• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USS FITGERALD Collision: June 17, 2017

An 2 part argument by G-Captain on the difficulties in dealing with US navy ships http://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-fault/
 
Further down at the above link is: http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/


The Most Intense Bridge Conversation EVER – USS Porter Collides With Supertanker [BRIDGE RECORDING AUDIO]
May 14, 2013 by John Konrad

On August 12, 2012, the U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter collided with a Mitsui OSK Lines’ supertanker M/T Otowasan near the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.  The collision tore a 3 by 3 meter (9.8 ft — 9.8 ft) hole in the starboard side of the destroyer, forcing it to Jebel Ali, Dubai for repairs. No one was injured however.
 
The Navy is begining the process of deciding how to fix the Fitz. Once its out of the water and inspected the next step will be made.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/navy-struggles-with-approach-to-fix-crippled-fitzgerald-destroyer-as-investigation-continues

WASHINGTON — The collision off Japan that claimed the lives of seven sailors on the U.S. Navy destroyer Fitzgerald punched a hole large enough to drive a tractor trailer through, leaving the service with the considerable task of putting the crippled destroyer back together again. 

The bulbous bow of the ACX Crystal left a 12x17-foot hole beneath the waterline, per three Navy sources who spoke on background, an enormous breach that rapidly flooded three spaces. Sailors had about a minute to evacuate their berthing, and several were awoken by salt water rushing into their rack, per two sources familiar with the details of the accident said 
 
Rifleman62 said:
Further down at the above link is: http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/


The Most Intense Bridge Conversation EVER – USS Porter Collides With Supertanker [BRIDGE RECORDING AUDIO]
May 14, 2013 by John Konrad

On August 12, 2012, the U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter collided with a Mitsui OSK Lines’ supertanker M/T Otowasan near the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf.  The collision tore a 3 by 3 meter (9.8 ft — 9.8 ft) hole in the starboard side of the destroyer, forcing it to Jebel Ali, Dubai for repairs. No one was injured however.

I don't have allot of bridge experience but that was an intense conversation... I can fully understand how things can get hectic and go bad fast...
 
Halifax Tar said:
I don't have allot of bridge experience but that was an intense conversation... I can fully understand how things can get hectic and go bad fast...
It sounded very confusing on the bridge. The OOD did not have a grasp on the situational picture and seemed to be unable to get his thoughts strait. The CO should have taken the conn when he said to the OOD "Don't do that again!". What ever "that" was, it was time to take over.
 
Interesting analysis of the financial liability that the Crystal may be facing.Which could be around $2b.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippine-container-ship-crashed-us-202436371.html

The USS Fitzgerald and the Philippine-flagged container ship MV ACX Crystal collided early in the morning on June 16.

The port bow of the containership, particularly its bulbous bow and its port anchor, came into contact with the starboard side of the destroyer opening three compartments to the sea and heavily damaging the deck structure aft of the bridge above the main deck.

The destroyer will require extensive and costly repairs over many months and tragically seven sailors were lost and three, including the commanding officer, were injured.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Interesting analysis of the financial liability that the Crystal may be facing.Which could be around $2b.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippine-container-ship-crashed-us-202436371.html

The USS Fitzgerald and the Philippine-flagged container ship MV ACX Crystal collided early in the morning on June 16.

The port bow of the containership, particularly its bulbous bow and its port anchor, came into contact with the starboard side of the destroyer opening three compartments to the sea and heavily damaging the deck structure aft of the bridge above the main deck.

The destroyer will require extensive and costly repairs over many months and tragically seven sailors were lost and three, including the commanding officer, were injured.

That link wouldn't work for me. Here's another article from today which is quite informative and perhaps is the same article:

http://www.businessinsider.com/philippine-container-ship-mv-acx-crystal-uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-legal-liability-2017-7

(and which--in addition to the fact that I practiced law in Manitoba--is why I stayed the heck away from Admiralty law.)

:cheers:
 
Yes thats the same article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/philippine-container-ship-mv-acx-crystal-uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-legal-liability-2017-7
 
Its rather suspicious already finding fault. I am thinking fake news. Wait for the final report.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Its rather suspicious already finding fault. I am thinking fake news. Wait for the final report.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if not fake news, once the investigation is complete.
 
The Japanese investigation has reached a road block,as there hasnt been any US cooperation according to the Japanese . At some point I hope the USN moves to assist the Japanese Coast Guard.


https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/japan-ends-probe-of-us-navy-ship-collision-no-input-from-us-1.479530#.WXaxOohtm70

TOKYO -- Japanese authorities said Monday that they were almost finished with their investigation into last month's collision between a Philippine freighter and a U.S. naval destroyer that left seven Navy sailors dead, but still haven't been given access to data from the U.S. side.

The container ship, the ACX Crystal, and most of its crew were allowed to leave Japan for Thailand on Sunday after repairs were finished. Coast guard officials declined to give details.

 
The Fitz will be returning to an east coast shipyard,most likely Bath where she was built. She will be transported  as she is unable to sail on her own power.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-haul-stricken-destroyer-japan-back-u-repairs-103601077--finance.html

TOKYO (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy on Tuesday said it will haul the guided missile destroyer severely damaged in a collision with a freighter in Japanese waters back to the United States for repairs as soon as September.

The collision killed seven sailors aboard the USS Fitzgerald and ripped a hole below the vessels waterline. Naval engineers in Japan have patched up the destroyer but extensive damage that nearly sank the warship means it is unable to sail under its own steam.

"The Fitzgerald may be moved in September but it could be later than that," a spokesman for the U.S. Seventh Fleet said.

The U.S. Navy plans to hire a commercial heavy lift ship to carry the destroyer. In the tender for the contract it has said that the furthest possible journey could be as far as to naval dockyards in Maine on the U.S. east coast.

The collision in the early hours of June 17 with a Philippine-registered cargo ship in waters close to Tokyo Bay resulted in the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen's Aden harbor in 2000. It has sparked multiple investigations by U.S., Japanese and Philippine authorities.

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved in the collision, the cargo ship's captain in a report seen by Reuters said it signaled the Fitzgerald with flashing lights around 10 minutes before the collision, but that it did not respond or alter course.
 
Supplemental Navy Report on USS Fitzgerald post collision here:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3934451/Navy-Report-on-USS-Fitzgerald.pdf

From CNN:

USS Fitzgerald's leadership to be removed from their duties over June collision

By Ryan Browne
Updated 8:32 PM ET, Thu August 17, 2017

(CNN)The commanding officer, executive officer and senior non-commissioned officer of the USS Fitzgerald are due to be removed from their duties for cause amid the fallout surrounding the deadly collision between the USS Fitzgerald and a cargo ship off the coast of Japan on June 17.

"They will be detached from the ship for cause, which is, we've lost trust and confidence in their ability to lead in those positions and they will not return to the ship," Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. William Moran told reporters at the Pentagon late Thursday.

Moran added that the commander of the Navy's 7th Fleet, Adm. Joseph Aucoin, "has notified them of his intent" to detach them for cause a move likely to occur during their non-judicial punishment process, scheduled to take place Friday.

While the final investigation into the collision is ongoing, Moran said: "We do not have to have the investigation complete to start the process."

The Fitzgerald's commanding officer, Cdr. Bryce Benson, and the executive officer, Cdr. Sean Babbiit, were both sleeping, and the master chief petty officer, Brice Baldwin, was not on the bridge at the time of collision, according to the Navy.

The bow of the cargo ship directly struck the commander's cabin, according to the Navy's report detailing the immediate aftermath of the collision.

It said Benson "was hanging from the side of the ship" when he was retrieved by crewmembers who were forced to use a sledgehammer, kettlebell and their bodies to break through the door and gain access to the heavily damaged cabin.

Benson was medically evacuated via helicopter due to the severity of his injuries and he placed on limited duty status on July 11.

"There are a lot of sailors" who have undergone the non-judicial punishment process and "survived and done well," Moran said, but "when you look at what happened here, it's going to be pretty hard to recover from this."

While additional non-judicial punishments could be levied at the "captain's mast" inquiry, due to take place Friday, Moran said that Aucoin "has already made the decision to detach for cause" the leadership team.

"Serious mistakes were made by members of the crew," Moran said, adding that "clearly at some point the bridge team lost situational awareness."

One additional sailor has already undergone the captain's mast. Several other sailors are due to go through the process, including the people who were on watch that night.

The Navy also plans to review its training and qualification procedures in the wake of the deadly collision, in which the Fitzgerald was heavily damaged. It will have to be brought back to the US for repairs.

The Navy's report on the immediate aftermath provides a harrowing account of US sailors attempting to escape a rapidly flooding sleeping area that filled with water within minutes after the cargo ship's bow tore a hole in the side of the Fitzgerald. Of the 35 sailors in the sleeping area at the time of the collision, 28 were able to escape, but the remaining seven sailors died.

The report describes a chaotic scene following the collision between the Fitzgerald and the much larger cargo ship. Some sailors were thrown from their beds, while others remained asleep. Sailors ran through the sleeping area, attempting to awaken their still-sleeping crew members.

"At least one sailor had to be pulled from his rack and into the water before he woke up," the report said, referring to the Naval term for a bed.

The crew had to move quickly to escape the area using a ladder before the sleeping area became completely flooded, with the report saying the room "was nearly flooded within a span of 30 to 60 seconds."

"By the time the third sailor to leave arrived at the ladder, the water was already waist deep," the report said.

Rear Adm. Charles F. Williams wrote in the memo accompanying the report that the sailors in that sleeping area "should be commended for their response to the dangerous and deadly threat they faced."

Moran said the investigation will have to be completed before any medals or awards can be adjudicated to any sailors for acts of heroism.

An acting commanding officer had been assigned to the Fitzgerald following the collision, and a permanent replacement, Cdr. Garrett Miller, has been identified and is expected to take command soon.

The full investigation will have to be completed in order for the Navy to assign responsibility for the collision.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/politics/uss-fitzgerald-leadership-removed/index.html
 
Not just the leaders were removed but up to 12 others will receive punishment. The pictures at the end of the report are stunning.It could have been very bad with the loss of the ship and alot more of the crew.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Not just the leaders were removed but up to 12 others will receive punishment. The pictures at the end of the report are stunning.It could have been very bad with the loss of the ship and alot more of the crew.

Of the 12, I would guess the Officer of the Deck (Officer of the Watch) the Navigation team and the senior personnel in the Combat Information Centre (Ops Room) are all going to be severely reprimanded.

Some of the seamanship capabilities of the USN is questionable and I always felt that their SWO's do not get enough training and mentorship to become good ship handlers. Heck, RCN standards have slipped quite a bit since I joined but at least as a MARS officer you only had to concentrate on ship handling and war fighting. The MSE and CSE (forget what the new name is) took care of the engineering side of the house. The USN SWO's on the other hand are swamped with their duties and responsibilities (IMHO of course) which unfairly affects their capabilities on the bridge.

 
FSTO said:
Of the 12, I would guess the Officer of the Deck (Officer of the Watch) the Navigation team and the senior personnel in the Combat Information Centre (Ops Room) are all going to be severely reprimanded.

Some of the seamanship capabilities of the USN is questionable and I always felt that their SWO's do not get enough training and mentorship to become good ship handlers. Heck, RCN standards have slipped quite a bit since I joined but at least as a MARS officer you only had to concentrate on ship handling and war fighting. The MSE and CSE (forget what the new name is) took care of the engineering side of the house. The USN SWO's on the other hand are swamped with their duties and responsibilities (IMHO of course) which unfairly affects their capabilities on the bridge.


100% Agree. When I sailed on an Arleigh Burke, I couldn't believe how buys there subbies were. Junior SWOs were not only required to pursue getting their bridge watchkeeping ticket, but they held other primary duties, like being Strike Officer (in charge of Tomahawk missions). They never seemed to sleep, and no one seemed to care. The more senior JGs and Lts didn't have it much better. The NavO was also the UWWO. That makes no sense!
 
Perhaps the watch standers were preoccupied with their cell phones ? I noticed a comment to that effect on a forum. Can you even get cell coverage at sea ?
 
tomahawk6 said:
Perhaps the watch standers were preoccupied with their cell phones ? I noticed a comment to that effect on a forum. Can you even get cell coverage at sea ?

No, you can't, but warships are starting to get wifi, so it's possible they were on a local network chatting or playing silly little cellphone games. They may even have had limit satellite internet connected to said wifi.

Now, should bridge watch keepers have been on their phones when it was their responsibility to be keeping the ship safe? Absolutely not!

Did me and the other 3 bridge officers on watch on the Arleigh Burke I sailed on all hang out on the bridge-wing in the middle of the night shooting the shit with each other, not a single one of us looking forward or at a radar screen while the helmsmen and bosnmates fell in and out of sleep standing at their duty stations on the bridge? Who knows...
 
Lumber said:
100% Agree. When I sailed on an Arleigh Burke, I couldn't believe how buys there subbies were. Junior SWOs were not only required to pursue getting their bridge watchkeeping ticket, but they held other primary duties, like being Strike Officer (in charge of Tomahawk missions). They never seemed to sleep, and no one seemed to care. The more senior JGs and Lts didn't have it much better. The NavO was also the UWWO. That makes no sense!

That's crazy.  I thought we were busy enough just trying to get our tickets on MCDVs, then being DeckO and learning that side of the house, etc. 
 
Back
Top