Jump to content

How is it Possible That a Container Ship Collided with a USN Destroyer Near Japan?


mnocket
 Share

Recommended Posts

From an AP report....

 

The Japanese coast guard said it received an emergency call from the container ship, the ACX Crystal, reporting the collision around 2:20 a.m. (17:20 GMT Friday). It was questioning crew members of the ACX Crystal, which is operated by the Japanese shipping company Nippon Yusen K.K., and was treating the incident as a case of possible professional negligence, said Masayuki Obara, a regional coast guard official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its been many, many years, but one summer I spent a little time on the bridge of a USN Destroyer in the Sea of Japan late at night. Especially when the watchstanders (in particular the Officer of the Deck) lack a lot of experience, things can quickly go topsy in the dark, particularly when the crew of one ship becomes unsure of the maneuvering intentions of the other.

 

I'm not familiar with this particular ship (the ship I was on was built during WW2) but typically the Captain's cabin is close to the bridge and it's customary that he's called to the bridge at the first sign that the situation is tenuous or degrading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw a report on the track (no scale, no north arrow) on ABC World News and it look nothing like the track posted.

 

the track I posted is not an 'interpretation' ... this is the actual AIS data collected by a shore side station that reports to a central database ...... unless someone hacked this database I'd accept it as true ....

 

"as you know SO MUCH NEWS is FALSE NEWS ......" why should this be an exception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to a BBC report, the container ship's first manoeuvre was a very abrupt U-turn 25 minutes before the collision. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40317341

 

I'm aware that it takes time & distance to alter course, so even a change of course 25 minutes before the collision might not have been soon enough.

But a U-turn????

 

We see the track of the container ship but not the destroyer, I don't see any speeds or timings indicated on that track (the destroyer might even have been at anchor).

 

It'll all come out in the wash.

Meantime, very sad news of the seven missing sailors.

 

JB :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got home from the ship, so just saw this, and thought I'd put the merchant mariner's perspective in, since we've gotten some very good points from the Naval perspective. I agree with Paul and Capt_BJ that is certainly appears to be the destroyer's fault, but it would appear to me to have been a series of miscommunications and misunderstandings between the two ships.

 

A merchant ship, when at sea like this, typically only has two people on the bridge, the officer of the watch, and the lookout. Some ships have done away with the lookout, but then the bridge officer must utilize the "dead man" alarm, where he is required to press a button every 10 minutes or so, or the alarm goes off in the Captain's cabin that the watch officer is ill or asleep. A further measure that merchant ships have to have installed these days is the "BNWAS" (Bridge Navigation Watch Alarm System), which even ships with two or three man bridge watches must have. This system consists of several motion detectors around the bridge, and if none of them sense any motion (sleeping, ill, injured, or everyone out on the bridge wing) for a period of time, the alarm calls the Captain and all deck officers to the bridge.

 

Typical bridge management and ISM requirements hold that a ship underway must maintain a "CPA" alarm on their radars or ECDIS (electronic chart) system, so that any target that gets to the "closest point of approach" sounds an alarm to alert the bridge officer.

 

Even if the destroyer was running without AIS on, or even without running lights, there would have been a "skin paint" on the radar of the container ship, unlike air traffic radars, which generally only paint a transducer signal. AIS only identifies the ship, so you know who to call on the radio to confirm your plans to pass or meet the other vessel.

 

I've seen the AIS track Capt put up, and I think the destroyer was claiming some kind of exclusion zone due to operations, and the cargo ship nearly reversed course to run behind the destroyer, but then either the destroyer changed course again, or slowed, and signals got crossed between the two ships as to what their intentions were, and then the track showing the small "loop" is the time of collision. Capt could also be correct that the abrupt change is the moment of impact. Without the time stamps, and without the associated speed points, its hard to tell. I would be very surprised if someone came up with another track that showed the destroyer's AIS track, since it is obviously off, and they have every right to have it off.

 

I know that the Navy and commercial shipping refer to things and the way they do things differently, and there is always some confusion when a commercial ship that is not used to dealing with the Navy has interactions, like during the "escorted convoy" operations at the Horn of Africa. Add in language barriers, and you've always got a problem.

 

And, once the ships were close, anyone who has operated a large ship in a restricted channel, or participated in an underway replenishment exercise knows that the speed of the vessels will create a venturi in the water between them, and this low pressure will tend to suck the ships closer, and even violent helm movement may not be enough.

 

I think it was a misunderstanding, coming on top of a poor understanding of the rules of the road. Both ships could probably have avoided this collision if they fully understood what was intended, but it certainly appears that from a strictly legal aspect that the Navy destroyer was at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is far too early to come to conclusions regarding fault; however it is hard to understand the Fitzgerald's inability to avoid the collision. She presumably had three or more watch standers on the bridge, advised by lookouts and CIC who were presumably monitoring contacts. In addition she was far more maneuverable than the container ship - which might have had one or two on the bridge, possibly no lookouts, and nothing comparable to CIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would the container ship not have more on watch in such a busy body of water?

 

On the container ship I was on last year (and you wouldn't want to collide with ~150,000 tonne ship where the bridge is ~1,000' behind the bow with containers stacked up to 8 high above deck), there was only a 2nd officer on the bridge when the ship was making the ocean crossing (we only remember seeing one ship for an entire week - nothing on AIS for over 50 miles/km whenever we visited the bridge so little traffic there).

 

FWIW, dead man alarm on that shi was every 5 minutes (or at less a lot less than 5)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not knowing where the Captain's cabin is located and not asking for information that ought not to be known to the general public, since the Commander (CO) of the Fitzgerald was severely injured and the Bridge does not seem to have been impacted by the collision, maybe he was not on the Bridge and the OOD was in charge. If that is the case, the Bridge Team has many questions to answer, I think.

 

Prayers for the 7 missing sailors!

The CO's cabin was destroyed in the collision. Oldest son (Navy LT) served on the Fitz 2013-2015, and he said yesterday he doesn't know how the CO managed to survive. Whether Fitz was at fault or not, I suspect the CO's naval career is close to being over. Son served as OOD through that area, and he said he hated it. It's a very congested area, with many ships headed to and from Tokyo Bay. My thoughts and prayers have been with the Fitz's sailors and families (yes, son knows some of the sailors on board). I can't imagine what they went through. It says a lot for their skills that they were able to keep her afloat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not unusual for the captain to not be on the bridge at all times. On cruise ships they have even been known to leave the bridge to host a dinner table with passengers. ;)

 

 

Yes, of course. social responsibilities area part of the job description, Also, Captains's cabin on many cruise ships is ve,ry close to b ridge. Fast access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

some additional observations:

 

) the Captain can not be on the bridge 24 x 7, to do so means sleep deprivation and judgement etc falls quickly. The Captain MUST sleep. Choosing when to sleep is a decision too .... planning for significant events and planning to be rested are important skills

 

) given that the Captain must sleep, they must train others to act in their place. These people are called 'deck watch officers'. The Captain 'certifies' these folks to act with AUTHORITY for handling the ship in his absence. The Captain can delegate this authority but NOT the responsibility. If the Captain's 'agent' screws the pooch, the Captain screwed the pooch. It is a fact that comes with the job. I know MANY senior officers who when offered afloat command as an O-6 (Captain) declined saying "why should I take the risk at this point in my career?"

 

) as CO / Captain of a cutter, when I went 'down' for the night I left "night orders" specific orders for the events of the night. (required in the regulations) These compliment the 'standing orders to the Officer Of The Deck" which includes the conditions when the CO (I) was to be called - NO EXCEPTIONS - day or night. Every night the final line of my night orders, hand written by me "call me IAW the standing orders and at ANY time if in doubt". In other words, if the OOD was wondering if I should be called, they were already late reaching for the phone! If at anytime I believed an OOD had failed in this regard they got to begin the qualification process over from step one, immediately. The Captain must have 120% trust in the person they hand over the bridge to .... no exceptions.

 

) I'm gonna guess that a USN combatant, during "maneuvers", had more people on watch as lookout, DWO, Conning Officer, combat systems (radar watches) etc than the total compliment of the container ship .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

...

 

) I'm gonna guess that a USN combatant, during "maneuvers", had more people on watch as lookout, DWO, Conning Officer, combat systems (radar watches) etc than the total compliment of the container ship .....

 

During "maneuvers" - a virtual certainty - and even while independent steaming, fairly likely.

 

In any event- many more people were involved in running the destroyer than were driving the container ship at the time this event took place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the destroyer was running without AIS on, or even without running lights, there would have been a "skin paint" on the radar of the container ship, unlike air traffic radars, which generally only paint a transducer signal. AIS only identifies the ship, so you know who to call on the radio to confirm your plans to pass or meet the other vessel.

 

The military version of AIS allows one to stop transmitting own ship info, while still receiving from others. FITZ knew everything the other ship was doing without even going into 'basic responsibility' to still plot contacts themselves ... and FITZ having a 'standard Navy watch' to assist in this task ..... probably at least 3 folks IME ..... this comes back to my statement about assuming responsibility if you violate rules voluntarily

 

 

(sorry for a cheap shot, but chengkp75 .. you hold an engineer ticket? ... don't work on the bridge? ... the place with windows where you look out and see the world? I appreciate your comments, most of the time .... but so far as ship handling and the interpretations of International Rules of the Road your qual's are? Does your ticket put you on the bridge, dealing with ship handling or rules situations?????

Edited by Capt_BJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capt, I wasn't questioning your statement about the responsibility or the ability to operate without transmitting AIS information, but one other poster had questioned why the destroyer wasn't transmitting AIS and would the container ship have been able to see the destroyer without AIS being active. I wasn't even considering the destroyer's watch dealing with AIS information, but that the container ship would have seen the destroyer on the radar without AIS.

 

As to your last, first off, unlike other areas of the maritime world, with the crew sizes we have on merchant ships, there is a lot of discussion between departments about ship operations, not just engineers with engineers. I will also say that I started my maritime career as a "dualie" who worked towards both an engineer's license and a mate's license. Also, as Chief, I can spend a lot of time on the bridge, talking with the Captain and discussing ship operations, and how the machinery will affect the Captain's ability to complete maneuvers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your last, first off, unlike other areas of the maritime world, with the crew sizes we have on merchant ships, there is a lot of discussion between departments about ship operations, not just engineers with engineers.

 

Don't feel like you need to defend yourself. My husband is retired USCG and he was an Engineering Officer. Some former captains were known for their arrogance, including one in particular on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the CO's naval career is close to being over.

 

This is pretty much set in stone. He has most likely already been officially relieved of command (in reality, a moot point as he is in hospital). If he is not charged with anything (depending on what the actual investigation says and not what social networks decide should happen) he will probably quietly "retire" and go away. Or he could go to courts marshal if charged....either way he will never hold any sort of command again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...