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: 23
57
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

as i tthink i has said earlier in one of the threads on this :

i want to see the log files for both vessels

the equipment spec for ACX crystal shows that she has a fuully integrated bridge suite that SHOULD have recoreded everything thsat happened - and the fitgerald has multiple data recording systems

so lets see - people are pretending to " analyse " the AIS track from the crystal - i just shake my head

the logs is where its at




posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   


Maybe a container ship captain is spinning a sea story.


Maybe. But everyone else is staying behind "can't comment".



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

So you are alluding to the public tracking data being incorrect? The true course will differ from that gathered.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel




Maybe. But everyone else is staying behind "can't comment".


Thats what caught my attention, I don't think the Navy would allow a false narrative to move forward without correcting the record.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain


TOKYO, June 26 (Reuters) - A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signalled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters. The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.


Does this fit the opinion of you all who're following this?

peace



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

no incorrect - but too coarse - the AIS feeds on public websites are for entertainment purposes only - the sample interval is too long to get any meaningfull data about a collision

the vessels log files will have EVERYTHING

not just position - sampled at a realistic interval - but rudder positions , prop RPM , a time matched radar plot , the radio logs etc etc etc etc

so that is why i am contemptuous of " analysis " of the public AIS track - too much can happen between waypoints

ETA :



^ shows why the public AIS is useles - except as entertainment

the crystam cannot make a 90 degree turn [ in the manner shown ]

edit on 26-6-2017 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: roadgravel




Maybe. But everyone else is staying behind "can't comment".


Thats what caught my attention, I don't think the Navy would allow a false narrative to move forward without correcting the record.


Maybe it isn't false. The Navy can make a mistake. Happened before.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




but too coarse


I can see that point. I wonder if we'll even actually see it from the navy.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

AIS was tampered with is what i heard on another board.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NoJack
a reply to: ignorant_ape

AIS was tampered with is what i heard on another board.


That doesn't seem like an easy thing to do.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel




Maybe it isn't false. The Navy can make a mistake. Happened before.


Ignoring warnings from the container ship isn't a mistake, it's much worse. So now that we know the captain of the ACX Crystal was on the bridge leading up to the collision, why did it take him an hour to report it? There is some high strangeness with this case.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Manipulation of 1's and zero's I guess. Who knows, the DNC can make it look like Russia hacked the elections, anything is possible.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Here's an explanation of what could have happened by Matt Bracken, a former navy seal. Starts at 34:26. His answer is long, but detailed and is a good explanation of what he thinks happened.

I'll try to make some quick notes for anyone who cant watch it, to give a sloppy summary.

The navy ship thought the cargo ship was on a course to pass by safely by 1000 yards. But the cargo ship then makes a slight automated course change of 15 degrees which then negates the earlier determined status of the cargo ship passing by safely. The 15 degree automated course change could be due to a shoal which the cargo ship needs to avoid, or something of that nature.

So the navy is thinking it will pass safely, but do not know of the course change of direction of the cargo ship. And as the ships get closer a breakdown in communication happened. Then it was too late.




edit on 1-7-2017 by C84K2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: C84K2

wake me up when actual data on the incident is released



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: C84K2

wake me up when actual data on the incident is released


If the navy actually releases any data.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: C84K2

wake me up when actual data on the incident is released


Like i said, this is an ex navy seals, who's been on bridges, thoughts on what could have happened. It's being investigated.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

the world does not revolve around the USN :

the owners of the crystal can release thier own data

the japanese coastguard can releasse thier own findings

the phillipines authorities can conduct thier own investigation [ as crystal carries thier flag ] - and release the report

the USN can withold data for any number of reasons - but none of the data thats actually needed would pose any security risk - or comprimise any technology the navy has

theres a lot to be learned with zero input from the USN

but if the americans start to withold stuff - then one has to wonder why

and of course - one COULD read things into the lack of any american data - like zero evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the crystal

ETA :

the bottom line is that 2 vessels impacted in blue water - there is a book callled COLREGS that is supposed to prevent such occurences

iether one or both bridges failed to follow colregs - OR some as yet unexplained phenonemon drove 2 vessels together despite the best efforts of thier crews
edit on 1-7-2017 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Sure one side can publish their data but if the navy doesn't we really won't know both tracks.

My understanding is there is a system to track closest position of approach so the destroyer should have had info of a pending collision. Seems like someone made the wrong call.



posted on Jul, 1 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: C84K2
Here's an explanation of what could have happened by Matt Bracken, a former navy seal. Starts at 34:26. His answer is long, but detailed and is a good explanation of what he thinks happened.

I'll try to make some quick notes for anyone who cant watch it, to give a sloppy summary.

The navy ship thought the cargo ship was on a course to pass by safely by 1000 yards. But the cargo ship then makes a slight automated course change of 15 degrees which then negates the earlier determined status of the cargo ship passing by safely. The 15 degree automated course change could be due to a shoal which the cargo ship needs to avoid, or something of that nature.

So the navy is thinking it will pass safely, but do not know of the course change of direction of the cargo ship. And as the ships get closer a breakdown in communication happened. Then it was too late.


1. A Navy SEAL is not necessarily a bridge watchstander. In fact, my special ops buddies call ship drivers "anchor clankers" and their expertise is in covert operations.
2. A course change should be noticed by CIC and the bridge. One does not plot CPA and then ignore a vessel with a 1000 yard CPA. This is really close for a crossing
3. One way this could have happened would have been to have the Container ship turn hard to port as it was overtaking the Fitz. The Fitz would be watching it on radar and a deck watch officer would likely be tracking it with the starboard wing alidade looking for SBDR. Any delay in maneuvering the Fitz would result in collision.
4. The captain of the merchant ship is covering. Shining lights on a fully manned bridge would certainly get someone's attention. Sounding the ships horn is also a good idea if the captain can see the Fitz is unaware of his maneuver. My bet is that the bridge of the merchantman was not manned and they were on iron mike. Why did the merchant not maneuver? It hit the Fitz perpendicular to the keel and should have been maneuvering to avoid collision if there was no response from purported lights to the bridge.
5. The ships logs will tell some of the story but the merchant has had time to gun deck their logs, so I'd bet they now include the 'lights' comments.
6. Tracking data will be harder to diddle, so both ship tracks should be consistent.
7. The CO and bridge watch will be toasted, regardless, as that is the Navy way.

ETA: 1000 yards CPA on the open ocean is too close for an unknown merchant.



posted on Jul, 2 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine


1. A Navy SEAL is not necessarily a bridge watchstander. In fact, my special ops buddies call ship drivers "anchor clankers" and their expertise is in covert operations.
2. A course change should be noticed by CIC and the bridge. One does not plot CPA and then ignore a vessel with a 1000 yard CPA. This is really close for a crossing
3. One way this could have happened would have been to have the Container ship turn hard to port as it was overtaking the Fitz. The Fitz would be watching it on radar and a deck watch officer would likely be tracking it with the starboard wing alidade looking for SBDR. Any delay in maneuvering the Fitz would result in collision.
4. The captain of the merchant ship is covering. Shining lights on a fully manned bridge would certainly get someone's attention. Sounding the ships horn is also a good idea if the captain can see the Fitz is unaware of his maneuver. My bet is that the bridge of the merchantman was not manned and they were on iron mike. Why did the merchant not maneuver? It hit the Fitz perpendicular to the keel and should have been maneuvering to avoid collision if there was no response from purported lights to the bridge.
5. The ships logs will tell some of the story but the merchant has had time to gun deck their logs, so I'd bet they now include the 'lights' comments.
6. Tracking data will be harder to diddle, so both ship tracks should be consistent.
7. The CO and bridge watch will be toasted, regardless, as that is the Navy way.

ETA: 1000 yards CPA on the open ocean is too close for an unknown merchant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--- I didn't say he was a bridge watchstander, I said he was an ex navy seal who has been on bridges. He goes a little into that in the video. He speaks for himself.
--- so you disagree with what he thinks happened, which is fine.
--- "shining lights on a fully manned bridge.." He goes into how the destroyer doesn't ping ais and it's blacked out, it doesn't show any light, it's made of radar absorbing materials, it's meant to be stealthy. If anyone was on the bridge of the cargo ship would the destroyer be seen?

edit on 2-7-2017 by C84K2 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join