This is by no means meant to be disrespectful to our great sailors.
How does something like this happen with modern technology? With radar, trajectory information and other things... I don't get it. Obviously the cargo ship is huge and can't turn or stop quickly, but still.
Can someone explain?
FROM THE NYT:
The cause of the collision was unclear. Under international maritime rules, a vessel is supposed to give way to another one on its starboard side, and the damage indicates that the Crystal was to the Fitzgerald’s starboard, and therefore had the right of way.
Sean P. Tortora, a veteran merchant marine captain and consultant who said he had sailed through the area of the collision many times, said that evidence suggested the Fitzgerald was at fault.
Captain Tortora described the collision as a “T-bone” in which the bow of the Crystal hit the starboard side of the Fitzgerald. “From what I’ve seen, the Fitzgerald should have given way and passed to the stern of the container ship,” he said.
Folks, this is extremely complex....
But, there are lots of factors here. (just a few for example)
1.) Heavy traffic - especially heavy fishing boat (especially if mixed in with ship traffic) activity can totally confuse the situation. Fishing boats if in the area do not respect the rules - very often will charge at a ship to protect their nets causing radical course changes. Plus with so many lights, you can lose other traffic, especially if focus on a closer more dangerous threat. Radar can help but is pretty slow to show changes in course and speed especially when things are within a mile. (A mile is nothing to a 500 ft and 750 ft ship)
2.) The U-Turn - it seems to have been far away from the collision area. Sometimes ships will do a pre-calculated turn to kill time. The arrival at Tokyo pilot (Uraga, iirc) station is an exact time (within 15 minutes) due to traffic entering the bay. FYI, most merchant ships Diesel engines can only operate in a set range and operating below a certain RPM will load the exhaust trunk with unspent fuel possibly causing a fire in the exhaust trunk. More modern engines are more forgiving. Even on US Ships changing speeds may necessitate calling an engineer to the engine room to make changes to settings(won't go into details). And no, unless necessary, the engine room is not manned between 5pm and 8am. everything is automated.
3.) I do know most modern non-US cargo ships operate with only the officer of the watch on the bridge. There is supposed to be a standby helmsman that can be called to the bridge to steer, but often is off doing other work in the house. Could the officer have fell asleep, missed his turn and then woke up and backtracked? Yes. But there are alarms that will go off if no motion is detected within 10 minutes. If the watch officer did not call the helmsman he would have been navigating, monitoring traffic and steering all by himself. Most modern ships have a "pilot's chair" where all the functions are readily accessible - I do not know what the ACX Crystal's bridge set up is.
4.)Having dealt with some non-US ships, all ships have a passage plan (routing saying when, where and what courses to steer) some ships will not deviate from said exact route. Meaning, these guys are steering for an exact spot and at said exact spot they will make their turn, even if you are there. There is no room for deviation by some captains. (Indian officered ships in my experience are the worst). I won't get into the ridiculousness of the passage plan's requirements - that is another story.
5.) On the Fitzgerald there would be a bridge team and a team in CIC (combat information center). Both have access to the radar(s). The bridge team with the Officer of the Deck(OOD) assisted by a junior OOD, the Quarter Master and his team and lookouts is in charge of the ship while CIC is offering advice. It is up to the OOD to make the decisions and he hopefully called the Captain when he saw there was a chance of imminent collision (likewise hopefully the 2nd officer on the ACX Crystal called his captian.) (Disclaimer - I may be slightly off on the bridge manning of the US Navy.)
I think the most likely outcome will be fault on both parties. It is often a very complex scenario that causes a collision, called an error chain - a series of steps and missteps that lead to the collision.
I would caution all not to speculate and affix blame. The ACX Crystal will have all it's data recorded on the VDR (radar, voice commands, engine orders, navigation devices, etc) for about 12 hours prior to the collision and the aftermath. So the Japanese Coast Guard will know exactly what happened on the ACX. The US Navy will know exactly what happened on the Fitzgerald.
We do know Cmdr Benson, the OOD, JOOD and the officers in the CIC on navigation detail careers are likely finished and seven sailors are likely dead.
Pray for the dead.
This seems the most likely explanation. When I was in the Navy we had a near miss with a Freighter cutting across our bow. Happens more than we realize.
Quote:
Made a sudden U-Turn in a crowded shipping lane
This seems the most likely explanation. When I was in the Navy we had a near miss with a Freighter cutting across our bow. Happens more than we realize.
It is a possible explanation, but the U-Turn
BBC story with GPS positioning - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13503074 montanagiant said:
Quote:
Made a sudden U-Turn in a crowded shipping lane
This seems the most likely explanation. When I was in the Navy we had a near miss with a Freighter cutting across our bow. Happens more than we realize.
It is possible, but if you see the attached article and the printout of the GPS positioning from Marine Traffic, the U Turn was not really that close to the accident point.
What I do see in that screen pic is that the Crystal appears to have turned to port some where in the vicinity of the collision - the real tight little group on the left.
But as I said previously, the authorities will get it right and it is all circumstantial evidence to us amateurs at this point.
We have Section trying to provide a detailed unbiased analysis and then we have this.
Casualties and injuries have been reported. Prayers to them and their families and friends. RIP. God bless.
Folks, this is extremely complex....
But, there are lots of factors here. (just a few for example)
1.) Heavy traffic - especially heavy fishing boat (especially if mixed in with ship traffic) activity can totally confuse the situation. Fishing boats if in the area do not respect the rules - very often will charge at a ship to protect their nets causing radical course changes. Plus with so many lights, you can lose other traffic, especially if focus on a closer more dangerous threat. Radar can help but is pretty slow to show changes in course and speed especially when things are within a mile. (A mile is nothing to a 500 ft and 750 ft ship)
2.) The U-Turn - it seems to have been far away from the collision area. Sometimes ships will do a pre-calculated turn to kill time. The arrival at Tokyo pilot (Uraga, iirc) station is an exact time (within 15 minutes) due to traffic entering the bay. FYI, most merchant ships Diesel engines can only operate in a set range and operating below a certain RPM will load the exhaust trunk with unspent fuel possibly causing a fire in the exhaust trunk. More modern engines are more forgiving. Even on US Ships changing speeds may necessitate calling an engineer to the engine room to make changes to settings(won't go into details). And no, unless necessary, the engine room is not manned between 5pm and 8am. everything is automated.
3.) I do know most modern non-US cargo ships operate with only the officer of the watch on the bridge. There is supposed to be a standby helmsman that can be called to the bridge to steer, but often is off doing other work in the house. Could the officer have fell asleep, missed his turn and then woke up and backtracked? Yes. But there are alarms that will go off if no motion is detected within 10 minutes. If the watch officer did not call the helmsman he would have been navigating, monitoring traffic and steering all by himself. Most modern ships have a "pilot's chair" where all the functions are readily accessible - I do not know what the ACX Crystal's bridge set up is.
4.)Having dealt with some non-US ships, all ships have a passage plan (routing saying when, where and what courses to steer) some ships will not deviate from said exact route. Meaning, these guys are steering for an exact spot and at said exact spot they will make their turn, even if you are there. There is no room for deviation by some captains. (Indian officered ships in my experience are the worst). I won't get into the ridiculousness of the passage plan's requirements - that is another story.
5.) On the Fitzgerald there would be a bridge team and a team in CIC (combat information center). Both have access to the radar(s). The bridge team with the Officer of the Deck(OOD) assisted by a junior OOD, the Quarter Master and his team and lookouts is in charge of the ship while CIC is offering advice. It is up to the OOD to make the decisions and he hopefully called the Captain when he saw there was a chance of imminent collision (likewise hopefully the 2nd officer on the ACX Crystal called his captian.) (Disclaimer - I may be slightly off on the bridge manning of the US Navy.)
I think the most likely outcome will be fault on both parties. It is often a very complex scenario that causes a collision, called an error chain - a series of steps and missteps that lead to the collision.
I would caution all not to speculate and affix blame. The ACX Crystal will have all it's data recorded on the VDR (radar, voice commands, engine orders, navigation devices, etc) for about 12 hours prior to the collision and the aftermath. So the Japanese Coast Guard will know exactly what happened on the ACX. The US Navy will know exactly what happened on the Fitzgerald.
We do know Cmdr Benson, the OOD, JOOD and the officers in the CIC on navigation detail careers are likely finished and seven sailors are likely dead.
Pray for the dead.
This is broken down very well for the average person. Great job Section.
I would like to add a couple things:
Maritime law is not like regular driving laws for those who don't know. There usually is no such thing as NO Fault, so some blame will be cast in both directions.
As for the Navy watch officer in some cases the OOD is not the most navigation knowledgable on the bridge and could contribute to delayed decisions.
As for the commercial ship, many times they use the technology on the bridge to alert them to danger while they.......do.....other....things...zzzz. Not many crew and that guy on the bridge at 2:30 am probably worked all day then stood watch.
my 2 cents
Quote:
This is broken down very well for the average person. Great job Section.
I would like to add a couple things:
Maritime law is not like regular driving laws for those who don't know. There usually is no such thing as NO Fault, so some blame will be cast in both directions.
As for the Navy watch officer in some cases the OOD is not the most navigation knowledgable on the bridge and could contribute to delayed decisions.
As for the commercial ship, many times they use the technology on the bridge to alert them to danger while they.......do.....other....things...zzzz. Not many crew and that guy on the bridge at 2:30 am probably worked all day then stood watch.
my 2 cents
Morning Boatie - thanks for the Navy side. I was hoping somebody might clean up that portion in case I was wrong. Long time since my Naval Science classes at school.
You are right about fatigue on merchant ships and the bridge watch falling asleep(it happens, but is not the norm) - it is possible and it is the reason for the BNWAS (bridge navigation watch alarm system). Watches falling asleep is more prevalent in coasters because of the intensive arrival and departure schedules. I always believed that the two man watch system the US still clings to is far safer than the one man with alarms allowed by law. Alarms can be defeated. I'm too old school to believe IMO's bullshit.
Quote:
In comment 13503092 section125 said:
Quote:
This is broken down very well for the average person. Great job Section.
I would like to add a couple things:
Maritime law is not like regular driving laws for those who don't know. There usually is no such thing as NO Fault, so some blame will be cast in both directions.
As for the Navy watch officer in some cases the OOD is not the most navigation knowledgable on the bridge and could contribute to delayed decisions.
As for the commercial ship, many times they use the technology on the bridge to alert them to danger while they.......do.....other....things...zzzz. Not many crew and that guy on the bridge at 2:30 am probably worked all day then stood watch.
my 2 cents
Morning Boatie - thanks for the Navy side. I was hoping somebody might clean up that portion in case I was wrong. Long time since my Naval Science classes at school.
You are right about fatigue on merchant ships and the bridge watch falling asleep(it happens, but is not the norm) - it is possible and it is the reason for the BNWAS (bridge navigation watch alarm system). Watches falling asleep is more prevalent in coasters because of the intensive arrival and departure schedules. I always believed that the two man watch system the US still clings to is far safer than the one man with alarms allowed by law. Alarms can be defeated. I'm too old school to believe IMO's bullshit.
I spent 21 years in the Army (just retired earlier this year), most of that time on Army Vessels traveling the world. I have had a good bit of interaction with the Navy with most of it being positive. I did find that many of their watch officers (at least from the small pool I dealt with) were smart at their day job but not the most versed in navigation. They leaned heavily on the Boatswain's mate's knowledge of the route plans. Plus, depending on the Personality of the Captain, they have a tendency to think because they are a warship others need to stay clear of them. Most of which should come out in the investigation. General public will never hear all the facts and rightfully so most of the time.
I always assumed you were a Navy warrant officer based on your handle. But since I do know that Army has many sea vessels, this does make sense...:)
I spent 21 years in the Army (just retired earlier this year), most of that time on Army Vessels traveling the world. I have had a good bit of interaction with the Navy with most of it being positive. I did find that many of their watch officers (at least from the small pool I dealt with) were smart at their day job but not the most versed in navigation. They leaned heavily on the Boatswain's mate's knowledge of the route plans. Plus, depending on the Personality of the Captain, they have a tendency to think because they are a warship others need to stay clear of them. Most of which should come out in the investigation. General public will never hear all the facts and rightfully so most of the time.
Yep, the Army actually has more vessels than the Navy - most inland, but may seagoing.
I actually think the details will come out, they have to come out. There were 7 sailors killed in a collision with a commercial ship and it may involve a criminal trial if the Crystal's captain and watch officer were criminally negligent. In that case, not only will the Company by involved, but the US Navy and all details will be argued in court. Even if the Fitzgerald was mostly at fault there will be a lawsuit for damages, etc.
Quote:
In comment 13503550 section125 said:
I spent 21 years in the Army (just retired earlier this year), most of that time on Army Vessels traveling the world. I have had a good bit of interaction with the Navy with most of it being positive. I did find that many of their watch officers (at least from the small pool I dealt with) were smart at their day job but not the most versed in navigation. They leaned heavily on the Boatswain's mate's knowledge of the route plans. Plus, depending on the Personality of the Captain, they have a tendency to think because they are a warship others need to stay clear of them. Most of which should come out in the investigation. General public will never hear all the facts and rightfully so most of the time.
Yep, the Army actually has more vessels than the Navy - most inland, but may seagoing.
I actually think the details will come out, they have to come out. There were 7 sailors killed in a collision with a commercial ship and it may involve a criminal trial if the Crystal's captain and watch officer were criminally negligent. In that case, not only will the Company by involved, but the US Navy and all details will be argued in court. Even if the Fitzgerald was mostly at fault there will be a lawsuit for damages, etc.
Yeah, you wont find many Navy folks calling themselves Boaties! :) I spent about 4 years in the High Speed Craft program sailing with a mixture of Army and Navy when we where testing the Vessels out for US Military use. Army also has plenty of other Ocean going Vessels. (and some not completely designed to do so but still do). Flat bottom boats are fun in anything over 4 foot seas.
I am sure that those involved in any court case will get the majority of the information but I doubt all of the information will be made available to the general public. Especially if the Navy is mostly to blame
The U-Turn was one hour prior to incident according to latest news - so in affect as I suspected - the u-turn was not an immediate cause of the accident, except to put the ship at that exact spot at that exact time (coincidence.)
FYI, website Marine Traffic will have the incident and positions with times at each update (maybe 6 minute increments), so the time of the accident is already known, or at least readily available. Each of the little triangles represents a position update and will have an associated time. if it was live, you could hover on each triangle and get position, course, speed etc.
ABC News Report - ( New Window )