Many moons ago, I was east bound in the Keys. A navy warship contacted me for an unreasonable meeting agreement. I was amazed they even contacted me regarding a 6 mile or more CPA. I told them of their position in relation to mine and we were more than fine. Next thing I knew they scrambled my most awesome Raytheon CAS radar. What a prick.
when the scratch is on your stb side its hard not be at fault
A generic compilation of anecdotal âhereâs why you suckâ bullet points published before a single investigative fact had been released. Before the bodies of the sailors killed had even been flown home to be buried. Gee, I wonder why you got shit on so hard?
There are plenty of accidents where you can justly give the Navy grief; the USS Porter collision in the Persian Gulf a few years back being a perfect example. And as the investigation bore out, the Fitzgerald was âa little weak on beinâ rightâ here too. But maybe, just maybe, a different tact would have been more effective in your âanalysisâ of a multiple-fatality collision.
That you apparently still donât see that, based on your crowing of being proved ârightâ, and thatâs a real shame. Thereâs a lot of knowledge the merchant marine has to offer the Navy (and perhaps even vice versa), but if you canât or wonât learn how to effective speak truth to power, it will all be for nought.
Now if youâll excuse me, I need to go act smugly superior to another bunch of hapless merchies who couldnât seem to be able to avoid running into a 100 mile wide storm and losing their ship, something the Navy has avoided doing for more than 75 yearsâŚ
I would hope the Navy never encounters a storm as they donât have goods and deadlines to deliver, the exception being wartime of course.
As for effectively speaking truth to power⌠Iâve seen reports, that do a decent job detailing how improvements could be made, and little to no action on those improvements. Iâm not deep in the know on this stuff, but I believe the Navy is bringing back celestial navigation and dabbling in bridge resource management, yes? If so, then thatâs a good baby step in the right direction, and as best as I can tell, the Navy will only be able to move in baby steps. As I see it the Navy is just a massive entity designed to work, not necessarily well or efficiently or effectively, but it works. And the powers that be do not want to jeopardize this massive entity grinding to a halt because they threw a wrench in the gears, that would be the death of their career and leave America vulnerable. So I guess what Iâm getting at is there are a lot of forces against changing the status quo in the Navy and itâs more than just effectively speaking truth to power. I believe most of us in the industry can see this pretty well, understand there isnât really anything we can do about it, and probably enjoy some kind of gratification pointing out the stupid and preventable errors a high-strung organization continues to commit.
1 Like
I found it ironic that , thankfully a Navy captain of a ship that is a KP grad encouraged the cadets he had on board âTeachâ his crew how to use celestial. Should be the other way around. This was a year or two back, navy needs more like him. He gets it.
1 Like
It is mind boggling that this LTjg who was the OOD that night wasnât sent to prison for flat out gross negligence and manslaughter. Reading the report and seeing the XO didnât trust her up thereâŚ
The problem is thatâs not how the real world or human nature work. That article which received so much hate mail was read by a quarter of a million sailors. This post about the official report has so far been read 982 times. This is one of the lowest figures ever for an investigation report we have published.
What good is an investigation at all if most of the fleet never bothers to read it?
Nobody cares a year or two later. It doesnât matter if I get it 
right, what matters is that we get good relevant information out so people can discuss the incident intelligently before everyone looses interest.
Also⌠itâs a cultural problem. I donât get shit on when I call out problems aboard a merchant ship. I usually get angry emails that Iâm going too easy on them. Merchant Mariners want the harsh truth published so they can immediately take the lessons learned aboard their ships, Navy guys donât.
Whatâs most important is not the individual facts but the the willingness to talk about, contemplate, and follow the investigation further.
4 Likes
The most common criticism Iâve seen here is the too many people on the bridge argument. I donât see how that applies here.
The JOOD suggested to the OOD that the Fitzgerald turn to slow to allow the ships to pass ahead then suggested that they turn to stbd and pass astern.
There is no confusion from too many voices. The OOD simply did not understand what was going on and did not take the advice of the JOOD who did.
What on the merchant side would have helped if the mate on watch made these errors?
2 Likes
its still a clown show when a merchant vessel doing its job going from A to B ( most likely broadcast on the ais) hits a vessel whos job it is to avoid being sunk by the enemy, and has no other job to do.
2 Likes
Whatâs shitty, the friendly fire almost sunk her.
But damn few willing to listen to that offer. How often does a merchant vessel receive a reply to a call about passing arrangements? More often it is silence or a snide order to keep out of the way.
The Navy has earned its miserable reputation
That report appears to be treated in the same manner as a radio call from a merchant ship, an inconvenience imposed on the Gods by mere mortals.
2 Likes
Johns report/analysis was on point. Some may or may not accept it, but in my small world, he put it together in a way that most could understand if they had a lick of common sense, which has been debated on this site to no avail. I donât always agree with John, nor he with me. Fine with that. Navy fucked up, end of story.John nailed it. I donât think he loses any sleep over people disagreeiing with him, just stupid people he shakes his head at. Particularly maritime reporters who have never sailed.
I vehemently disagree with this; no one seriously thought that a collision where seven sailors died was going to be forgotten in a week. What I do understand is that youâre a journalist, and you feel a rush to print a big story, like any other reporter. You also need to set your story apart from all the others, and that means sometimes you need to be salacious.
Youâre right that there is a cultural divide. The Navy isnât like working for Bobâs Shipping Company, where you can quit and go sail for Joeâs Towing. Itâs a culture, itâs a lifestyle. And while it may be dysfunctional at times, itâs still a family. And when that family is pulling together in shock and grief, here comes a smarmy outsider heckling it. Small wonder no Navy people came here to read your copy of the investigation.
Honestly though, this is all academic at this point. I donât think the bell can be unrung and I donât think you have any desire to do so (which is fine of course). If as you say your audience takes you seriously thatâs great, but whatever chance you had to impact the largest maritime organization in the country was probably lost for at least a generation. Donât worry though; Iâm an outsider here, and completely prepared to have my opinions discounted accordingly. 
I didnât read it as heckling, rather constructive criticism pointing out errors made that prudent mariners from any country in the world would be wise not to repeat.
The largest maritime organization in the country is not capable of regulating themselves obviously, as these collisions happen so often as to be nationally embarrassing. When professional investigators outside the cocoon of the US Navy offer suggestions they are ignored. There is on the bridge of most merchant ships in international trade more seagoing experience per man than on the average Navy ship.
I donât think John is naive enough to think the insular leadership of the US Navy would change because of his writing. After all, the US Navy learned to sail from the US Navy by US Navy rules. The fact that the rest of the world goes by international rules accepted thru international agreement is something they know little of and care even less.
4 Likes
There have been several posts here about steps the Navy was taking to improve SWO training.
This one for example, most people here couldnât get past the post title.
Read that some time ago. MITAGS is MSC . The study did not state the level of experience of the MSC mariners they observed nor did they send US Navy personnel to MITAGS with the same experience as the MSC mariners to compare results. They also sure as hell didnât compare either with professional mariners from any country involved with international trade on a daily basis.
So your point is?
The study is flawed
1 Like
The only thing I can say to that, is that if the mate on watch doesnât have anybody to confer with and they are in doubt, they are supposed to call the Captain. Do they always? Obviously not.
Also, most of the unlicensed are much more experienced than the fresh out of school mates, and maybe they say something to the mate like âyou probably should call the old man.â I have always respected my watch partners and took their position with a grain of salt, but if a guy whoâs been sailing for 30 years doesnât like the way something looks, maybe I shouldnât like it either.
7 Likes
I agree, but as you said Iâve learned that just writing âcall the masterâ in the night orders doesnât mean itâs going to happen. Which is why in traffic Iâd watch the 3rd mate on INavX from my room/office.
The captain of the Fitgerald also had written in his night order to call for small CPAs but those orders were disregarded by the watch.