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: 15
57
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: ArMaP

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

Tugs have to be scheduled and the cargo ship had to have docking time.

If the cargo ship was ahead of schedule they may have had hold off port till everything was ready.


I doubt they would go sailing around like someone circling for a parking space.




posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:58 AM
link   
This article raised a very real possibility. If the container ship was coming up from astern, with a very slight closing angle the crew of the Fitz might not even have realized they were closing until it was too late.

We lost an F-16 out of Japan in a situation like that. They were in formation with two KC-135 tankers that were taking them to Hawaii on the first leg of their deployment. The two tankers had a very slow closing angle on each other and didn't notice it. One of the F-16s caught it and radioed a warning. One of the tankers had an instinctive over reaction and went into a steep bank to turn away. When he did, his wing clipped one of the fighters and knocked him out of control.

www.npr.org...
edit on 6/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Notice I said "in general." There are many CPO's and CWO's who are capable of standing deck watches as OOD and JOOD, but the post I was responding to suggested that any MCPO would know more about the ship than the CO. I pointed out that just because the individual was a MCPO didn't endow any special knowledge about shipboard operations. Experience is the key, of course.

Look about 10 posts back at one of my previous posts for one CO's night orders for handling crossing situations. [After so many years, I can still do relative motion plots using parallel rules and a maneuvering board]



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
This article raised a very real possibility. If the container ship was coming up from astern, with a very slight closing angle the crew of the Fitz might not even have realized they were closing until it was too late.

We lost an F-16 out of Japan in a situation like that. They were in formation with two KC-135 tankers that were taking them to Hawaii on the first leg of their deployment. The two tankers had a very slow closing angle on each other and didn't notice it. One of the F-16s caught it and radioed a warning. One of the tankers had an instinctive over reaction and went into a steep bank to turn away. When he did, his wing clipped one of the fighters and knocked him out of control.

www.npr.org...


The deck watch should have been aware of any closing course as SS radar would have shown a decreasing range. One thing that may have happened would be an overtaking course that was plotted as a non-intersect by the Fitz. The Fitz would expect the merchant to stay on course as that is what merchants do because time is money. If, for some reason, as the merchant was overtaking the Fitz, it made an unexpected hard turn to port, that would account for the collision. The CO was in his sea cabin and not on the bridge, so maneuvering close aboard was not expected and there was no warning of any course change by the merchant.
The question would now be why the merchant made a sudden course change and who on the crew actually steered the ship. Was there intent, incompetence, a drunken helmsman, or a mechanical failure. Another thing that is disturbing is the lack of aid. The merchant did not appear to provide aid but rushed back to port. This is suspicious to me.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Yeah, they should have. Just as the tanker pilots should have realized they were closing. That's the problem with people being involved. I can see a situation where they just put it out if their mind because they thought it wasn't a danger, so it didn't get the attention it should have.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

Yeah, they should have. Just as the tanker pilots should have realized they were closing. That's the problem with people being involved. I can see a situation where they just put it out if their mind because they thought it wasn't a danger, so it didn't get the attention it should have.


CIC would see it and warn the bridge. At a shallow angle, there would have been a much longer and shallower impact area as the merchant ran down the starboard side of the Fitz. I'll stick with the sudden turn theory for now and hold the 'sneak up on them' theory in abeyance.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
The ACX chrystal is a whopping great container ship you'd see 30 miles away,something is seriously wrong here.


You nailed it-there was a monumental screw up and I think the brass of the US Navy have some explaining to do. I'm no expert but i'm pretty the destroyer would have the RPM, speed and armor to avoid the collision.

However there is one other sinister explanation. The boat that struck the destroyer hit it 2/3rds along the hull and it appeared to be a direct blow and not a glancing blow. I'm sure the ship's manifests will reveal more but I don't like the look of this...



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

The radical maneuver may have been a reaction to realizing they were going to hit. It certainly wouldn't be the first time it happened.

I'm not going to hold any possibility in abeyance at this point.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Well, I was referring to an MCPO Boatswain's Mate, which is what my (now retired) buddy was/is.

And, my original assessment about his observations remains.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

The radical maneuver may have been a reaction to realizing they were going to hit. It certainly wouldn't be the first time it happened.

I'm not going to hold any possibility in abeyance at this point.


A radical maneuver to avoid collision would have been for the merchant to turn hard to starboard. It would have slid into the Fitz if it was close enough, but not bow first. I believe that there is much more to be seen.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Almost certainly, but it's way too early to rule out any possibility. As they pointed out the container ship may have been on autopilot, so the Fitz might have maneuvered, or they thought they could cut in front of her or any number of things we don't know yet.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: pteridine

Well, I was referring to an MCPO Boatswain's Mate, which is what my (now retired) buddy was/is.

And, my original assessment about his observations remains.




A BMCM would have significant skills relative to shipboard operations but whether he would be more knowledgeable than the CO on ships operations is entirely subjective.
This collision is not a cut and dried event at this point and blame cannot be laid at any one's feet. There will be those who are quick to condemn the bridge watch and the CO but this has to play out through an investigation.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

If you go back and actually read what I posted, what I stated was, his opinion held merit. That opinion was, according to the cited source the ship made several maneuvers before the collision and may have forfeited the right of way as a result. What I stated was not blame, but only that his opinion, given his rank, held merit. Nor did he assign blame, he merely stated a possibility based on his professional observation, nothing more.

I did not make a blanket statement that MCPO's in general knew more than command CO's, some do and some do not. I am not a MCPO (nor do I play one on TV), but I have a number of colleagues and friends who spent many decades in the Navy (both as officers and senior enlisted). It is my understanding from virtually all of them that MCPO's are many times responsible for training incoming officers in the nuances of not theory, but rather practice, aboard Naval ships.

A little clearer now?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

A track of the much-larger container ship's route by MarineTraffic, a vessel-tracking service, shows it made a sudden turn as if trying to avoid something at about 1:30 a.m., before continuing eastward. It then made a U-turn and returned around 2:30 a.m. to the area near the collision.

The coast guard initially said the collision occurred at 2:20 a.m. because the Philippine ship had reported it at 2:25 a.m. and said it just happened. After interviewing Filipino crewmembers, the coast guard has changed the collision time to 1:30 a.m.

abcnews.go.com...


So the westward movement may have been to go back to check the results of the collision...

edit:

This may mean that Armap's first track show the actual collision and then a turn to the southeast.
edit on 6/19/2017 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Sounds like someone may have panicked.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

This story backs up what yours says:


Last Updated Jun 19, 2017 11:37 AM EDT

TOKYO -- Japan's coast guard is investigating why it took nearly an hour for a deadly collision between a U.S. Navy destroyer and a container ship to be reported.

A coast guard official said Monday they are trying to find out what the crew of the Philippine-flagged ACX Crystal was doing before reporting the collision off Japan's coast to authorities 50 minutes later.


CBS news

This would then allow Armap's map to coincide with when it actually happened.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: pteridine

If you go back and actually read what I posted, what I stated was, his opinion held merit. That opinion was, according to the cited source the ship made several maneuvers before the collision and may have forfeited the right of way as a result. What I stated was not blame, but only that his opinion, given his rank, held merit. Nor did he assign blame, he merely stated a possibility based on his professional observation, nothing more.

I did not make a blanket statement that MCPO's in general knew more than command CO's, some do and some do not. I am not a MCPO (nor do I play one on TV), but I have a number of colleagues and friends who spent many decades in the Navy (both as officers and senior enlisted). It is my understanding from virtually all of them that MCPO's are many times responsible for training incoming officers in the nuances of not theory, but rather practice, aboard Naval ships.

A little clearer now?



You said "I could be wrong, but I'm thinking a MCPO probably knows more about everything on a boat than the commander himself." I said you were generally wrong and explained my response. Your BMCM buddy is a good source to confirm any releases by the Navy/Japanese CG.
Hands-on training of junior officers is by senior officers and CPO's. That is why there is a JOOD position for deck watch and other positions.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Yes, that's what I said.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: roadgravel

Yes, that's what I said.





Didn't see that.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   


Prayers to all involved.

RIP

peace




top topics



 
57
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join