Another US Navy warship in a collision

[Dr.Brian]

I bet there was some degree of alarm fatigue going on. It's a problem in medicine as well.
RIP brothers.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by lapince

https://youtu.be/_VHXRYXzEVU

You guys have got to watch this, seems BS but really funny

Hahaha.....

[MonBK]

The language barrier is always a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNalxy-_SyM

[achenator]

Interesting editorial today in G captain.

http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-l...rchant-marine/

[Old Expat Beast]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

External interference possibly? Surely these ships' computer and comms systems are too self-contained to be hacked?

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

They're designed not to be hacked. Electronic warfare and countermeasures are built into every USN ship, and have been since radar was invented.

If someone can hack a guided missile cruiser, it's time to go sit in your bunker, because that capability could have dire consequences in the special weapons systems.

US Navy collisions stoke cyber threat fears that GPS systems can be ‘spoofed’ by hackers

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southe...ns-gps-systems

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Old Expat Beast

US Navy collisions stoke cyber threat fears that GPS systems can be ‘spoofed’ by hackers

http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southe...ns-gps-systems

Not much information presented in the article, other than "we're looking at all possibilities".

Heads have begun rolling. The commander of the 7th Fleet has been relieved.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by breitlings

not sure why you think the overtaking vessel is always giveway is technical. unsure about why you resort to ad hominem attacks in a subject you are an expert on. seems to me people attack people and not the subject when they are unsure of themselves.

then you say i dont have the background to understand the simplest rule perhaps. you dont know my background at all, wouldnt that be speculating without all of the facts? i thought you didnt make assumptions but seems you have about my experience background and knowledge. you seem to have contradicted yourself three times in one sentence to prove something that is perhaps the most obvious rule. i wont go into it here butthat statement is false and if i explained you would look foolish for making that statement.

what about a recreational yacht versus a similar size commercial vessel? isn't the recreational vehicle supposed to giveway based on it's purpose?

with all that said you do provide interesting information on this. you should be less strident it limits your ability to communicate by distracting from the actual contents of your message.

You're absolutely right, I don't know your background. However, what is pretty clear is that you do not have the knowledge, background or experience of the ColRegs because if you did, you wouldn't insist on repeatedly raising the irrelevant points that you do.

So what about the recreational vehicle and a similar size commercial vehicle? No, the recreational vehicle does not give way because of it's purpose in waters defined in Rule 1. However, as also stipulated in Rule 1, there may be local rules which require the some vessels to keep out of the way of others. That is an entirely different matter and, again, irrelevant to the subject case.

It's not so much that I'm making assumptions here (which is not contradicting myself; I said I would not make assumptions on the subject case without having the facts in front of me). The points that you raise and the arguments that you attempt to forward do not leave much else to the imagination.

[bayerische]

Well, I'm a "layman", but the USN Destroyer collided with an oil tanker. The oil tanker can't yield just like that, due to size and weight.

Could it be stubbornness from the USN? "We won't move".

The USN Destroyer isn't that big of a vessel, so it should fairly easy be able to get out of the Tankers way.

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by bayerische

Well, I'm a "layman", but the USN Destroyer collided with an oil tanker. The oil tanker can't yield, due to size and weight.

Could it be stubbornness from the USN? "We won't move".

The USN Destroyer isn't that big of a vessel, so it should fairly easy be able to get out of the Tankers way.

IMO the closest guess so far as they now blame it on "steering failure".

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by bayerische

Well, I'm a "layman", but the USN Destroyer collided with an oil tanker. The oil tanker can't yield, due to size and weight.

Could it be stubbornness from the USN? "We won't move".

The USN Destroyer isn't that big of a vessel, so it should fairly easy be able to get out of the Tankers way.

Yeah, you would think an Aegis class Destroyer would be able to outmaneuver almost anything on the Ocean. As for not yielding to the tanker out of a superiority complex, I have stood watch on the decks of Navy ships and gurantee this is not the case. The LAST thing that crew wanted was to hit another ship. How it happened I do not know, but it was definitely NOT due to stuborness on the part of the crew, they would have and should have reacted long before there was danger of a collision.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Yeah, you would think an Aegis class Destroyer would be able to outmaneuver almost anything on the Ocean. As for not yielding to the tanker out of a superiority complex, I have stood watch on the decks of Navy ships and gurantee this is not the case. The LAST thing that crew wanted was to hit another ship. How it happened I do not know, but it was definitely NOT due to stuborness on the part of the crew, they would have and should have reacted long before there was danger of a collision.

I would think so too.

I mean any person in his right mind would start to haul a$$ once there's a Tanker on a collision course with you!

[MonBK]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

Yeah, you would think an Aegis class Destroyer would be able to outmaneuver almost anything on the Ocean. As for not yielding to the tanker out of a superiority complex, I have stood watch on the decks of Navy ships and gurantee this is not the case. The LAST thing that crew wanted was to hit another ship. How it happened I do not know, but it was definitely NOT due to stuborness on the part of the crew, they would have and should have reacted long before there was danger of a collision.

This I agree with ^

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by MonBK

IMO the closest guess so far as they now blame it on "steering failure".

I'm thinking this as well.

They would have done all they could to have got out of the way, a ship like that will have had so many sensors and alarms that they will have known that there was a tanker in the vicinity long before the collision. It's tragic.

[Cru Jones]

Originally Posted by Rogdogg

This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks for the insight into maritime accident investigation Paul. I hope they can figure out what happened here.

My thoughts are with the family and friends of the missing crewmen.

x2!

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by bayerische

Well, I'm a "layman", but the USN Destroyer collided with an oil tanker. The oil tanker can't yield just like that, due to size and weight.

Could it be stubbornness from the USN? "We won't move".

The USN Destroyer isn't that big of a vessel, so it should fairly easy be able to get out of the Tankers way.

Not quite so simple. From the gaping hole in the side of McCain, it seems likely to me that the tanker hit the warship. As I've said several times above, it's not a good idea to make assumptions without all the facts.

Also, the collision appears to have occurred in the Traffic Separation Scheme to the east of Singapore. I've navigated ships through there more times than I care to remember and it's usually congested with dense traffic. The bridge team really have to be on the ball in the whole of the Singapore Strait. When a vessel finds herself in a situation where a close quarters situation is developing, sometimes the only safe option is to reduce speed or take all way off. For reasons I am unable to explain, most mariners are extremely reluctant to do that and by the time they realise it's the only thing they can do, it's too late.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by bayerische

Well, I'm a "layman", but the USN Destroyer collided with an oil tanker. The oil tanker can't yield just like that, due to size and weight.

Could it be stubbornness from the USN? "We won't move".

The USN Destroyer isn't that big of a vessel, so it should fairly easy be able to get out of the Tankers way.

Unless, I'm seeing something wrong and the destroyer was travelling side ways. From the damage, how is it possible the destroyer hit the tanker?

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Unless, I'm seeing something wrong and the destroyer was travelling side ways. From the damage, how is it possible the destroyer hit the tanker?

It didn't. The tanker hit the DDG. The question to be determined is "WHY". The AIS data shows the tanker on a steady course until the assumed point of collision, with several other ships in the immediate vicinity. The DDG is not on AIS. The follow on investigations will take a deep dive into the why part.

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Unless, I'm seeing something wrong and the destroyer was travelling side ways. From the damage, how is it possible the destroyer hit the tanker?

OK ok.

I may have written my words wrong. Sure the Tanker hit the USN Destroyer. Obviously from the damage shown in the pics. What I meant was the USN Destroyer was in the way of the Tanker.

But technically they both hit each other, right? Surely my words of using "collided" with the Tanker was right... Are we fine picking here or what?

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by bayerische

OK ok.

I may have written my words wrong. Sure the Tanker hit the USN Destroyer. Obviously from the damage shown in the pics. What I meant was the USN Destroyer was in the way of the Tanker.

But technically they both hit each other, right? Surely my words of using "collided" with the Tanker was right... Are we fine picking here or what?

There is a big difference between running into, and getting run into. Whether you choose your words wrong or not, that is what you typed. And technically no, they didn't run into each other. One ran into another. The way you phrased it, made it sound like the destroyer did the colliding. So again no, not fine picking, just stating there is a difference between running into and getting hit.....

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

There is a big difference between running into, and getting run into. And technically no, they didn't run into each other. One ran into another. The way you phased it, made it sound like the destroyer did the colliding. So again no, not fine picking, just stating there is a difference between running into and getting hit.....

These big commercial ships can't stop on a dime, nor turn like a warship. If the destroyer cut across the bow of the tanker, it would be the same as colliding with the tanker. The Aegis class cruiser is a much more maneuverable ship and well capable of staying out of the path of a tanker. One really has to wonder what occurred to put this ship in the path of the tanker.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

These big commercial ships can't stop on a dime, nor turn like a warship. If the destroyer cut across the bow of the tanker, it would be the same as colliding with the tanker. The Aegis class cruiser is a much more maneuverable ship and well capable of staying out of the path of a tanker. One really has to wonder what occurred to put this ship in the path of the tanker.

Exactly, what the he// happened?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

There is a big difference between running into, and getting run into. Whether you choose your words wrong or not, that is what you typed. And technically no, they didn't run into each other. One ran into another. The way you phrased it, made it sound like the destroyer did the colliding. So again no, not fine picking, just stating there is a difference between running into and getting hit.....

What you're saying here is correct. However, keep in mind that whilst Andreas's English is usually impeccable, it might not be his first language.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

What you're saying here is correct. However, keep in mind that whilst Andreas's English is usually impeccable, it might not be his first language.

Point taken..

[bayerische]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

What you're saying here is correct. However, keep in mind that whilst Andreas's English is usually impeccable, it might not be his first language.

It's My third language.

Still, I don't see how "collided" is wrong? Since the two ships did collide. Just as two cars would "collide".

Getting into details, yes, it seems as the Tanker hit the side of the Destroyer. What we don't know is; was the Destroyer standing still? Since steering problems are reported it may have sailed infront of the Tanker, this making the Destroyer collide. Imho.

Sad about the missing sailors either way.

[MonBK]

Follow up on the lighthouse incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_r_9rfoinc

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by bayerische

It's My third language.

Still, I don't see how "collided" is wrong? Since the two ships did collide. Just as two cars would "collide".

Getting into details, yes, it seems as the Tanker hit the side of the Destroyer. What we don't know is; was the Destroyer standing still? Since steering problems are reported it may have sailed infront of the Tanker, this making the Destroyer collide. Imho.

Sad about the missing sailors either way.

I think by putting the Naval ship as the subject, this sentence implied that the Naval ship hit the other ship

Originally Posted by bayerische

Well, I'm a "layman", but the USN Destroyer collided with an oil tanker.

Not a big deal -- I think you meant "the USN Destroyer and an oil tanker collided" or "the USN Destroyer and an oil tanker were involved in a collision"

[tyler1980]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

There is a big difference between running into, and getting run into. Whether you choose your words wrong or not, that is what you typed. And technically no, they didn't run into each other. One ran into another. The way you phrased it, made it sound like the destroyer did the colliding. So again no, not fine picking, just stating there is a difference between running into and getting hit.....

based on maritime rules as far as i understand them I believe you to be correct judging by where the navy ship was damaged that would indicate it was on the starboard side of the tanker at the time of the impact? However, the navy ship has very advanced radar and is more maneuverable so why they continued on even knowing they had the right of way is baffling. I still look when driving through a green light to make sure some car isn't speeding toward me and isn't stopping.

Maybe Rudd can explain the right of way better than me as my maritime knowledge is limited.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by Knappo 1307

Point taken..

Originally Posted by bayerische

It's My third language.

Still, I don't see how "collided" is wrong? Since the two ships did collide. Just as two cars would "collide".

Getting into details, yes, it seems as the Tanker hit the side of the Destroyer. What we don't know is; was the Destroyer standing still? Since steering problems are reported it may have sailed infront of the Tanker, this making the Destroyer collide. Imho.

Sad about the missing sailors either way.

'Collided' isn't wrong. However, where one has to be careful, particularly in my line of work, is when we're describing which ship hit the other.

In this case, it looks like the tanker hit McCain because the warship has a bloody big hole in her port quarter. I again reiterate that I shouldn't opine because I don't have all the facts and I know from first hand experience how new evidence can emerge at a later date that tips a case on its ear hole.

Originally Posted by tyler1980

based on maritime rules as far as i understand them I believe you to be correct judging by where the navy ship was damaged that would indicate it was on the starboard side of the tanker at the time of the impact? However, the navy ship has very advanced radar and is more maneuverable so why they continued on even knowing they had the right of way is baffling. I still look when driving through a green light to make sure some car isn't speeding toward me and isn't stopping.

Maybe Rudd can explain the right of way better than me as my maritime knowledge is limited.

You could try asking Ruud, too

Again, says Ruud exercising extreme caution, just because McCain is holed on her port side doesn't necessarily mean that she was on the starboard side of the tanker. She could have been dead ahead, overtaking, whatever.

Anyway, from what you're saying above, I assume you're referring to a crossing situation. If so, Rule 15 (crossing situations) states:

"When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."

However, even if you're the stand-on vessel, if you find yourself in a situation where the give-way vessel isn't doing enough (or anything at all) then you're obliged under Rule 17 to take whatever action will best avoid collision.