US ship involved in accident.

[VCheng]

Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.

Has the result of the investigation been announced so quickly?

 

[jhungary]

Judging by photos in post #1 US destroyer suffered more damage than the container ship. Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.

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.

 

[F-22Raptor]

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

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

Lets be honest here. Guys like Muhammad and Piotr have no interest in reviewing the facts. The Fitzgerald got hit by a cargo ship, therefore it must be "weak" and "unprofessional." It's their anti-american bias at play.

 

[KAL-EL]

Can you explain how it's the fault of US Navy for the collision and not the other way around?

Considering that this thread was started by the OP at least in part for stealth trolling. It doesn't really matter.

 

[jhungary]

Lets be honest here. Guys like Muhammad and Piotr have no interest in reviewing the facts. The Fitzgerald got hit by a cargo ship, therefore it must be "weak" and "unprofessional." It's their anti-american bias at play.

lol, don't really care about them, just posting for the sake of normal everyday reader like yourself.

They can be as biased as they can get but I don't think anyone can and will believe them, it's like if I side swipe your car before a giveway sign, would I be able to get out of my responsibility for accusing you of being an American and an Unprofessional Driver who could have and should have been able to avoid me??

 

[third eye]

Judging by photos in post #1 US destroyer suffered more damage than the container ship. Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.

How have you arrived at this conclusion ?

such weak ship consider what will happen if missile strike it

Maybe this will help in comprehension.

The rest is Physics.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

7 crewmembers were reported missing, is there any news about them?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/16/us-navy-destroyer-collides-ship-japan

It seems to me the crew of the cargo ship may have gone of course and would then be unable to stop/change course in time and the USS Fitzgerald would have noticed it too late.
We will have to wait and see I guess.

 

[gambit]

Lets be honest here. Guys like Muhammad and Piotr have no interest in reviewing the facts. The Fitzgerald got hit by a cargo ship, therefore it must be "weak" and "unprofessional." It's their anti-american bias at play.

It is not as if ship collisions in open water are rare. Intellectual dingbats thinks that just because there are a lot of maneuvering room, there are no regulations, official and unofficial, on behaviors. These two ya-hoos are too lazy to use the Internet search to find the history of collisions events and give the necessary latitude until the full investigation is complete.

 

[IblinI]

7 missing,why are there personnel on deck during that time?

 

[khail007]

Though, I am not professional. My opinion is, a destroyer is equipped with sophisticated system of sensors and radars. How the destroyer unable to detect a huge ship in its sensitive limits/vicinity/zone?

 

[jhungary]

Though, I am not professional. My opinion is, a destroyer is equipped with sophisticated system of sensors and radars. How the destroyer unable to detect a huge ship in its sensitive limits/vicinity/zone?

This is the same question I asked my cousin, who is a CPO in the United States Coast Guard with 11 years of USCG service and her answer is as follow.

--

Ship's clearance is different than cars, we can see a ship, either on radar or visually, is in front of us, but since the sea does not offer a visual cue, when you are at the bridge looking down an object, even with constant monitoring, you cannot gauge its speed, bearing and heading. Unlike when you are driving, there are tons of stationary background on the road (building, trees, road sign and such) so you can gauge where the car is heading and how fast it is traveling down the road, hence noticing that you are in a collision course with that car. Ships stand out of a clear sky background will have no visual cue for you to determine the other ship's status.

The only way to avoid collision on course is for one or both of the ship to do necessary calculation and plot the course of the other ship so you can notice a collision is imminent, and this responsibility is always on the ship that travelling to their true heading. The same theory we use in automobile law, when a car is going forward, it is the driver responsibility to look forward, and when the driver reverse, it will then the driver responsibility to look back.

Each ship are require to scan the traffic ahead, and if they found traffic ahead, it's that ship job to calculate their collision course, if both ship's heading toward each other head on (eg 1 going south bound, 1 going north bound), then it's both ship's responsible for watch and collision avoidance.

In this case, USS Fitzgerald is crossing the ASX Crystal (seeing the Crystal Bow damaged and Fitzgerald Starboard is damaged, indicating Crystal hit Fitzgerald on the starboard side) USS Fitzgerald could have seen ASX Crystal on radar, or maybe not, if the Fitzgerald is under EMCOM but even if the destroyer can see Crystal on radar, that does not mean Fitzgerald would know the ships are in collision, because for a crossing traffic (The destroyer) they only require to hail the Crystal and ask them to state their intention, and if response (Speed, Heading and so on for the Crystal) is not enough to determine they are in collision course, then it would have been to late for USS Fitzgerald to know they will collide with each other.

In short, even if Fitzgerald saw Crystal on Radar (if they turned it on) it would only be a dot on their screen, without information given by Crystal (answering Fitzgerald hail is the responsibility for Crystal and it is up to them to state their nature to Fitzgerald) Unless Crystal change course themselves, there are no way Fitzgerald will know they are going to collide.

And in this case, like most likely it's Crystal fault to either ignore Fitzgerald hail, or ignore the collision warning, or did not have people stand watch and don't notice there are crossing traffic. Because even if Crystal did transmit the coordinate, speed and heading to Fitzgerald, it's still their responsibility to avoid collision in the first place, not the Fitzgerald. The Fitzgerald, would have call out surface contact bearing 090 or Surface Radar Contact bearing 090, then they will hail the ship on that general vicinity. That will be it, because that is all they know...

The only way Fitzgerald is at fault is when Crystal gave them all the information but also they had notice the Fitzgerald in a timely manner that they cannot change course due to mechanical problem (like jammed rudder or overheating prop), then the sole responsibility would be for Fitzgerald to change course and if the Captain of Fitzgerald ignore this, then it would have been Fitzgerald fault

--

Hope that help

 

[hassamun]

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/sea-collusion.502160/

 

[Cybernetics]

The ACX Crystal has a bulbous bow which struck USS Fitzgerald below the waterline. The bow most likely caused a rupture in Fitzgerald's hull below the waterline which explains the flooding and missing crew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbous_bow

The missing crew members are mostly likely trapped in compartments below the waterline around where ACX Crystal's bow struck. To avoid further flooding, compartments would have been sealed off from each other, likely trapping the missing sailors within the flooded compartments.

 

[Tom99]

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.

......

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.

When two crafts crosses, the craft on the starboard (right, the Cargo ship) side has right of way. The craft on the port (left, US naval ship) side must slow and turn to starboard to pass behind the other craft.

The Cargo ship is the stand-on vessel. Just from looking at the damage on the photos, the American Naval ship is at fault.

In any case, the state of art naval ship should have seen/detected the cargo ship tens of miles away, and as a great agile craft, it should have easily avoided the collision.

 

[jhungary]

When two crafts crosses, the craft on the starboard (right, the Cargo ship) side has right of way. The craft on the port (left, US naval ship) side must slow and turn to starboard to pass behind the other craft.

The Cargo ship is the stand-on vessel. Just from looking at the damage on the photos, the American Naval ship is at fault.

In any case, the state of art naval ship should have seen/detected the cargo ship tens of miles away, and as a great agile craft, it should have easily avoided the collision.

No........What you said is merging traffic, not crossing traffics. Merging is different than crossing, because merging would have require one or both party to change course (if both ship sail at the same course, they can never be merge) changing course would require the ship that's changing its course to give way to all traffic to their starboard. On the other hand, ship's that cross each other are under constant bearing, which mean both ship did not change course.

In nautical term merge (or bearing drift) is for a vessel to join another sea-lane, they can be of anyway, but would require the ship that merge to change its original heading, hence the ship's that merge (or the ship's that change course) would have to give way to any on-coming traffic it might ran into. For example, a ship is travelling under bear 080 and want to merge into sea lane or traffic that North Bound at 360, then when the ship is at the merge point, the ship have to change its course from 080 to 360 (turning left) and at that moment, that ship have to give way to every traffic that is going North and merge behind any traffic, if any.

In nautical term, crossing a ship is when two ship's have intercepting course, and when both ship keep their constant heading then the ship would collide, under this, the rule books said.

If you are approaching another vessel on a constant bearing, and under the rules are required to maneuver, you will do so in ample time. Any resulting alteration of course and speed will be large enough to be readily apparent to the other vessel. A succession of small changes in course and speed should be avoided.

http://www.ussailing.org/wp-content/uploads/DARoot/Powerboat/Bearing Drift.pdf

In this case, both ships are responsible for collision avoidence, the constant bearing of the cargo ship would have notice the Destroyer, however, the Destroyer may not notice the bearing of the cargo ship because the cargo ship is at its starboard side. And seeing that the cargo ship hit the destroyer head on, It seems apparent the Destroyer nor the Cargoship was attempting a bearing drift. Hence, there is a high chance that both ship are at constant bearing.

Also, the destroyer may not have turned on their radar, if they are ordered to travel under EMCON (EMission CONtrol), meaning they will have posted sentry and look out only, and at 2:30am, if the Cargoship did not light up properly, they probably cannot even spot them.

I think it's all depending on the circumstance, we need more information to determine who's at fault.