USS Fitzgerald collides with ACX Crystal off coast of Japan

I thought you had left us forever but of course you would crawl out from under your rock at this moment…

do us all a favor now and return to it please

Nej, jag är ingen idiot. Varför förfalskar du min post? Vem är du? Är du fullt frisk? Du verkar sjuk.

I actually watched the reports of the contact on Japanese TV and found it interesting. Evidently, when a big, structurally strong cargo ship (Crystal) contacts a lightweight, structurally weak war ship (Fitz…), the latter has no chance. It should not have been where it was sailing in front of the port side of cargo ship. Simple rule - ships on the starboard side has right of way.

But the damages were just a buckled bulwark on the Crystal focsle port side, while the Fitzgerald starboard deckhouse wall was ripped away. Thus no hull damages of any kind. No spaces below waterline flooded, etc, etc. IMO Fitz is 100% guilty of careless navigation, when trying to sneak in front of Crystal… Happens all the time.

I am sorry. I did not know this Mag. But that’s why I’m here in this Forum. Never had more interesting opinions, links and background knowledge than here. But that’s part of merchant mariners life too. Putting your legs up and reading a good book or watching the newest pirated movies ( bought from chinese vendors in Yantian or Xiamen for a buck per piece ), but never having the chance to ride the wireless waves :wink:

1 Like

Am I correct Navy never actually released official findings on the Porter? All I find is " The Navy has declined to release or discuss a pair of investigations into the incident", but perhaps my google foo is lacking?

There is the porter bridge voice recording out in public by a FOIA, but it does not look like even a FOIA pried the investigation report loose?

At least in this case we have the JCG who look pretty straight so far - but not sure if they will get navy access for their investigation.

For an idea of how it can all go wrong on a warship bridge, here is the report on the 1988 collision involving HMS Southampton and MV Tor Bay. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/10984/response/28540/attach/3/Collision%20Between%20HMS%20SOUTHAMPTON%20MV%20TORBAY%203%20Sept%201998%20BOI%20Report.pdf
Admittedly, they were trying to get close, but not that close!

Re ownership:

1987550 ISM Manager SEA QUEST SHIP MANAGEMENT INC 376, Sampaguita Street, San Martin de Porres Ph. 3, Panapaan, 4102 Bacoor, Cavite, Philippines. since 26/01/2009

1987550 Ship manager/Commercial manager SEA QUEST SHIP MANAGEMENT INC 376, Sampaguita Street, San Martin de Porres Ph. 3, Panapaan, 4102 Bacoor, Cavite, Philippines. since 30/11/2008

4021665 Registered owner OLYMPIC STEAMSHIP CO SA Care of Sea Quest Ship Management Inc , 376, Sampaguita Street, San Martin de Porres Ph. 3, Panapaan, 4102 Bacoor, Cavite, Philippines. since 30/11/2008

The collision caused the dogleg and speed reduction:

You didn’t say “the sea is dangerous”, everyone here knows that. You said “the sea is your enemy”, which is what people took issue with.

Long? So it took them 30 minutes from impact to turn around, so you really think that’s unreasonable? Doing the general alarm, muster the crew, damage report, verify you’re not talking on water, then have the engineers get the HFO engine ready for maneuvering speeds. Thirty minutes seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Exactly!

STCW is the minimum. There is no requirement for any country to lower their standards to the minimum and if Norway did than I question their integrity as a leading maritime nation.

3 Likes

The Fitz was heading SSW, maybe 150 degrees.

How are we speculating this?

Take care with the way you use “we”. Here’s a hint.

In all seriousness though, I am unaware of any official word on the Fitz’s heading or speed. Some of us were guessing the most likely track by judging from the damage to the two vessels, and the heading and speed as indicated by the AIS track of the Crystal. SSE does not appear to be an impossibility. SSW is unlikely and probably an error made by the poster, hence the jokes about Navy compass reading skills.

If the Fritz was heading 150 degr. prior to the collision, she would have been crossing the TSS, but not at a 90 degr. angle as recommended for such actions.
The damages above waterline on both vessels can only tell us something about their relative position yo each other at time of impact. Assuming that both vessels took some evasive action just prior to actual contact, it says nothing about the courses steered in the minutes prior to the collision.

All we know is that Crystal was following the recommended TSS route and did not deviate from that until moments before impact. What the Fritz were up to is anybodies guess, but it appear likely that they were also heading on a somewhat same course and was bound for home base at Yokosuka.
But we will only know that for sure once the US Navy release the track and destination of the Fritz at the time.

1 Like

I’m just sitting here waiting to hear DeepSeaDiver’s opinion so I can know what “really happened” and go with just the opposite. :wink:

4 Likes

Don’t hold your breath waiting for that kind of detail. I predict that the Navy is closing all the watertight doors and will try to put a spin on this that focuses on the “heroic efforts” to save the ship. They will make a great effort to use the deaths of those young men to paint criticism and speculation as disrespectful. To me, that is the greatest disrespect possible.

Hopefully the parents of those victims will not allow their loss to be used by the Navy to cover its own failures.

2 Likes

I read an analysis of the damage to the destroyer which suggested that the container ship hit it at a 45% angle. I think there was a crossing situation in which the destroyer was approaching the container ship from a 45 % angle. I think they were going fast and misjudged the distance. They thought they would make it clear of the container ship but did not. Meanwhile I think everyone on the container ship was asleep. The track suggests an autopilot righting itself after impact. It takes time to slow those ships down and turn around so the the timing for the return to the scene of impact makes sense. When the captain of the container ship saw what had happened that is when he called in. However, until as much information as possible about the collision is gather any assessment by anyone is nothing more than conjecture. I feel it is disrespectful to all involved to assign blame to anyone. My guess is both captains and crews will be found at fault.

[quote=“lww, post:299, topic:45129”]
I feel it is disrespectful to all involved to assign blame to anyone.[/quote]

Yet earlier you state, “Meanwhile I think everyone on the container ship was asleep.”

Is that not disrespect in your own mind based on your own words?

As for the fact of all crew being asleep, sure it’s possible yet less probable than being awake and alert or awake and having some level of fatigue. If the vessels VDR and BNWS were functioning, then the Japanese Coast Guard at the very least knows if one or both of the bridge crew (I’m guessing there were only two as that would be standard) were asleep before the collision. Fatigue and alertness levels, or the lack of either, will be more difficult to determine.

As for your other point. Yes indeed both ships will be at fault, mostly with the officers in command of each vessels navigation watch with the Captain being responsible as well. Not because the Captains were both sleeping, that would be expected on both vessels at the local time of day barring a call requesting assistance. Simply because they are the Captains.

1 Like

Yes. You make a good point but I can come up with its no other explanation
for the delay in calling the coast guard.

Prioritizing things comes to mind. An initial call to the Coast Guard sooner would have been ideal, but it’s not always going to be at the forefront of the Captains mind when he or she gets woke up at 01:30, more or less. That’s a good time for proper use of checklists, but that’s a whole different can of worms. Then again, perhaps a checklist was used by the captain, and that action was further down the line than other actions.

Also, even if all were asleep on the container ship, and, of course, that
breaks a major rule, I wonder if it would have been possible for them to
prevent the collision if the destroyer “sports car of the sea” was
screaming across their bow from a 45 degree angle at high speed. I have
read that in order for a container ship to stop it is not a simple process
hence the status of “Restricted in Ability to Maneuver”.

Yes, it takes some time to stop a large ship, which is why for most open ocean (the area that the collision occurred being open ocean only as far as my example goes) maneuvers by give way vessels, or stand on vessels when action by the give way vessel alone will not prevent a collision, would be a turn to starboard. That’s not always the proper maneuver, but it is most of the time.

Now a hard turn by the container ship will also normally cause a drop off in the speed of advance along its normal course line, but there’s still going to be some advance in that direction for just about any ship using traditional propulsion systems.

The container ship was not restricted in her ability to maneuver according to the rules, as that’s a special condition due to the nature of her work and a container liner run is not even close to that circumstance.

Again. Good point. I will amend my assessment that the crew of the
container ship must have been asleep. And you are right. It was
disrespectful.