USS J McCain / Alnic MC collision near Singapore


#244

You mean 21MC (AKA “bitch box”). The 1MC is the ship’s announcing/public address system that goes to all spaces. And it is one-way.


#245

That’s why it has to be something else, if it’s EW at all. That many incompetent seamen is equally unbelievable. I plan to wait until the investigation runs it all to ground before tossing sailors under the bus.


#246

Here’s a little light reading…

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA456656

There are vulnerabilities, and they know it.

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/5566

Here is a quote from the chief investigator of the Porter collision.

“Beyond seamanship, less tangible aspects from leadership to fatigue have been explored. Other lessons are beyond the scope of this discussion;”

What lessons could be beyond the scope of that investigation?

What’s beyond seamanship, leadership and fatigue?

Here’s a post by Mikey.

http://forum.gcaptain.com/u/Mikey

“We had no paint on this guy”

Buggy software? Crash, freeze, "Updates are ready for your CiC?

(I was making a perfect landing with a DDG’in the CMA simulator when’s the port cp controller stuck at back slow, tried walking her in but appearently those things don’t walk).


#247

Operative words there are “On the planet”.


#248

You would think it is inconceivable, but believe me, the navy is really shitty at driving ships.

They’re great at flying planes, and running nuke plants, but they have made ship driving not a primary profession of the people doing it. Plenty of people on the navy will agree with the statement.

Just since may I can think of three instances that happened to me personally where I interacted with naval vessels that seemingly had no idea what they were doing, who was around them, and what anyone else was doing.


#249

You would think it is inconceivable, but believe me, the navy is really shitty at driving ships.

They’re great at flying planes, and running nuke plants, but they have made ship driving not a primary profession of the people doing it. Plenty of people on the navy will agree with the statement.

Depends on the ship of course, some of them have decent bridge teams, but on the whole I’d say you’re pretty accurate. The effect of not having dedicated bridge officers and having them all be general officers.

On my current ship, it would be a huge deal if something were around us and we caught it late. Just happened to us on the last underway(smallish fishing boat a few miles offshore, no lights on at midnight, no radar return. Only even knew it was there due to sonar and NVG).


#250

The effect of not having dedicated bridge officers and having them all be general officers.

This is the crux of the whole matter. You cannot treat a basic and life saving skill as navigation as a simple means of getting a ship from A to B and treat it as just another management tool. Navigation is an art and science that can only be mastered by long dedicated study and experience.


#251

In heavy traffic sometimes it’s sometimes not a matter of vessels not being seen but rather a matter of prioritizing what is seen. A good AB/lookout will have some understanding of traffic situation and will report a vessel a second time if he thinks the mate has overlooked something.

On other hand some ABs just report every light they see without understanding, which if anything just adds to the workload. Some mates do the same thing with the ARPA, just reading off bearing/ranges/CPAs/TCPA without no appreciation of which ones need priority. In heavy traffic that is sometimes more of a distraction then a help.


#252

This article in NYT is a few days old and probably read by many here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/world/asia/navy-collision-uss-mccain-oil-tanker.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
It does bring up some of the same points about the danger when warships operate “secretively” in high traffic areas, but more interesting is the comments, which is not the skrill blaming of anybody, or speculating on hacking and foreign merchant ships being weapons of China/North Korea/Russia or any other “enemy” of US.


#253

Latest from Today newspaper in Singapore: http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/us-navy-recovers-all-10-sailors-uss-john-s-mccain

Why it took so long to gain access when there are any number of drydocks within a few miles from Changi Naval Base is a mystery. With the vessel sitting on the blocks it should be no problem draining the flooded compartment and no danger of sinking or capsizing the vessel in the process.
More secrecy maybe??


#254

yes, i believe 1MC ends up being the generic term.


#255

all of the bridges of U.S. Navy vessels I spent time on were teams, very well trained teams. some might even believe it enhances the OOD’s situational awareness and ability to establish priority of focus.


#256

And others might believe the Easter Bunny has better situational awareness than has been demonstrated by several inexplicable, and tragically fatal, Navy examples that contradict your appraisal.


#257

[quote=“captainjim47, post:254, topic:45819, full:true”]
yes, i believe 1MC ends up being the generic term.[/quote]

One is used for all-hands one-way announcements and another is point-to-point two-way internal communications. You wouldn’t use the 1MC to confer with CIC as to contacts. No “generics” please.


#258

1MC is a sufficient 3 letter descriptor of the system such everyone here that’s spent any time on a Navy bridge knows that I’m talking about an intercom… this is off topic.


#259

No, anyone who has spent time on a Navy bridge might readily wonder if you have actually been there. The 1MC in not an intercom, it is an announcing, or public address, system.

These are just a few of the intercoms on Navy ships:
Intercommunication System Circuits:
4MC - Damage Control
19MC - Aviation Ready Rooms
20MC - CIC
21MC - Captain’s Command
22MC - Radio Central
24MC - Flag Officer
26MC - Machinery Control
29MC - Sonar Control and Information System
30MC - Special Weapons Control Announcing System

And yes, off topic.


#260

No wonder they get confused!!!


#261

Honestly most of them aren’t used during special details on most ships. Most ships don’t have flag circuits on them for instance, since they don’t normally carry flag officers.

The 29MC is primarily used for announcing subsurface contacts or inbound torpedoes, and won’t be in regular use during normal navigation.

Most communication internal to ships is done via internal nets, everyone’s got a headset on and the bridge has a speaker with it up. Comms on the net are(supposed to be) limited to what needs to be passed to ensure safe navigation / warfighting.


#262

Like I said in another thread just now:
Why not use a telephone with a load speaker?
Simple, understandable and commonly used by most other Maritime Nations.
But then again; why make it simple when you can do it the American way??


#263

Not accurate, not sufficient, and setting one up to fail.

Plain English works so much better on too many occasions (possibly not all, but the majority) that speed up the decision making loop and give us (usually) a better result.

As an example, I can say EMT and I’ll bet we get at least four or five (or a dozen) different answers on what an EMT means depending on the expertise and background of the responder.

And I’ve never served, never been on a warship so while I understand there are different codes and circuits for communication, it helps to really know what your talking about when you make a statement.