assign blame on "Some" or "Many" expert believe,

Global Times is not some fake news media outlet like CNN (even US President calls them fake news). Your claims are based only on claims from US Navy itself. US Navy caused this collision and now want to shift the blame on ACX Crystal. US Navy will never admit that it caused this collision.

We do know the speed of ACX Crystal at that time, ACX crystal have a AIS system that is turned on and was fitting the parameter, such as speed, heading, GPS location to AIS mainframe, the only data missing needed to calculate is the actual weight of ACX Crystal, the calculation I use is using their empty hull in a elastic collision (but ship separated after contact instead of combine)

The ship was travelling at 17.3 Knots at 1630 UTC, 14.6 at 1729 UTC which is the time of the distress call from USS Fitzgerald was made (0230 Zulu)

But collision betweet two ships is not like stone hitting a a smooth floor so your calculations are wrong.

BTW remember that US Navy has no interest in reviewing the facts. They caused the collision and are only desperately trying to shift the blame on ACX Crystal.

 

[jhungary]

US Navy is lying. Collision occurred at 1:30am. Crystal was on auto pilot and all crew was asleep. After collision the crew made a U turn to find out what they hit. At 2:20am Crystal return to the site of the collusion and reported they had hit the US ship.

A.) This is unsubstantiated. If I understand correctly they are the testimony from the Filipino Crew.

B.) All ship have to post look out as per Rule 5 of IMO , they cannot be "ALL ASLEEP" here are IMO International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions (copies)/COLREG-1972.pdf

Rule 5

Look-out

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

So if they are iron fisting the ship and all crew are asleep, then the Filipino crew are at fault regardless of the reason for the collision.

C.) If the crash is indeed happened at 0130Z (or 1630 UTC) the crew of ACX Crystal is further implicating themselves by not stopping and render assistance. Because if that is the time of impact, they only Turn around at 1709 UTC, 49 minutes after the crash they said it happened. A Crash like that would have alarm sounded if they were on Autopilot. And also, if they were on autopilot at 1630, they weren't afterward. According to AIS data, first they change course to 135, then continue at 40 to 50 for 13 minutes. (report AIS heading at 1646UTC is at 051) Meaning someone was in the pilot house on that time period, meaning they are awake after they are supposedly crashed and ignore the incident and continue their course...on a different heading.

D.) When is the crash does not really matter to the cause of the crash. Do bear in mind the ship turned starboard from 70 to 88 (18 degree turn) in 3 minutes according to AIS data, she still have a movement greater than 5 degrees (normal course adjusting limit) which is still at fault if the collision is happened at 1630UTC, because they would have to watch for clearance when they make a turn.

You do realise if the crash happened at 1630, then the are more implication to the Filipino crew than the crash is at 1720 as the US Navy said??

Maybe this article will help you better understand sea rules:
Incident With USS Fitzgerald Puts Its Readiness for Real Combat Into Question
21:27 19.06.2017(updated 21:33 19.06.2017)

The USS Fitzgerald destroyer hit a Philippine merchant vessel southwest of the Japanese city of Yokosuka on Saturday. All seven previously missing sailors from the destroyer were found dead on Monday. Sputnik spoke with military expert Constantine Sivkov and Vladimir Evseev in an interview about why the destroyer suffered major damage.

“Such accidents are always the result of a violation of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions [at Sea] by one of the parties,” Sivkov said.

In this accident there was a human factor: a watch officer of the US destroyer showed negligence on his post.

“It is known that the blow came to the starboard side. According to international rules, the destroyer was obliged to give way, as it was observing the Philippine container ship on the starboard side. Since it did not do so, the fault lies entirely with the commander and the watch officer of the destroyer,” Sivkov said.

It was noted that the US destroyer received unusually heavy damage from the collision; the repairs will take a long time at the factory.

“Judging by the photographs, the blow came on the area of the central command post of the ship, or the ship's bridge. It was almost completely swept away,” the expert said.

“This means that the system which on the whole ensures the vital activity of this ship and its central management was destroyed. The destroyer has lost its combat capability,” Sivkov noted.

Seven of the crewmembers were killed and the destroyer’s captain, Bruce Benson, was evacuated by a helicopter due to severe injuries.

According to the information provided by the command of the 7th US Navy, the elimination of the threat of ship flooding required the heroic efforts of the crew.

Meanwhile, doubts about the suitability of destroyers of the USS type "Arleigh Burke" (Fitzgerald was the 12th ship in this series, it joined the fleet in October 1995) were raised earlier too.

The inadequacy of the ship’s protection was demonstrated back in October 12, 2000, when in the port of Aden, during refueling, the US destroyer of the same type, namely “Cole,” was attacked by suicide bombers on a boat with an explosive charge.

The Japanese kamikaze like attack was devastating to the ship. The explosive pierced a huge hole from the port side, killing 17 and injuring 39.

The cockpits and engine room were flooded and a violent fire erupted.

The destroyer was towed to the United States for repairs and rejoined the fleet in April 2002.
(...)
Source: https://sputniknews.com/military/20...ald-raises-doubts-for-real-combat-capability/

lol A Russian Source? Let me give you a better, and more authorities source

The International Maritime Organisation

http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions (copies)/COLREG-1972.pdf

Rule 2

Rule 2 Responsibility (a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Rule 5

Rule 5 Look-out
. Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
Page

Rule 17

Action by stand-on vessel (a).
(i). Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii). The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules.
(b). When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.
(c). A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
(d). This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.
Page

Meaning?

If the Filipino Vessel posted Look Out as well, it is as much as his fault as the US Destroyer look out fault as per Rule 5, because EVERY VESSEL (Every mean every, be it stand on or give way) have to have the ability so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. As per rules 5 of International Rule of Navigation.

And also, if the destroyer did not change course even if it is his turn to give way, as per Rule 17, then it would be the responsibility for the Stand On vessel to make take action to avoid collision

So, basically it take two to tangle, not to mention the AIS data suggested that the Cargo ship make a U-Turn prior if the crash is happened in 1720 UTC and change course for 18 degree if the crash is at 1630 UTC. Both of which would considered a turn and both of it, require the vessel that making the turn (The ACX Crystal) to yield to all traffic regardless of their privilege position, and that is a FACT not some one who said something without any backing.

The full AIS report (You can access them on https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/ACX-CRYSTAL-IMO-9360611-MMSI-548789000)

Global Times is not some fake news media outlet like CNN (even US President calls them fake news). Your claims are based only on claims from US Navy itself. US Navy caused this collision and now want to shift the blame on ACX Crystal. US Navy will never admit that it caused this collision.

No, my information is based on the AIS reported data of ACX crystal and the interpretation of International Maritime Organisation law, on the other hand, yours are accounts for "Some" or "Most" expert, without regarding the IMO rules to avoid collision.

You are welcome to challenge what I said I don't mind.

But collision betweet two ships is not like stone hitting a a smooth floor so your calculations are wrong.

BTW remember that US Navy has no interest in reviewing the facts. They caused the collision and are only desperately trying to shift the blame on ACX Crystal.

You do know the Density/Buoyance of the sea mean that the figure I quote is usually lower due to the fact that momentum transfer is not limited with friction which you would have in road, seas DOES NOT OFFER Friction, so the actual crash momentum would have transfer more or less completely at sea than on the road.

You are talking about two ships with certain mass crash, not two ship crash into the seas.

And LOL at you, trying to discredit the US Navy, I quote the IMO rules for collision (The rules everybody based on for blame assignment) and you quote the Russian and Chinese?? LOL You make me laugh man. How about I quote some American and Canadian Source and said this is Russian Fault, saying that it is Putin Order Duerte to hit the US Navy Ship (There are articles out there actually saying that) would that mean it is actually the Russian is at fault in this incident?

 

[Nan Yang]

A.) This is unsubstantiated. If I understand correctly they are the testimony from the Filipino Crew.

B.) All ship have to post look out as per Rule 5 of IMO , they cannot be "ALL ASLEEP" here are IMO International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions (copies)/COLREG-1972.pdf



So if they are iron fisting the ship and all crew are asleep, then the Filipino crew are at fault regardless of the reason for the collision.

C.) If the crash is indeed happened at 0130Z (or 1630 UTC) the crew of ACX Crystal is further implicating themselves by not stopping and render assistance. Because if that is the time of impact, they only Turn around at 1709 UTC, 49 minutes after the crash they said it happened. A Crash like that would have alarm sounded if they were on Autopilot. And also, if they were on autopilot at 1630, they weren't afterward. According to AIS data, first they change course to 135, then continue at 40 to 50 for 13 minutes. (report AIS heading at 1646UTC is at 051) Meaning someone was in the pilot house on that time period, meaning they are awake after they are supposedly crashed and ignore the incident and continue their course...on a different heading.

D.) When is the crash does not really matter to the cause of the crash. Do bear in mind the ship turned starboard from 70 to 88 (18 degree turn) in 3 minutes according to AIS data, she still have a movement greater than 5 degrees (normal course adjusting limit) which is still at fault if the collision is happened at 1630UTC, because they would have to watch for clearance when they make a turn.

You do realise if the crash happened at 1630, then the are more implication to the Filipino crew than the crash is at 1720 as the US Navy said??



lol A Russian Source? Let me give you a better, and more authorities source

The International Maritime Organisation

http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions (copies)/COLREG-1972.pdf

Rule 2



Rule 5



Rule 17



Meaning?

If the Filipino Vessel posted Look Out as well, it is as much as his fault as the US Destroyer look out fault as per Rule 5, because EVERY VESSEL (Every mean every, be it stand on or give way) have to have the ability so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. As per rules 5 of International Rule of Navigation.

And also, if the destroyer did not change course even if it is his turn to give way, as per Rule 17, then it would be the responsibility for the Stand On vessel to make take action to avoid collision

So, basically it take two to tangle, not to mention the AIS data suggested that the Cargo ship make a U-Turn prior if the crash is happened in 1720 UTC and change course for 18 degree if the crash is at 1630 UTC. Both of which would considered a turn and both of it, require the vessel that making the turn (The ACX Crystal) to yield to all traffic regardless of their privilege position, and that is a FACT not some one who said something without any backing.

The full AIS report (You can access them on https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/ACX-CRYSTAL-IMO-9360611-MMSI-548789000)

View attachment 404989
View attachment 404990




No, my information is based on the AIS reported data of ACX crystal and the interpretation of International Maritime Organisation law, on the other hand, yours are accounts for "Some" or "Most" expert, without regarding the IMO rules to avoid collision.

You are welcome to challenge what I said I don't mind.




You do know the Density/Buoyance of the sea mean that the figure I quote is usually lower due to the fact that momentum transfer is not limited with friction which you would have in road, seas DOES NOT OFFER Friction, so the actual crash momentum would have transfer more or less completely at sea than on the road.

You are talking about two ships with certain mass crash, not two ship crash into the seas.

And LOL at you, trying to discredit the US Navy, I quote the IMO rules for collision (The rules everybody based on for blame assignment) and you quote the Russian and Chinese?? LOL You make me laugh man. How about I quote some American and Canadian Source and said this is Russian Fault (There are articles out there actually saying that) would that mean it is actually the Russian is at fault in this incident?

No. The Crystal crew reported the collusion at 2:20am. That does not mean the collusion occurred at 2:20am. According to the crew of Crystal. After the collusion all crew were at emergency station and nobody had the chance to report the accident.
The Crystal speeding up and changing direction after the collusion IS consistent with the ship being on auto pilot. The auto pilot was only turn off after the crew woke up and got to the bridge.

 

[jhungary]

No. The Crystal crew reported the collusion at 2:20am. That does not mean the collusion occurred at 2:20am. According to the crew of Crystal. After the collusion all crew were at emergency station and nobody had the chance to report the accident.
The Crystal speeding up and changing direction after the collusion IS consistent with the ship being on auto pilot. The auto pilot was only turn off after the crew woke up and got to the bridge.

lol......

A.) It's Impossible to tell the time of crash unless forensically investigating and key all the event into the time frame.

B.) Auto Pilot will not alter course greater than 10 degree, and most definitely WILL NOT CHANGE SPEED. If the ship changes its speed and heading, that mean the Iron Fist is off.

C.) It does not matter if the Auto Pilot is on or off, they have to post crew outside for look out and inside the pilot house, meaning, if they saw the Fitzgerald is crossing, they would have to turn off the autopilot and turn PORT (Left) because if a ship crossing from their starboard bow (Your Port Bow) and you turn starboard, you turn INTO the crossing ship, you turn port to avoid the crossing ship from your starboard, that way, you turn AWAY from the crossing ship.

It's the same as you drive a car, if you see a car in front of you crossing you from left to right and you are about to hit it, you will NOT turn right to try to avoid a collision, because that's where the other car is going, your turn right and you will crash straight into the car in front of you. You turn left to get BEHIND the car

the fact that the ship turned starboard from 1627 UTC (Before the crash time you say) to 1636 UTC suggested no evasive manoeuvre was attempted, in fact, the 1627 UTC turn could actually be interpret as a deliberate turn to hit the US Destroyer. If the crash, is as the Filipino Crew said, is at 1630. Again, because it TURN INTO the US Destroyer and not TURN AWAY from the destroyer. Thus it does not make sense as a evasive manoeuvre try to avoid the crash...

D.) It does not matter if they are busy with emergency station, when do they call in the accident is one thing, they did not STOP and continue on for 39 minutes BEFORE turning around is leaving or trying to leave the scene without try to render assistance. If you had a car accident, can you drive on for 39 minutes and then make a U-Turn and come back to try to help? If you do that, I am pretty sure the Police would think you are leaving the scene, whether or not you are at fault in this collision

Also do bear in mind they did not decrease their speed while "Sailing Away" so there are absolutely no intention to stop (Speed was kept constant at about 14-15 knots for 16 minutes. That is a big NO-NO on seamanship and is actually illegal as per IMO law.

In fact, if the crash is indeed happened at 1630, it will have implicated the Philippine Crew more. In case you have not notice. So If USN is sticking to 1720, it actually did the Philippine Crew a big favour. Because then the Philippine Crew would not have to answer why they turn starboard at 1627 and why they sail away for 39 minutes before turning around and try to help??

 

[Nan Yang]

lol......

A.) It's Impossible to tell the time of crash unless forensically investigating and key all the event into the time frame.

B.) Auto Pilot will not alter course greater than 10 degree, and most definitely WILL NOT CHANGE SPEED. If the ship changes its speed and heading, that mean the Iron Fist is off.

C.) It does not matter if the Auto Pilot is on or off, they have to post crew outside for look out and inside the pilot house, meaning, if they saw the Fitzgerald is crossing, they would have to turn off the autopilot and turn PORT (Left) because if a ship crossing from their starboard bow (Your Port Bow) and you turn starboard, you turn INTO the crossing ship, you turn port to avoid the crossing ship from your starboard, that way, you turn AWAY from the crossing ship.

It's the same as you drive a car, if you see a car in front of you crossing you from left to right and you are about to hit it, you will NOT turn right to try to avoid a collision, because that's where the other car is going, your turn right and you will crash straight into the car in front of you. You turn left to get BEHIND the car

the fact that the ship turned starboard from 1627 UTC (Before the crash time you say) to 1636 UTC suggested no evasive manoeuvre was attempted, in fact, the 1627 UTC turn could actually be interpret as a deliberate turn to hit the US Destroyer. If the crash, is as the Filipino Crew said, is at 1630. Again, because it TURN INTO the US Destroyer and not TURN AWAY from the destroyer. Thus it does not make sense as a evasive manoeuvre try to avoid the crash...

D.) It does not matter if they are busy with emergency station, when do they call in the accident is one thing, they did not STOP and continue on for 39 minutes BEFORE turning around is leaving or trying to leave the scene without try to render assistance. If you had a car accident, can you drive on for 39 minutes and then make a U-Turn and come back to try to help? If you do that, I am pretty sure the Police would think you are leaving the scene, whether or not you are at fault in this collision

Also do bear in mind they did not decrease their speed while "Sailing Away" so there are absolutely no intention to stop (Speed was kept constant at about 14-15 knots for 16 minutes. That is a big NO-NO on seamanship and is actually illegal as per IMO law.

In fact, if the crash is indeed happened at 1630, it will have implicated the Philippine Crew more. In case you have not notice. So If USN is sticking to 1720, it actually did the Philippine Crew a big favour. Because then the Philippine Crew would not have to answer why they turn starboard at 1627 and why they sail away for 39 minutes before turning around and try to help??

Gosh, why is it so difficult? The collusion obviously caused the ship to slow down and alter it's course. The auto pilot then corrected it speed and course. It OBVIOUSLY took a while for the crew to regain manual control of the ship and turned it around. The route of the ship, the changes in speed and direction are all consistent with auto pilot.

 

[Tom99]

[Borrowing your image. thanks.]

Until the investigation is over we dont' know how the accident happened exactly.

But looking at the GPS track for the ACX Crystal, some people said:

• the first course divergence on the track is the moment of collision
• the loop back is when the Crystal turns around to go check on the Fitz
• the Crystal then proceeds on to port while calling in about the accident

 

[ashok321]

The auto pilot was only turn off after the crew woke up and got to the bridge.

This is ridiculous dialogue here. The bridge is never left unattended while the ship is in motion, despite the autopilot being engaged. A quarter master or a deck officer must maintain the "watch" round the clock.

Why?

because the Autopilot works in tandem with Gyro compass and here is the situation with this:

Next situation = Rudder control:

The use of Auto-Pilot is not recommended when navigating in areas with high traffic density, narrow channels and traffic separation schemes and other restricted waters. The auto pilot may not be efficient enough to turn the vessel spontaneously while navigating in such areas demanding swift alterations and man-oeuvres to avoid a collision or close quarter situation.

More. Auto-pilot is not recommended when the ship is maneuvering or cruising at very low speed.

 

[Nan Yang]

'Everyone was asleep': Japanese cargo ship was on AUTOPILOT when it collided with the USS Fitzgerald says defense expert - as the US Navy mysteriously claims the accident happened one HOUR after official recorded time

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4617742/Shambolic-start-probe-USS-Fitzgerald-collision.html

 

[jhungary]

Gosh, why is it so difficult? The collusion obviously caused the ship to slow down and alter it's course. The auto pilot then corrected it speed and course. It OBVIOUSLY took a while for the crew to regain manual control of the ship and turned it around. The route of the ship, the changes in speed and direction are all consistent with auto pilot.

And geez, why is it so difficult.

A.) Pilot House and Look Out should NEVER left empty, you cannot all go to sleep when the ship is in motion. If everyone is sleeping when the ship is in motion, then REGARDLESS of which party at fault, the Cargo ship action is to blame.

B.) The first thing a ship will need to do when they are involve in a collision is to stop the ship, which mean from the point you have someone reaching your pilot house (which doing this is a violation itself, because you are suppose to have 1 man in there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in there) The ship will decelerate and stop and render assistance.

Now I do not know how far is from the bridge to the sleeping quarter, but even in an aircraft carrier, it does not take 10 minutes to reach the pilot house from berthing (I have tried that) ACX Crystal took 22 minutes to actually slow down from 14-15 knots to 12 knots (See AIS data above), and it does not turn until 1703 UTC, now I ask, does it take 33 minutes to reach the pilot house? I don't know about you, I can walk 2.4 km in 33 minutes with my wog leg, the ships length is 700 feet beam to beam and I am pretty sure I would run if I know my ship hit something.

So, you are telling me, it take at least 23 minutes for the crew to reach the pilot house and disengage the auto pilot and it take another 10 minutes for them to start turning?? Which they are suppose to have a person there at the first place?

Until the investigation is over we dont' know how the accident happened exactly.

But looking at the GPS track for the ACX Crystal, some people said:

• the first course divergence on the track is the moment of collision
• the loop back is when the Crystal turns around to go check on the Fitz
• the Crystal then proceeds on to port while calling in about the accident

Well, true that we cannot know what happen at that point until a proper investigation follow. But something does not add up on people's story. that's also a valid point too.

the first course divergence on the track is the moment of collision

Mostly not going to happen considered that it was Crystal bow hitting Fitzgerald, Crystal is 30,000 ton dry (if they were empty) and 70,000 ton if they are loaded, Crystal would have push Fitzgerald thru the momentum where they were travelling, that mean Crystal would not steer right or starboard side (where the Fitzgerald is going) upon collision, instead, upon collision, Crystal should be going straight ahead and push smaller Fitzgerald out of the way. Or both ship was lodged together and it would go where Crystal is going until both have stopped and both ship untangle.

For what you said to happen, Fitzgerald have to be able to push the 30,000-70,000 tons Crystal to her starboard, or the Crystal have to be going starboard under her own power.

the loop back is when the Crystal turns around to go check on the Fitz

Then the Crystal would be caught trying to leave the scene without stopping, because it take Crystal 33 minutes to turn around, even if nobody is in the pilot house (which it should not be), it would not take them 33 minutes to reach the pilot house if there are no damage or fire on the bridge.

If that is the case, then ACX crystal would have to answer yet another question, why it took them 33 minutes to start turning back and more than 1 hours to get back to the scene.

'Everyone was asleep': Japanese cargo ship was on AUTOPILOT when it collided with the USS Fitzgerald says defense expert - as the US Navy mysteriously claims the accident happened one HOUR after official recorded time

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4617742/Shambolic-start-probe-USS-Fitzgerald-collision.html

Again, you do know if EVERYONE WAS ASLEEP, that would mean the ACX Crystal crew admit their guilt, mean it is ACX Crystal action to blame, right? They are not supposed to be all asleep at that point. That is some serious negligent here.