So the ship nearly sunk? I had not heard that. I had heard the ship had taken on water, but that was it. Had you notified the USN of this?

 

Forgive me, but what exactly does the dumbest non-fucker mean?

 

Has anyone else noticed that Cassandra follows Stumbler around liking all of his posts?

 

You are just a really disgusting phony game playing fraud.

‘There wasn’t a lot of time’ as water flooded U.S. destroyer below decks

Non-fuck you.

Just another example of how phony you really are. You obviously worry more about "likes" than you do those seven dead sailors you pretended to care about.

 

This thread derailed from this crash once you made it another personal attack thread for msman, then two cards. It's difficult for other members to continue posting about the original thread once it's become a personal attack thread.

 

Speak for yourself...... I and I think that the majority of the members would have no problem side stepping the non subject posts and continue to follow the story.

Maybe it's my years of experience here that you get used to the zig-zagging of threads.

 

You are obviously lying again. You were joking about this tragedy from the beginning and only pretended to care about the seven service members after I mentioned them.

And let me show you just how easy it is to prove you are simply lying. Here is both you and TwoCards personally attacking me clear back on post #20.

And you are just such a glaring hypocrite. You just used this thread to make personal attacks against me again.

So you really should just stop trying to lie about this. You are not fooling anyone.

PS And here is Two/Cards attacking again following your lead.

 

Three brief extracts from above.
Just to illustrate , since a few seemed to question my knowledge of maritime rules/law.

When two vessels converge, the one having the other to starboard — to the right — is required to yield. That suggests that the Crystal had the right of way over the Fitzgerald, which was struck on the starboard side,
.

The container ship is nearly four times the size of the destroyer, and considerably more cumbersome. The warship is designed to be fast and agile.

.
In some ways, Cronin said, it didn’t matter who had the right of way in this case. “In my mind, our destroyer is a more capable, agile ship, so regardless of who has right of way, our ship should be able to take evasive action,” he said.

That's all pretty simple really.
Even sounds amazingly like common sense as well.
BUT
while the above is the basics ,
we still have to get to the truth also ,
and then we'll see.

At the moment there are some discrepancies ,
particularly as to the time frame.
Also , when the freighter turned.

But it dose seem to confirm the incident was off Shimoda south of (outside)
the map posted , where I had calculated it to be.
While that is very busy waters , it would not seem to be "confined" , restricting emergency avoidance action.
Particularly to a "nimble" warship.

Note: at the time I started the thread , the only report , had said the warship had taken on a lot of water , and had been very low in the water , but was being pumped out ,
and
Speculated that she may have been in danger of sinking.
But it didn't say she had been in danger , so I didn't include that.

 

Some interesting questions.
(given the information so far)

The Crystal made two course changes , a sort of dogleg , shortly before making a u turn to port.
So , three course changes .
That would indicate someone was on duty , actively navigating ,
up to about 25 minutes before impact.

The first thing to do after such a manoeuvre ,
having checked before , that it is safe to do ,
is to check what is in front of you ,
particularly anything within a possible collision radius.

Did they see the Fitzgerald ?
If not , Why Not ?
If so ,
Why didn't they take avoidance action?
Why didn't they give radio warning ?
Why didn't they give signal warning ?

I can tell you from personal experience ,
you can not miss a signal light being flashed at your bridge at night.
We had a bulk carrier leaving a terminal in front of us unexpectedly.

Fortunately I'd always instructed and insisted that crew should call me any time they needed , and that I would never complain for any reason.
My immediate instruction was to show them a red light , while I assessed from outside , exactly what was happening.
That was exactly what was needed , as they were showing a red to us.
Not to mention , they were huge , and clearly under restricted maneuverability conditions.
No further action required.

Given what we know , they were only about 7 to 10 miles apart at the time ,
25 minutes before impact.
Both should have been able to see eachother , and both should have shown on their radar , like a
fucking beacon.

Seems very strange a vessel under active navigation would not see another , basically in front of it ,
only 6 - 7 miles away by that time ,
and getting closer for the next 20 minutes ,
until BANG.


Then.
Who was on the bridge on the Fitzgerald ?
If the skipper was in his cabin ?
Why wasn't he on the bridge as they were in , or about to enter such busy waters ?
Why wasn't he called to the bridge ?

Or wasn't anyone actually watching ,
actually paying attention to their surroundings ?

Was there no one with sufficient experience on the bridge ?
If there was , how the fuck could they miss a fucking tower block of containers , heading towards them ?

Or did they , and not recognise the imminent danger ?

Did they have a range alarm on their radar ?
Was it set ?
if not , Why not ?
If to much traffic to use it , then more , more alert watch required.

No matter how I look at it ,
both vessels officers failed in their duty.
At this stage , it appears the Fitzgerald had first duty to avoid.

We'll see.

Is there more to this than meets the eye , I have to ask myself ,
since it seems so extraordinary.

 

It is an undeniable fact that anyone charged with manning the helm must be completely aware of their surroundings at all times . More needless loss of life and our sympathy goes out to those that were killed in this incident . One would have thought that we would have learned from the Titanic and that is where at sea collisions should have ended !

 

Seems to me it doesn't really matter which ship supposedly had right of way.

The freighter is four times the size and needs a lot of time to turn. Isn't that why international law says it is the responsibility of the smaller and more nimble ship to evade large ships like tankers and freighters?

Besides which, we're talking about a state of the art destroyer that can detect everything bigger than a seagull to the horizon.

And the Japanese do insist the freighter was actively attempting to invade. Apparently more than one person on the US ship were asleep. Or maybe it was the mother of all botched shift changes on the bridge?

Whatever happened, ultimately this is inexcusable human error on the part of the US Navy. The captain's going to take the fall for it, most definitely.

 

Yes, all of that matters, for the reasons you've stated.

But that's not what I mean when I say that right of way doesn't matter, when it comes to ascribing blame.

Obviously if it is determined malice is involved, that has to be dealt with.

But what I mean is that, all other things being equal, large freighters are to be avoided, and international maritime law requires that smaller boats yield to them. For the simple reason that they are not maneuverable.

And additionally, what I mean is that under no circumstances can anyone but the captain of a US Navy ship be ultimately responsible for the integrity of his craft. Sailors died in their sleep. The ship nearly sank. Someone was derelict, and the captain is ultimately responsible. For faulty training, or execution, or a combination-- it doesn't matter. The buck stops with the captain. Nothing and no one should have struck that vessel in a non-combat situtation. He's going down.


P.S. - Lol... In the post to which you commented, I wrote "invade" when I meant to write that "the freighter was actively attempting to EVADE." Sorry-- that is confusing and changed the whole meaning of the paragraph!

 

No.

Maritime law dose not require small vessels to give way to big ones.
That is only in certain conditions.

In the first instance it applies to all normal vessels in normal conditions ,
excepting things like steam gives way to sail , where it is applicable.

Think about it.
Otherwise there'd be chaos , because no one would know what to do , when , because big ships could charge around doing as they please with no possible predictability.

Would be like saying big trucks don't have to follow the rules of the road.

There are lots of exceptions , but they follow common sense rules to cover certain or special circumstances.

In this instance , it seems clear the smaller should have given way to the bigger , because of their relative positions , because that is the rule of the sea.

But , it also seems that until the Crystal changed course radically , the Fitzgerald probably had no reason to take any action in regards to her.

In fact , it seems , she must have been ahead , more than 6 miles to starboard , and traveling faster.
Then , in a few minutes , everything changed ,
but not the basic rules.
And note , the Crystal didn't seem to be having trouble changing course , manoeuvring.
You can't go charging round all over the shop , and claim restricted maneuverability.

What actually happened in the last 20 minutes is critical , and we simply don't know ,
except that both ships officers failed in their duty , and at sea , the buck stops firmly in the captains lap.

and yes , it dose still appear the Fitzgerald had the primary duty to avoid (regardless of size)
We'll just have to wait and see what is revealed.
or what is not.

I do have to wonder ,
how a ship that is "actively trying to evade" manages to run down its target.

 

No one was attacking you until you chimed in on box 20. You accused all of the members for making fun of seven servicemens death, when in fact no one had mentioned anything about the seven servicemen. If you took offense to the comment about Trump having the ship repaired at at a low cost body shop, then I suggest you look at your anti-Trump statements. Perhaps it is because you have decided to attack Trump, that others have followed your lead. If members want to make light hearted remarks about a current event, while not ever mentioning the loss of life that is their right. I believe that it is possible to separate the two. If you don't, then we agree to disagree.

 

And what did you say their names were?

 

@Jdbfromnj

That's what I thought.

I rest my case.

 

So that's it?

 

Well , it's clear as mud.

According to the recorded track of the Crystal ,
she did not do a u turn before the collision ,
but after.
JCG say the incident was at about 1.30
the US navy for some reason say ,
about an hour later.
Why ?
unfortunately a clearer version of this won't load

No track for the Fitzgerald , as apparently the navy turns that part of the system off . understandable I guess , but rather convenient , and most unhelpful.




So
it appears the Crystal was on auto pilot at the time of the collision ,
which put them off course ,
not surprisingly ,
following which the auto pilot then put the ship through maneuvers to get her back on original (plotted) course .

There was nobody , or nobody competent on the bridge , and it took the cisiw time to wake up , asses the damage and realise what happened ,
and do a u turn ,
to return and find out what they'd hit.

Finding the crippled Fitzgerald , they stayed on station , until released to continue to destination.

It may take a long time for the whole truth to come out.

The above likely scenario , though not a good look , is at least plausible.

The previous idea that the Crystal did a u turn and came back to hit the Fitzgerald , is a bit of a stretch , and doesn't seem to fit the actual recorded tracking.

Going back , would seem to have to be a deliberate act , not impossible , but rather silly.
Why pass a target , then turn round and go back so obviously ?
(all on tracking , actually recorded)
just for starters.
Give your target so much warning ?

Don't know the track or direction of the Fitzgerald.
Was she crossing ?
Was she being overtaken ?

No idea.
The impact site and damage would indicate likely crossing.
But ? ? ? ?
Can't really comment.

The discrepancy in timing is ?
understandable confusion ?
bizarre ?
puzzling ?

currently unexplainable.

 

A better graphic