OT: The destroyer Fitzgerald's collision with a container vessel

[wierdscience]

And don't issue order to rush through. And, presumably, stay on the bridge, it's your ship..... Then nobody has to worry if they should wake you up or not.

I saw that a day or so back, and it looked as if there wa blame enough for all levels.

And not just with the Navy either-

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...ald-collision/

That's the thing about Fuster Clucks,usually everybody is involved.

[cameron]

And don't issue order to rush through. And, presumably, stay on the bridge, it's your ship..... Then nobody has to worry if they should wake you up or not.

I saw that a day or so back, and it looked as if there wa blame enough for all levels.

When the problems are systemic, as they appear to be here, the blame should go directly to where the responsibility lies, the top level.

Of course, it never does.

[SteveF]

Maybe that way up in Canada. In this case the CO was relieved of his command and was disciplined along with the XO and Chief, which effectively ends their careers.

Steve

[cameron]

Maybe that way up in Canada. In this case the CO was relieved of his command and was disciplined along with the XO and Chief, which effectively ends their careers.

Steve

And does nothing to address the systemic problems.

[gellfex]

Amazing that there a transport ship that can just pick it up and bring it home.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...LR483-047).JPG

Cool. Doesn't that by definition make it a boat rather than a ship? I remember this was the reason 300' WW2 fleet subs were called boats, because they could be picked up by a sub tender.

[PStechPaul]

This may be an urban legend, but I like it:

[J Tiers]

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navR...B_20141118.pdf

It would seem that as the US vessel had the other "on it's starboard side", so rule 15 in the attached, for "International" should have been in force, and the container ship was required to keep on course and speed unless and until it became obvious that the US vessel was not going to do as required and "keep out of the way".

Maybe someone who has been OOD can speak to that one.

I suppose the argument used to get the damage payment would be that the container vessel did not observe that the US vessel was not doing as required.

[Paul Alciatore]

I think the Navy expects aggression in their captains. But common sense should have priority. I haven't been "on the water" for quite some time, but it seems unwise to insist that a container ship maneuver to avoid a much smaller vesicle. He has far too much momentum to make a sharp change of course. Physics, not cockmanship.

[darryl]

And what happened to the Crystal, the other ship- got a bit of a scratch? Maybe a few dents? Big damage, but not enough to let in seawater?

[J Tiers]

I think the Navy expects aggression in their captains. But common sense should have priority. I haven't been "on the water" for quite some time, but it seems unwise to insist that a container ship maneuver to avoid a much smaller vesicle. He has far too much momentum to make a sharp change of course. Physics, not cockmanship.

Is there not a rule similar to the "cop car rule"? A cop when not proceeding on a call with lights etc, is expected to obey the traffic laws. I would suppose that the international maritime rules would apply even to a warship when not engaged in wartime activity. That hass, as I understand it, been the situation in the past.