Another US Navy ship collision

Witmo said:
Just thinking out of the box here for a moment. What if some state actor decided to demonstrate its unhappiness with the US Navy operating in its back yard by deliberately causing commercial ships to steer into a collision course with US Navy ships. Seems like something that would achieve their aim while maintaining plausible deniability that they had anything to do with it. How could they do it? Bribery, hacking, spoofing, I don't know. Saves them the possibility of an armed conflict while making the US think twice about operating near their shores.
Click to expand...
And they just "happen" to be the ships that are likely to be needed to integrate with missile defense against NK. That and the rumors of the Russians tweaking with the ship over in the Mediterranean that had multiple attack runs simulated on it by the SU-24s seems a little bit worrying as to just how "safe" those destroyers really are.
 
jspilot said:
Right yes I get all this and like I said I don't actually think they need sea traffic control but we have to be honest, if people keep colliding ships something has to give. The system gets broken when evidence shows its broken.
Click to expand...

You keep making the mistake of extrapolating from isolated events to 'the system is broken'. The system works just fine, it looks like in the last couple of years one particular operator is having difficulty fitting into the system.
 
Fearless Tower said:
True. That would be a nice feature. But, even with ADS-B, you aren't unidentifiable. Once an airplane completes the ADS-B process, it can be tracked on FlightAware even when you are VFR not talking to ATC.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you are using Mode C with the appropriate 978 UAT ADS-B while squawking 1200 the plane can be anonymous.

For Mode S and 1090ES, you are correct.
 
I just learned that apparently the Navy did away with Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) school, they reinstated it partially in 2008 but evidently that cohort would be about at XO level now.

That, combined with a higher optempo has something to do with it. I hope they get their act together before our Navy is perceived as weak and hostile players (China, Russia?) make a move.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature...t-you-know-about-its-deadly-ship-22025?page=2
 
weilke said:
You keep making the mistake of extrapolating from isolated events to 'the system is broken'. The system works just fine, it looks like in the last couple of years one particular operator is having difficulty fitting into the system.
Click to expand...

I have no idea if the system is broken or works just fine. I'm not on the sea each day. That being said, how can one conclude that the system should not be looked into since we currently have billions of dollars of Navy ships sitting unusable because the United States Navy somehow managed to get involved in 2 crashes at sea?!?

We fly planes as pilots and my experience has led me to conclude that a system designed to seperate traffic works real well at doing just that. I asked the question earlier how the ATC system was developed here in the US and it looks like it came out of a crash in congested airspace. Sounds a lot like what is going on right now in these shipping channels-- ships are crashing! From everything I read these accidents may be caused by shipping traffic increasing, a reluctance to alter course, increased automaton and possibly even reduced training and or complacency. So we can't reduce the number of ships out there, the automation is already built in, we certainly should increase training but the one that has me most alarmed is the reluctance to alter course part. That's a culture flaw in maritime way. That should be addressed first and foremost because it would seem to me that lots of these ships are setting course, clicking on the autopilot and then just refusing to make alterations hoping the other guy will! How does that get solved if not for a third party interfering?

I'll also add that I would hope the United States Navy is the best trained operators of ships in the entire world and we still have been colliding into things. If that's possible where the best players in the game are struggling to play the game, maybe the game needs new rules.

Progress is not always a bad thing. Ignoring events without responding seems like the ostrich with his head in the sand type approach, which just leads to many more similar events potentially happening!
 
jspilot said:
I'll also add that I would hope the United States Navy is the best trained operators of ships in the entire world and we still have been colliding into things. If that's possible where the best players in the game are struggling to play the game, maybe the game needs new rules.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the watchstanders in the Navy generally aren't the best trained mariners. Here's a link to a great article explaining why: http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

Unlike most mariners, being a deck officer is just a small part of what Navy officers do and they spend a relatively small part of their career training for it and actually doing it. However, with the numerous people on watch that are helping to track other vessels and make navigation recommendations, these collisions seem to indicate that numerous people were complacent and not properly standing their watch.

The system generally works very well, from the outside looking in it appears as if the watchstanders on these ships weren't operating in the system the way they were trained to do so.
 
Wheels said:
Unfortunately the watchstanders in the Navy generally aren't the best trained mariners. Here's a link to a great article explaining why: http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

Unlike most mariners, being a deck officer is just a small part of what Navy officers do and they spend a relatively small part of their career training for it and actually doing it. However, with the numerous people on watch that are helping to track other vessels and make navigation recommendations, these collisions seem to indicate that numerous people were complacent and not properly standing their watch.

The system generally works very well, from the outside looking in it appears as if the watchstanders on these ships weren't operating in the system the way they were trained to do so.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info! Seems pretty wild to me that the Navy allows for this level of complacency in their ranks! I could see in the open ocean the watch guy is pretty unimportant but around the channels seems like a good time to have the best guy you have on watch!
 
jspilot said:
Thanks for the info! Seems pretty wild to me that the Navy allows for this level of complacency in their ranks! I could see in the open ocean the watch guy is pretty unimportant but around the channels seems like a good time to have the best guy you have on watch!
Click to expand...

That is a major reason that when these incidents happen the CO and other leadership gets fired, even if they weren't directly involved.

The CO of the Fitzgerald was in his cabin, probably asleep when the collision happened. He had standing orders that he was to be called and alerted about any traffic that was going to pass within a specified distance. Apparently he wasn't called. Every OOD is told that if you have any doubt about what to do then call the CO to the bridge and he will be there immediately to help you with the situation. I have seen the CO on the bridge at 0300 in his underwear and shower shoes because when the watchstander called to report a contact the CO wasn't clear on what he was being told so he came to the bridge immediately to see it for himself.

The leadership gets fired because they either didn't properly train their watchstanders or they aren't making sure that they are standing their watches as they were trained to do. (I actually feel sorry for the Fitzgerald CO, he had only been on board for a month so if his watchstanders weren't properly trained it was actually his predecessor's fault.)
 
The McCain collision was possibly caused by a mechanical (electrical) failure in the steering gear, causing the ship to turn in front of the merchant. It will be a while before the investigation report comes out and shows whether that was the cause of the collision but in that area they should have had aft-steering manned and been able to regain steering control in a matter of seconds. Either they weren't following procedures to have aft steering manned or the guys back there were complacent and not expecting to have to take control because it very rarely happens. Everyone runs drills and prepares for it but they don't think it's really going to happen.
 
jspilot said:
I have no idea if the system is broken or works just fine. I'm not on the sea each day. That being said, how can one conclude that the system should not be looked into since we currently have billions of dollars of Navy ships sitting unusable because the United States Navy somehow managed to get involved in 2 crashes at sea?!?
Click to expand...

We don't know the cause of either collision. Based on the fact that both involved similar ships operated by the same company suggests that the company needs to review how they operate within the system before we declare that there is something wrong with the system itself.
 
Last edited:
Wheels said:
The McCain collision was possibly caused by a mechanical (electrical) failure in the steering gear, causing the ship to turn in front of the merchant. It will be a while before the investigation report comes out and shows whether that was the cause of the collision but in that area they should have had aft-steering manned and been able to regain steering control in a matter of seconds. Either they weren't following procedures to have aft steering manned or the guys back there were complacent and not expecting to have to take control because it very rarely happens. Everyone runs drills and prepares for it but they don't think it's really going to happen.
Click to expand...

Ever so often commercial vessels lose propulsion or steering and sit in the middle of some busy seaway. It doesn't cause instant doom. I posted the AIS track of the McCain event, after the tanker got stopped, the other traffic weaved around them with miles to spare.
 
Wheels said:
Unfortunately the watchstanders in the Navy generally aren't the best trained mariners. Here's a link to a great article explaining why: http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-merchant-marine/

Unlike most mariners, being a deck officer is just a small part of what Navy officers do and they spend a relatively small part of their career training for it and actually doing it. However, with the numerous people on watch that are helping to track other vessels and make navigation recommendations, these collisions seem to indicate that numerous people were complacent and not properly standing their watch.
Click to expand...

Pretty baffling that there is no full-time staff in charge of steering the ship. Its like an airline that puts mechanics and customer service supervisors in the right seat of their planes because 'being an FO really doesn't require all that much skill'.
 
weilke said:
Ever so often commercial vessels lose propulsion or steering and sit in the middle of some busy seaway. It doesn't cause instant doom. I posted the AIS track of the McCain event, after the tanker got stopped, the other traffic weaved around them with miles to spare.
Click to expand...

It depends on how close the vessels are to each other when one loses control of steering. The AIS track that I saw did not show the McCain's track so we don't know for sure that JSM turned in front of the merchant or how close they were when it happened. The loss of steering is just a possibility that I have seen raised and with incomplete information, it may or may not ave been the primary cause of the collision. Either way, if the crew of the McCain was properly manned and prepared for it to happen they should have been able to regain steering control before it led to a collision.

I also have seen several posts that seem to imply that the US Navy ships are the only ships that have collisions or other incidents. The fact that there are two major collisions in a short time isn't an indication that the entire Navy is doing something wrong. There are plenty of Merchant vessels that run aground or have collisions but it doesn't make the news everywhere because most people don't care, but if it is a Navy ship then it is newsworthy.
 
Wheels said:
I also have seen several posts that seem to imply that the US Navy ships are the only ships that have collisions or other incidents. The fact that there are two major collisions in a short time isn't an indication that the entire Navy is doing something wrong. There are plenty of Merchant vessels that run aground or have collisions but it doesn't make the news everywhere because most people don't care, but if it is a Navy ship then it is newsworthy.
Click to expand...

They care because of the loss of life involved. If a merchant ship loses a stack of boxes in a collision, its mostly an insurance case. If some bulk carrier gets abandoned in the south china sea, it makes industry and insurance news, it doesn't get home page coverage on CNN.

Major shipping casualties have been decreasing. There haven't been any major oil spills in a couple of decades and considering the increase in volume of commercial shipping, the loss ratios and insurance premiums are low. And all that despite
- flags of convenience,
- decrepit equipment,
- alledgedly unmanned bridges,
- watchstanders who dont speak english
.
.
.

shipping_losses_1910_2009.jpg
shipping_losses_2005_2014.jpg
 
weilke said:
They care because of the loss of life involved. If a merchant ship loses a stack of boxes in a collision, its mostly an insurance case. If some bulk carrier gets abandoned in the south china sea, it makes industry and insurance news, it doesn't get home page coverage on CNN.
Click to expand...

This collision happened a day or two before the McCain collision and involved loss of life but how many people here have heard anything about it?
http://splash247.com/two-general-cargo-ships-collide-near-fujian-three-dead-six-missing/
 
weilke said:
They care because of the loss of life involved. If a merchant ship loses a stack of boxes in a collision, its mostly an insurance case. If some bulk carrier gets abandoned in the south china sea, it makes industry and insurance news, it doesn't get home page coverage on CNN.

Major shipping casualties have been decreasing. There haven't been any major oil spills in a couple of decades and considering the increase in volume of commercial shipping, the loss ratios and insurance premiums are low. And all that despite
- flags of convenience,
- decrepit equipment,
- alledgedly unmanned bridges,
- watchstanders who dont speak english
.
.
.

View attachment 55829
View attachment 55830
Click to expand...

These charts are a bit misleading. Of course the percentage has gone down because there are far more ships sailing now than there were back in 1910. One accident in 1910 maybe made up 5% of the entire fleet sailing the open ocean where as today one accident might make up .5%. ( no idea how accurate this hypothetical is but it's safe to use to make the point.) Statistics based on entire fleet size only matter in comparison when fleet sizes are even close to comparable size! With literally over a 100% increase in shipping traffic reported even recently it's not worth comparing numbers based on entire fleet size.

I agree that if all major shipping crashes were reported it would be staggeringly higher than this issue is in terms of priority. Imagine if airliners were hitting each other or running into mountains at the rate ships are hitting each other and running aground!!! The entire airline fleet would be grounded immediately!
 
jspilot said:
These charts are a bit misleading. Of course the percentage has gone down because there are far more ships sailing now than there were back in 1910. One accident in 1910 maybe made up 5% of the entire fleet sailing the open ocean where as today one accident might make up .5%. ( no idea how accurate this hypothetical is but it's safe to use to make the point.) Statistics based on entire fleet size only matter in comparison when fleet sizes are even close to comparable size! With literally over a 100% increase in shipping traffic reported even recently it's not worth comparing numbers based on entire fleet size.

I agree that if all major shipping crashes were reported it would be staggeringly higher than this issue is in terms of priority. Imagine if airliners were hitting each other or running into mountains at the rate ships are hitting each other and running aground!!! The entire airline fleet would be grounded immediately!
Click to expand...
Lol. Do you work in public relations or perhaps politics? Or maybe you just like to attempt free-lance-spin?
 
jspilot said:
These charts are a bit misleading. Of course the percentage has gone down because there are far more ships sailing now than there were back in 1910. One accident in 1910 maybe made up 5% of the entire fleet sailing the open ocean where as today one accident might make up .5%. ( no idea how accurate this hypothetical is but it's safe to use to make the point.) Statistics based on entire fleet size only matter in comparison when fleet sizes are even close to comparable size! With literally over a 100% increase in shipping traffic reported even recently it's not worth comparing numbers based on entire fleet size.
Click to expand...

The plot for 'total losses' is in 'units', not percentages. The absolute number of accidents has gone done (the decrease was most drastic for collisions).

Based on the same Lloyds data, there were 30,058 commercial vessels in the fleet in 1910 and 103,392 in 2010. Most statements about the 'huge increase in shipping' are based on gross tonnage, not number of units. Also, modern ships spend very little time in port and over the course of a year transport more cargo relative to their size.The improvements in commercial shipping safety have been by orders of magnitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top