USS Fitzgerald collides with ACX Crystal off coast of Japan

It’s that long run toward Tokyo that neither of us can explain - unless someone intended to make the run in and was re-directed or had second thoughts. They didn’t ‘need’ to do that, so I interpret it as intended, but then reconsidered. If the captain returned to the bridge sometime after the turn to port, it would tie those loose ends together.

Sure, because they make the best ship drivers. NOT.

We’ll have to wait for the captain’s statement to know why the ship made that long run toward Tokyo before turning back toward Fitzgerald. He may surprise us all.

It’s that long run toward Tokyo that neither of us can explain - They didn’t ‘need’ to do that, so I interpret it as intended,

On what basis do you form that opinion? Neither of us knows what was needed at the time. He may have headed to the port in case the Crystal was taking on water, and returned after confirming that they weren’t taking on water. I think I made a couple of plausible guesses. You don’t have to agree with them, but if you want to continue to be dismissive you need to use reason rather than simply repeat your feelings.What did they need to do that could be safely accomplished with a ship, while assessing the damage, in the few minutes between wayoints, and without risking a second collision?

We’ll have to wait for the captain’s statement to know why the ship made that long run toward Tokyo before turning back toward Fitzgerald. He may surprise us all.

Yeah, and the VDR. I still don’t agree that the Crystal’s post-collision actions are in any way unreasonable. I don’t agree that his “long” run was all that long, either.

you SIR and treading on some mighty thin ice with this statement and I ask you so cease and desist making it here. The Jones Act is responsible for almost all the US citizen mariners who participate in this forum and unless you are prepared to become the next Max Hardberger you had better shut your yap!

1 Like

dearest Commodore Jeff O Bytme

I am with AHTS_Master …I too want you to depart this place of professional merchant mariners…you are the ultimate definition of the type of person known as a “tool”

GO NOW SIR!

1 Like

Head math.

2000yds = 1nm (close enough)

3 minute rule: 100yds in three minutes for each knot of ship speed.

And yes, we do maneuver 4000 ton frigates and 8000 ton destroyers at 500yd intervals at 15 knot base speed and 25+knot stationing speed.

Head math? No merchant mariner of any nationality is going to know yards to nautical miles or take the time to look it up. Which is entirely fine because a professional merchant mariner uses nautical miles.

1 Like

If I’m on watch I want to hear it in NM. I’d rather see 0.5NM and 1/4NM, not 1000yrds and 500yrds or whatever it is. It’s easy to see graphically on my radar and ECDIS without taking a the time to do a “mental” conversion.

Or in 6 minutes you do 1/10th of your speed, in NM, so you just have to move the decimal over. 3minutes would be half of that. Obviously, because speed is measured in Nautical Miles per Hour. We don’t do speed in Yards per hour.

That is a very old joke and was originally a joke about the British Royal Navy, which is famous for it’s pomp and arrogance.

Lack of failure does not imply success

1 Like

Just another observation about this unfortunate event.

It very much appears that the Crystal was steaming 0n about 075/080 degrees.

The impact and consequent reaction caused her to veer to starboard creating the right handed dogleg in the AIS track. This is at 1630 UTC, Japan +9 = 0130

This would have been beyond the limits of the automatic pilot and the crew would have been regaining control whilst establishing what happened.

She subsequently makes the U-torn back to the scene.

The Fitz was heading SSW, maybe 150 degrees.

At the time of the collision the moon was at an azimuth of 117, altitude +23.

Effectively the Fitz was in shadow. She is also designed for stealth.

She was also not squawking AIS.

Given that she may have been operating with war navigation lights instead of full strength ones, and the fact that it was broken cloud, it may simply be that the Crystal just couldn’t / didn’t see her.

Remember these are busy busy waters and there would have been a sea of lights from deep sea, coastal and fishing vessels.

Also there are known issues with warship lights.

The wind was NE 13/16 knots, enough to cause some sea clutter so perhaps that was set high on the Crystal’s radar - the seas around the coast are wildly variable.

I thought the US Military had gone metric, or does that only apply to the Army?

In Close Formation Bravo with MTBs the distance between boats were referred to in NATO manuals as “30 Yards”, but for all practical purposes, “meters” were used by all Europeans, except the Brits…
Nobody who eyeball the distance between boats would be able to discern the difference.

PS> This was in 1965-66. A lot of things may have changed since then.

If that is how the Navy reads a compass it explains a lot.

8 Likes

There should be no reason for the Master to be on the bridge at this time. His presents would be needed when they entered Tokyo Bay and for berthing. He would have a busy day ahead of him once moored as well. Any prudent Captain would get his rest when he can and trust his Officers to handle the navigation in relatively open waters.

Nobody assume that there will be an accident of this type on a clear night in these waters, and nobody take the eccentricity of Naval vessels into consideration when writing their Night Orders. (Maybe they should, this close to a major US Navy Base??)

Meant to be

The Fitz was heading SSE, maybe 150 degrees. Well spotted.

Agree withOMBugge,

I used to do this rune every 14 days. Typically as Master I would arrange for a wake up call passing O Shima Island for the run into Tokyo Bay.

Yes I’m fully aware of that, hence the “true”.
I have heard this joke for many years as well, first in the British version and then as it migrated over to the USN. Maybe the arrogance migrated with it??

I don’t know but it seems the angle could have been even more acute than what you allow. And if so no mystery as to why an “abrupt change in course”. The Fitzgerald’s momentum, possibly reaction of helmsman to steer away from what just hit them could all be reasons for that turn.

Looking at the rip on the Crystals bow (see below) and the fact it seems at this point to extend only down the one side and further given the nature of the structure in the stem area of a ship like that with breast hooks, stringers and generally dense framing what on the Fitzgerald is strong enough to create that damage? Perhaps the hull / main deck edge?

Looking at below, perhaps where marked was initial impact of the topsides (the bulb having displaced/ cracked / tore / penetrated the hull below where we can see. Looking at the “folds” of the topsides in way of / just above main deck this could have been the path of the tear in the Crystals hull, this stronger section of the Fitzgerald’s construction acting like a can opener. Tear-fold, slide, tear, fold, slide. Many may be picturing that bulb buried in the hull but it wouldn’t take all that to present serious flooding problem. One good crack/tear along the side as the Crystal pushed the Fitzgerald off out of its way would be enough allow flooding enough they had to fight to save the ship.

The nature of the damage to the Fitzgerald’s topsides above this line is not surprising given the flare of the Crystals hull at the bow. And if the angle was more acute than you propose might account for the swiping look to it.

With what we know to date it does not seem likely to me the Fitzgerald was not making way or “stopped” (in a traffic lane?) and in fact looks more like it was moving pretty quickly. If the USN has anything like VDR’s that will settle it but in the meantime if it was moving at a good clip and impact angle was far less than 90 degrees this makes sense to me why no “center-punch” in the Fitzgerald and why no need to back out of her or some other elaborate explanation for becoming dis-entangled. Again the momentum of the collision and perhaps deliberate helm commands to get away from what just hit them. Then again if it was stopped would that make a difference (nature of damage-wise) if the blow was more glancing?

Likewise I don’t find the speculation of the Crystal’s track after much of a mystery either. Until the crew of the Crystal interviews are published we will not know what they thought they were facing and their thought process in getting their ship’s situation stabilized. Wake crew, avoid other traffic, damage inspections, return to scene. Not sure what is behind that speculation other than to cast aspersions without enough facts or evidence. Sure the USN has been subject to the same in this thread though.

But these things are really the least interesting part of this event. Situational awareness, keeping a proper lookout, bridge resource management, whatever you want to call “it” will be determined as faulty on both ships. Someone will say why and someone will say how to avoid that in the future and mostly things will go on going as they are. If you’ve read this far all you can say to yourself is “be a better seaman, be aware of assumptions, look, listen, avoid complacency” and on and on in similar vein re-learning the lessons of our individual and collective past mistakes and close calls.

4 Likes

The standards of the officers of ACX Crystal should be carefully investigated. The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) has during eleven years evaluated the standards of the maritime schools in the Philippines, without coming to a final conclusion if Filipino officers should be banned to sail on EU-ships or not.