It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking: US Navy destroyer takes on water after collision off Japanese coast

page: 13
53
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Doxanoxa





Damn, poor mates.

For you.

regards to the sailors and their families from Aussie.




posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

If the times are correct, the container ship was not doing strange manoeuvres before the collision, it only turned back. If there is a one hour difference then the slight change in direction (to staboard) of the container ship coincides with the collision.

That's why I keep thinking that there's that one hour difference, as things would look "natural" with it.
edit on 18/6/2017 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: roadgravel

If the times are correct, the container ship was not doing strange manoeuvres before the collision, it only turned back. If there is a one hour difference then the slight change in direction (to stabord) of the container ship coincides with the collision.

That's why I keep thinking that there's that one hour difference, as things would look "natural" with it.


Imho the 90 deg turn starboard was the result of the collision. The u-turn happened afterwards, probably to see if assistance is required.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
According to Navy statements, there was major damage to the hull of the Fitzgerald underwater. They said there wasn't much time to get out of the flooded compartments due to the amount of water coming in and how fast they flooded.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: violet
a reply to: eriktheawful

So it's like a fierce barking guard dog that's had its teeth pulled.


Yes, if the teeth were replaced by far deadlier weapons like exploding lasers firing from their eyes.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
It's difficult to imagine any scenario with this outcome that doesn't involve somebody royally screwing up and betraying their shipmates in a manner that can never be undone.

This collision is a tragic disaster whose repetition in the future may hopefully be prevented by the lessons learned from the multiple investigations which are now underway.

May the crew and their families find healing, strength and closure in their proper time.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
They said it could be a year to figure out exactly what happened. The berthing compartments that flooded held 116 sailors. They also said the Captain was lucky to be alive, as his quarters were completely destroyed.

mobile.nytimes.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Navy Finds Dead Sailors Aboard Rammed Destroyer


The search for seven US Navy sailors missing after their destroyer collided with a container ship off Japan was called off Sunday after several bodies were found in the ship's flooded compartments, including sleeping quarters.

Prayers for the families and all involved.



"The damage was significant, this was not a small collision," he said. Navy divers found "a number of" bodies in the ship Sunday, a day after it returned to the 7th Fleet's home base in Yokosuka, Japan, with the help of tug boats. Aucoin wouldn't say how many bodies were recovered, pending notification of next of kin.

Not that it will bring back any lives but I do hope they find out how this could have happened.

peace



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

I am not referring to the last turns. I stated the smaller turns were after in my post. My question is about the westward movement.

Cargo ships have a schedule. Why did the ship head for port then turn and go back out into more open water.

That is the speculation that possibly there were control concerns and the crew did not want to enter post at that time. Maybe back out to check out the issues. Maybe it was resolved quickly.

I get the whole time refs with the tracks and the clock. It could be the control issues arouse after the collision but the westward movement makes me question if it happened before. I am also not saying an issue caused the collision, just some thing that may have contributed.

That status of the ship on the website my even be in error. We need a more authoritative report.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Some Marine Trackers Say the ACX Crystal Veered Off Course & the Crew Is Being Questioned After the Ship Made a ‘Sharp Turn’

The news site added, “Japan’s coastguard and the US navy plan to question crew members from the ACX Crystal, and could treat the collision as a possible case of endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence.”

Link





posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Not sure how this fits in.

edit:

This seems to but the course changes (looping) before the collision, more south.


edit on 6/18/2017 by roadgravel because: link

edit on 6/18/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/18/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
I am not referring to the last turns. I stated the smaller turns were after in my post. My question is about the westward movement.

Unfortunately I didn't get a screenshot of the turn back to west, so I don't have the time for that manoeuvre. But as I have the time for the first change in direction (the 90º turn to staboard, at 16:30 UTC) and I have the time when it came back close to that position, the end of the west movement (17:40 UTC), and it appears that the speed between those two points was almost constant, we can extrapolate the 180º turn to west as having occurred around 17:00 UTC. If we add the 9 hours difference between UTC and Tokyo we get, respectively, 01:30 AM for the 90º staboard turn, 02:40 for the end of the west travelling and an hypothetical 02:00 AM for the 180º turn to west. As the time of the collision was stated as being at either 02:20 AM or 02:30 AM, that would put the ACX Crystal in the middle of its western movement, and there's nothing in that period that looks like a change in direction.


Cargo ships have a schedule. Why did the ship head for port then turn and go back out into more open water.

That would be easily explained if they had hit the USS Fitzgerald at 01:30 AM instead of 02:30 AM (local time) and made a U turn back to the place of the collision, remaining there for a short period, making a zigzag movement, before heading to port.


That is the speculation that possibly there were control concerns and the crew did not want to enter post at that time. Maybe back out to check out the issues. Maybe it was resolved quickly.

I prefer to speculate that we have one wrong piece of information (the time of the collision) instead of speculating that the ACX Crystal changed direction for no good reason. The reports that said that the ACX Crystal was having a strange behaviour before the collision do not agree with the data I captured on marinetraffic.com.


I get the whole time refs with the tracks and the clock. It could be the control issues arouse after the collision but the westward movement makes me question if it happened before. I am also not saying an issue caused the collision, just some thing that may have contributed.

The supposed control issues are based on the unexplained movement of the ACX Crystal happening before the collision, if the unexplained movement was after the collision it is easy to explain.


That status of the ship on the website my even be in error. We need a more authoritative report.

Seriously, I think that sounds too much like trying to attribute the blame to the ACX Crystal instead of the USS Fitzgerald.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Not sure how this fits in.

edit:

This seems to but the course changes (looping) before the collision, more south.


No, that's the same course changes I posted back on page 8, only zoomed out.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

My understanding is the area is UTC+9.

edit:

forget it. Your tracks are after the collision.
edit on 6/18/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Although, where is that east then west movement 1 hour before, it if it not that at the bottom.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

So which tracking do you think is correct? Were yours too early? Maybe the site had local time to UTC conversion issues.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: silo13

I been following this tragedy of what appears to be negligence
since Si first posted. I would like to thank her for being a member
here in long standing. And for once again being on top of her
game.

Furthermore my thoughts and prayers to the broken hearts involved.

edit on Rpm61817v22201700000027 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
No need for speculating about the time of the 180º turn, I was able to get that information.

(click for full size)


Also, here are the positions of the ACX Crystal at 02:20 AM and at 02:30 AM, the reported time of the collision.

At 17:20 UTC
(click for full size)


At 17:29 UTC (there's no position at 17:30 UTC)
(click for full size)



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I looked at more mapping. That last track someone made with the 'said' collision spot has to be wrong as it is not far enough out. Yours looks to be correct which then matches in time.


Some Marine Trackers Say the ACX Crystal Veered Off Course & the Crew Is Being Questioned After the Ship Made a ‘Sharp Turn’

The news site added, “Japan’s coastguard and the US navy plan to question crew members from the ACX Crystal, and could treat the collision as a possible case of endangerment of traffic caused by professional negligence.”


Now the international finger pointing starts. How much of a turn would contribute.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
So ACX Crystal did turn before the collision (as I had previously stated). In fact, it looks like it made (3) significant turns in the hour preceding the collision (i.e. a 90 degree turn to the SE, another 90 degree turn back to the ENE and then a 180 degree turn to the WSW).

This was all I was trying to state earlier. I wasn't referring to the 420 degree turn after the collision.
edit on 6/18/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
53
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join