RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan

RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

geofflambert -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/24/2017 8:15:25 PM)
For instance, if it was participating in a drill and there was a sub near the surface that a merchant vessel was in danger of colliding with, you change the rules and make sure that ship knows it. In this case, the merchant crew was probably asleep and a container ship is about as easy to stop as a 2 mile long freight train and the auto pilot wouldn't have reacted to anything so the more manoeuverable DD must take matters in hand.

wolfclan -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/24/2017 8:32:55 PM)
Yours is a new theory. The International Rules of the Road apply to all vessels, the U.S. Navy are not traffic cops and are not recognized as such by international conventions. In other matters, such as piracy, all navies have a role in policing the seas.

wolfclan -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/24/2017 8:38:52 PM)
In this hypothetical, all mariners have a responsibility to prevent an accident, whether navy or civilian. In most cases, civilians will acknowledge that navies probably have better resources and will follow the recommendation of the navy, but there is no special requirement. So far there is no evidence that FITZGERALD sounded a danger signal, or tried to contact the container ship, we will have to wait to see if they did.

geofflambert -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/24/2017 9:38:06 PM)
If you're commanding a warship you should use the rules as a guide to predicting what the other guy will do but your responsibility is to your ship and to the Navy and you better make the right decisions regardless of the rules or you'll catch hell.

wolfclan -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/24/2017 10:03:00 PM)
We may be getting close to agreement, but, the Navy does not consider International Rules of the Road as advisory: Department of the Navy Regulations: "§700.1120 Rules for preventing collisions, afloat and in the air. (a) All persons in the naval service responsible for the operation of naval ships, craft and aircraft shall diligently observe the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, (commonly called International Rules of the Road) Inland Rules of the Road, domestic......" Obviously no set of International Rules can cover all situations and judgments will need to be made. But in general, the rules are effective.

BBfanboy -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/24/2017 11:11:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wolfclan We may be getting close to agreement, but, the Navy does not consider International Rules of the Road as advisory: Department of the Navy Regulations: "§700.1120 Rules for preventing collisions, afloat and in the air. (a) All persons in the naval service responsible for the operation of naval ships, craft and aircraft shall diligently observe the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, (commonly called International Rules of the Road) Inland Rules of the Road, domestic......" Obviously no set of International Rules can cover all situations and judgments will need to be made. But in general, the rules are effective. Ever since the attack on DD (Stack?) in port, the USN has been alert to the possibility that approaching vessels, no matter how small, may be hostile. They are supposed to be prepared to defend themselves if an approaching vessel refuses to be waved off. In that sense, they are a traffic cop, telling other ships to vamoose or suffer the consequences. In this case, the assumption must have been made that a container ship could not possibly be hostile but there still should have been action to avoid the collision. The DD may have had right-of-way, but the CO will be held responsible for not taking action to evade.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/25/2017 2:21:59 AM)
I think you meant USS Cole. USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqui Mirage during the tankers war phase of Iran Irak war

crsutton -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/25/2017 3:38:26 AM)
Too much speculation here on a lot of weak evidence. First I would suggest that the notion that the entire crew of the freighter was asleep is not realistic. 100 million dollar ship owners do not allow that to happen on their ships. And, although I know of ships that have unmanned engine rooms at night I have never heard of a large ship that operated on automatic pilot without a manned bridge at any time and certainly not in restricted waters. I suspect that you are going to find that both ship captains and officers on the bridge will share some responsibility and face punishment or sanctions. No matter the outcome of the investigation, you can be assured that the careers of the captain and some of the officers on the DD are over. That is just the way the Navy works. However, it looks like neither ship was aware in a timely manner of the pending collision and neither vessel acted appropriately to what should have been a serious threat. There will probably be enough blame to go around. However, it is probably wise to wait for the outcome of the investigation before pointing fingers.

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 2:29:17 PM)
I agree there is a lot of speculations, but I meant a manned bridge that fell asleep or got intoxicated/ impaired. Not that they all put their pajamas and went to sleep

witpqs -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 2:48:07 PM)
Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 2:57:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain Saw this too. Not surprising that the merchant captain has gone public with his narrative which, of course, completely exonerates his / his crew's performance. [8\|]

crsutton -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 4:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain Saw this too. Not surprising that the merchant captain has gone public with his narrative which, of course, completely exonerates his / his crew's performance. [8\|] Yes, I suspect the merchant captain is going to take some heat for his troubles. But I think all merchants have a black box now and all larger merchants are tracked in a global system so they will have the information they need to determine if what he is saying is true. I don't think the Navy releases course records to the public but don't know how that applies here. Still confined waters are watched closely so there will be a record of the DDs track too. Like I said, I suspect both vessels will be found to be at fault. All ships have radios and there are common channels for ship to ship communications in cases like this. I find it a bit suspect that all the merchant attempted was a blinker signal to the DD. That is hardly better than running out on the wing and shouting loudly. Ships all have very loud horns as well, and there are set emergency signals for them. All in all, the whole thing sounds very fishy. Right now I am betting that the DD will be at fault but the merchant will be found negligent to a lesser degree. But this will all come out after a lengthy investigation.

witpqs -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 4:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain Saw this too. Not surprising that the merchant captain has gone public with his narrative which, of course, completely exonerates his / his crew's performance. [8\|] Yes, I suspect the merchant captain is going to take some heat for his troubles. But I think all merchants have a black box now and all larger merchants are tracked in a global system so they will have the information they need to determine if what he is saying is true. I don't think the Navy releases course records to the public but don't know how that applies here. Still confined waters are watched closely so there will be a record of the DDs track too. Like I said, I suspect both vessels will be found to be at fault. All ships have radios and there are common channels for ship to ship communications in cases like this. I find it a bit suspect that all the merchant attempted was a blinker signal to the DD. That is hardly better than running out on the wing and shouting loudly. Ships all have very loud horns as well, and there are set emergency signals for them. All in all, the whole thing sounds very fishy. Right now I am betting that the DD will be at fault but the merchant will be found negligent to a lesser degree. But this will all come out after a lengthy investigation. I doubt the any black boxes record blinker signals. Just sayin'. [;)]

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 5:08:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain Saw this too. Not surprising that the merchant captain has gone public with his narrative which, of course, completely exonerates his / his crew's performance. [8\|] Yes, I suspect the merchant captain is going to take some heat for his troubles. But I think all merchants have a black box now and all larger merchants are tracked in a global system so they will have the information they need to determine if what he is saying is true. I don't think the Navy releases course records to the public but don't know how that applies here. Still confined waters are watched closely so there will be a record of the DDs track too. Like I said, I suspect both vessels will be found to be at fault. All ships have radios and there are common channels for ship to ship communications in cases like this. I find it a bit suspect that all the merchant attempted was a blinker signal to the DD. That is hardly better than running out on the wing and shouting loudly. Ships all have very loud horns as well, and there are set emergency signals for them. All in all, the whole thing sounds very fishy. Right now I am betting that the DD will be at fault but the merchant will be found negligent to a lesser degree. But this will all come out after a lengthy investigation. I doubt the any black boxes record blinker signals. Just sayin'. [;)] Well, duh. [sm=crazy.gif] Recorded blinker signals would overexpose the innards of the black boxes. No one wants to collect 'white boxes' from these sort of events now, do they?

witpqs -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 5:36:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain Saw this too. Not surprising that the merchant captain has gone public with his narrative which, of course, completely exonerates his / his crew's performance. [8\|] Yes, I suspect the merchant captain is going to take some heat for his troubles. But I think all merchants have a black box now and all larger merchants are tracked in a global system so they will have the information they need to determine if what he is saying is true. I don't think the Navy releases course records to the public but don't know how that applies here. Still confined waters are watched closely so there will be a record of the DDs track too. Like I said, I suspect both vessels will be found to be at fault. All ships have radios and there are common channels for ship to ship communications in cases like this. I find it a bit suspect that all the merchant attempted was a blinker signal to the DD. That is hardly better than running out on the wing and shouting loudly. Ships all have very loud horns as well, and there are set emergency signals for them. All in all, the whole thing sounds very fishy. Right now I am betting that the DD will be at fault but the merchant will be found negligent to a lesser degree. But this will all come out after a lengthy investigation. I doubt the any black boxes record blinker signals. Just sayin'. [;)] Well, duh. [sm=crazy.gif] Recorded blinker signals would overexpose the innards of the black boxes. No one wants to collect 'white boxes' from these sort of events now, do they? Um, yeah. I guess black boxes could record the spaces between the blinks. Back to reality, all radio traffic there likely being recorded, but blinker comms presumably not, the captain claims they used blinkers to warn the Fitzgerald. They article does not even contain the word "radio". [&:]

crsutton -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 6:09:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Now a report from the merchant captain that the Fitzgerald did not respond to warnings and that the merchant changed course to try and avoid collision. No idea of veracity. EXCLUSIVE-U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning-container ship captain Saw this too. Not surprising that the merchant captain has gone public with his narrative which, of course, completely exonerates his / his crew's performance. [8\|] Yes, I suspect the merchant captain is going to take some heat for his troubles. But I think all merchants have a black box now and all larger merchants are tracked in a global system so they will have the information they need to determine if what he is saying is true. I don't think the Navy releases course records to the public but don't know how that applies here. Still confined waters are watched closely so there will be a record of the DDs track too. Like I said, I suspect both vessels will be found to be at fault. All ships have radios and there are common channels for ship to ship communications in cases like this. I find it a bit suspect that all the merchant attempted was a blinker signal to the DD. That is hardly better than running out on the wing and shouting loudly. Ships all have very loud horns as well, and there are set emergency signals for them. All in all, the whole thing sounds very fishy. Right now I am betting that the DD will be at fault but the merchant will be found negligent to a lesser degree. But this will all come out after a lengthy investigation. I doubt the any black boxes record blinker signals. Just sayin'. [;)] Yep, that is where the will interview everyone on the bridge one by one. If someone is lying, it usually comes out that way. But they would find a blinkered signal insufficient anyways, so it probably does not matter much.

BBfanboy -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/26/2017 10:01:47 PM)
Is there a standard language for Maritime Navigation like there is for Air Navigation (English)? If not, a blinker signal sent in Tagalog would probably distract the attention of the DD crew trying to decipher it rather than help warn them.

Denniss -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (6/27/2017 7:25:07 AM)
If there was no internal "action stations" or at least "collision imminent" warning the DD crew must have been totally unaware of the closing freighter. No idea how this could happen. I doubt they would have recognized a flash signal. Maybe the freighter should have use its fog horn signal to wake/shake them up. Lots of mysteries to solve by the investigators.

Footslogger -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 2:18:40 AM)
UPDATE: You have been relieved! http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-temporarily-relieves-commander-of-ship-struck-in-japanese-waters/ar-BBEeQFZ?li=BBnbfcL [sm=sign0006.gif]

Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 2:28:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Footslogger UPDATE: You have been relieved! http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-temporarily-relieves-commander-of-ship-struck-in-japanese-waters/ar-BBEeQFZ?li=BBnbfcL Poor man really, I mean he went to sleep a destroyer captain and woke up injured and without a career

rustysi -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 2:58:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Footslogger UPDATE: You have been relieved! http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-temporarily-relieves-commander-of-ship-struck-in-japanese-waters/ar-BBEeQFZ?li=BBnbfcL [sm=sign0006.gif] In the navy....[8\|]

Denniss -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 8:20:15 AM)
I read the words "temporary" and "medical reasons", not what you are implying here.

patrickl -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 11:27:48 AM)
When bad things happened during your watch, you have to be responsible...[:(]

Lecivius -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 1:06:42 PM)
Doesn't matter. Even if he is exonerated, his career is over.

Alpha77 -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 4:18:46 PM)
I doubt it, this whole story sounds too "fishy" for my taste.. but... everything written in the news or in the nets MUST be true, as Lecivius likes to say [;)] Eg. tie fighters were in IJN service in WW2 who would have thought that?

BBfanboy -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 5:22:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Denniss I read the words "temporary" and "medical reasons", not what you are implying here. I suspect in addition to physical injury, he may have PTSD issues too. Definitely a good idea to take him away from the scene that likely haunts him.

Chickenboy -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 6:50:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Denniss I read the words "temporary" and "medical reasons", not what you are implying here. I agree. A whole lot of conclusions being jumped upon. Due process, people. Due process.

Lecivius -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 7:03:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Denniss I read the words "temporary" and "medical reasons", not what you are implying here. I agree. A whole lot of conclusions being jumped upon. Due process, people. Due process. In the U.S. Navy?

Lecivius -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/12/2017 7:20:30 PM)
I can see it all now. Naval Board of Review. Rear Admiral Popusjerc: This board finds Comander Bryce Benson not responsible for the incident of 17 June, 2017. Comander Bryce Benson: <Blinks in disbelief> Rear Admiral Popusjerc: However... [image]local://upfiles/26061/7C57295AE695425AB0A8A3EC4E7E796D.gif[/image]

Apollo11 -> RE: OT: U.S. Navy Destroyer Collides With Merchant Vessel Off Coast Of Japan (7/13/2017 6:19:13 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury quote: ORIGINAL: Footslogger UPDATE: You have been relieved! http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-navy-temporarily-relieves-commander-of-ship-struck-in-japanese-waters/ar-BBEeQFZ?li=BBnbfcL Poor man really, I mean he went to sleep a destroyer captain and woke up injured and without a career He is responsible 24/7/365 (weather in person or by his training of his crew / standing orders while he is away)... Leo "Apollo11"

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125