Another US Navy warship in a collision

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

As I've set out quite clearly above, you can't make this sort of statement without knowing all the facts. To do so is plain speculation.

What I will also say is that in my own experience of these sort of incidents, it is highly unlikely that this "...is entirely on the crew of the warship."

What we can say, unequivocally based on US Navy policy, is that the USN Captain and some of his staff will be relieved for negligence and a loss of confidence in their ability to command.

[rr-nyc]

Without sounding disrespectful, I'm curious whether these naval ships just assume the other ships will get out of the way because they're the US Navy.

I can't help but think about this scenario every time I hear of a collision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU

I should also add that the recording is fake but I can imagine it really happening

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Without sounding disrespectful, I'm curious whether these naval ships just assume the other ships will get out of the way because they're the US Navy.

I can't help but think about this scenario every time I hear of a collision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU

I should also add that the recording is fake but I can imagine it really happening

You can't do that when you're in charge of hundreds of lives at sea and an oil tanker is not a ship that is easy to turn or stop. The crew of the McCain should have been aware of every ship within a set radius of their ship, the course of those vessels and their own course and how they would intersect. They failed at that.

[breitlings]

i believe warships have right of way over any commanded vessel and have a safety zone in which they can fire. one of my family in the coast gaurd said it best "ships turn around when you fire in front of them"

[Abdullah71601]

Originally Posted by breitlings

i believe warships have right of way over any commanded vessel and have a safety zone in which they can fire. one of my family in the coast gaurd said it best "ships turn around when you fire in front of them"

Rules of engagement apply. The USN aren't commerce raiders, it's unlikely their ROE would permit firing on vessels in the shipping lanes.

I think the warship is quite a bit more maneuverable than the tanker. It will be interesting to know why they couldn't maneuver to avoid collision.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Without sounding disrespectful, I'm curious whether these naval ships just assume the other ships will get out of the way because they're the US Navy.

I can't help but think about this scenario every time I hear of a collision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU

I should also add that the recording is fake but I can imagine it really happening

i don't think that recording is real. the us never responds to the light house by name it is funny though.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

Rules of engagement apply. The USN aren't commerce raiders, it's unlikely their ROE would permit firing on vessels in the shipping lanes.

I think the warship is quite a bit more maneuverable than the tanker. It will be interesting to know why they couldn't maneuver to avoid collision.

the boating classes i had to take said they have the right to sink any ship that is presenting an issue to their safety and within like 100-500m of them. that might just pertain to us waters but i dont think it does. they also have first access at locks/canals. whether they would or should start issuing warning fire is a different issue. idk about roe maybe that supercedes "restricted" water laws and right of way rules.

about 12 years ago my dad ran out of gas and we were in a shipping lane. the tankers did avoid us after radio'ing to them. they didnt seem enthusastic to move and boat gas tank gauges are pretty unreliable.

[Muzz]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I see this sort of thing happen with monotonous regularity; investigating collisions between ships (amongst other casualties and incidents) is what I do for a living. I'm also a Master Mariner and an ex-ship's captain.

It's easy for the layman to sit back and say 'how can this happen in this day and age'? Abdullah is close when he says that they are paying attention but not processing the information correctly.

The bridges of ships these days are becoming more and more hi-tech. The amount of alarms I hear when listening to the playback of a ship's VDR (voyage data recorder) is enough to make my ears bleed. That doesn't help. Sometimes the watchkeeper doesn't know which way to turn.

Another thing that is becoming increasingly apparent is that senior ships officers (I'm talking merchant here; I can't comment on the military) are getting younger. In other words, they're getting promoted much quicker than when I was at sea. This translates to spending less time in junior ranks so they're not getting the prerequisite supervision for navigating big ships through busy waterways such as the Malacca Strait.

These younger guys are also lacking in the practical application of the collision regulations. Sure, they take action to avoid ships but they're not always aware of they either got it right, got lucky or a combination of both because they don't receive the same sort of peer guidance these days.

Ships crews are getting smaller i.e. there's less of them on board a ship of a given size than there was ten years ago.

Another issue I see is a bridge team comprising multi-nationalities, some of whom are from developing countries where the standard of training isn't as good as it could be. Training is more frequent, more regulated and is supposed to be standardised. But does it actually work?

Some of these guys are spending up to a year on a ship and are getting a bit 'punch drunk'. They know how they should react to a given situation but for reasons unknown, they just don't.

There's not a single answer as to why these things happen. It's always a sequence of events and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it boils down to human error.

I'm not going to speculate on what happened in the subject incident; to do so on the basis of media information would be foolish. As I said above, I got the call for this one but couldn't proceed because of my knee. Not that it matters because I wouldn't have been able to discuss it anyway but I doubt that the facts will become public knowledge for a while yet.

Wow Paul, that completely sums it up perfectly. The last few years we have seen a lot of relief vessel masters that are junior coming in. Most of the time we reject them on our projects.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by Muzz

Wow Paul, that completely sums it up perfectly.

x2 thanks Ruud for sharing your experience and insight

[linesiders]

Pure speculation

AIS track for ALNIC/MC bwlow:

Just spitballing but maybe DDG had crossed TEAM OSLO and the ALNIC/MC was in its radar shadow. If you look at the long track Team OSLO spent a while overtaking ALNIC and crossed from behind and port to passing to starboard.

McCain goes to pass across bow of OSLO, next sees Hyundai Global and hits the brakes, and then finds ALNIC just between OSLO and ALNIC. Similar to the incident with USS Porter a few years ago, one vessel masks another in a very crowded traffic convergence.

Time was early morning, sun rising from east making lookout job more difficult


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlrA36GzHNs

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I see this sort of thing happen with monotonous regularity; investigating collisions between ships (amongst other casualties and incidents) is what I do for a living. I'm also a Master Mariner and an ex-ship's captain.

It's easy for the layman to sit back and say 'how can this happen in this day and age'? Abdullah is close when he says that they are paying attention but not processing the information correctly.

The bridges of ships these days are becoming more and more hi-tech. The amount of alarms I hear when listening to the playback of a ship's VDR (voyage data recorder) is enough to make my ears bleed. That doesn't help. Sometimes the watchkeeper doesn't know which way to turn.

Another thing that is becoming increasingly apparent is that senior ships officers (I'm talking merchant here; I can't comment on the military) are getting younger. In other words, they're getting promoted much quicker than when I was at sea. This translates to spending less time in junior ranks so they're not getting the prerequisite supervision for navigating big ships through busy waterways such as the Malacca Strait.

These younger guys are also lacking in the practical application of the collision regulations. Sure, they take action to avoid ships but they're not always aware of they either got it right, got lucky or a combination of both because they don't receive the same sort of peer guidance these days.

Ships crews are getting smaller i.e. there's less of them on board a ship of a given size than there was ten years ago.

Another issue I see is a bridge team comprising multi-nationalities, some of whom are from developing countries where the standard of training isn't as good as it could be. Training is more frequent, more regulated and is supposed to be standardised. But does it actually work?

Some of these guys are spending up to a year on a ship and are getting a bit 'punch drunk'. They know how they should react to a given situation but for reasons unknown, they just don't.

There's not a single answer as to why these things happen. It's always a sequence of events and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, it boils down to human error.

I'm not going to speculate on what happened in the subject incident; to do so on the basis of media information would be foolish. As I said above, I got the call for this one but couldn't proceed because of my knee. Not that it matters because I wouldn't have been able to discuss it anyway but I doubt that the facts will become public knowledge for a while yet.

Great post!

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by ras47

Almost all of these tanker and container ships are operated on GPS/autopilot until they are almost at their destination. Many have old systems too without collision avoidance or even proximity warnings. They're *supposed* to have upgraded but enforcement is lax. There is also supposed to be someone on the bridge and paying attention 24/7, but that doesn't always happen either.

I don't know where you have sourced your information but no. Just, no.

Regulations cover cargo vessels (bulk carriers, heavy lift, PSV, etc.) and passenger vessels. It's not just limited to tankers and container ships.

They typically operate on auto-pilot on ocean voyages. When in situations such as entering/leaving port, navigating in congested waters, sailing in restricted visibility, it is common (and prudent) practice to be on hand-steering.

Ships of a given size, size being measured in gross registered tons (GRT), are required to carry at least one satellite navigation system, which means GPS. In most cases, 100% redundancy is required i.e. a back-up unit.

If you really want to know which ships are required to carry what, then look up the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), Chapter V, Regulation 19.

What are these 'systems' you mention that are old and without proximity warnings? Presumably, you refer to radar. The tanker in question is over 10,000 (GRT) and is required to carry both X Band (3cm wavelength) and S Band (10cm) radars and both are to be fitted with Auto Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA). What ARPA does is automatically acquire targets within a user-defined proximity to the ship (unless the operator disables this function) and, when selected by the operator, displays the required information comprising the following:

1. Range in nautical miles;
2. Bearing in degrees;
3. Course in degrees;
4. Speed in knots
5. Closest Point of Approach (CPA)
6. Time of Closest Point of Approach (TCPA).

A warning will sound when a target is going to pass within a certain distance in a required time and this is user-defined parameter. When deep sea, I had mine set to sound an alarm at a CPA of 1.0 miles in 15 minutes. In an area such as the Malacca Strait, which has dense traffic in close proximity, these parameters are way too high and I would invariably use 0.5 miles in 15 minutes.

What DOES NOT happen is that the 'system' will take collision avoidance action of its own accord. The ARPA simply serves to warn the operator that a target will pass within the user-preset distance within the user-defined time.

Enforcement is not lax. Ships' equipment is covered by various statutory and Class certificates, most of which are subject to renewal every five years and annual verification. Therefore, not lax. However, some surveyors are not as diligent as others and mistakes can be made but not at the magnitude to which you suggest.

The bridge is required to be continuously manned by a watch-keeper and a lookout whilst at sea. However, the watch-keeper can act as lookout during daylight hours only. That would not be the case in areas of high density traffic, restricted visibility. etc.

I trust the foregoing clarifies

Originally Posted by Abdullah71601

What we can say, unequivocally based on US Navy policy, is that the USN Captain and some of his staff will be relieved for negligence and a loss of confidence in their ability to command.

I don't doubt this, my friend, not for one second. However, the subtle difference between what you're saying here and what I wrote earlier is that my comments are based on what HAS happened and yours are what WILL happen

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Without sounding disrespectful, I'm curious whether these naval ships just assume the other ships will get out of the way because they're the US Navy.

I can't help but think about this scenario every time I hear of a collision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VHXRYXzEVU

I should also add that the recording is fake but I can imagine it really happening

To assume thus would be a direct contravention of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended. That would be asking for serious trouble.

Originally Posted by SDRider

You can't do that when you're in charge of hundreds of lives at sea and an oil tanker is not a ship that is easy to turn or stop. The crew of the McCain should have been aware of every ship within a set radius of their ship, the course of those vessels and their own course and how they would intersect. They failed at that.

The bridge team of the warship might have been (and I would be amazed if they weren't) well aware of the presence of the other ship.

Like I said earlier though, we don't know what happened, and the McCain could have attempted collision avoidance. On the other hand, the senior officer on the warship might have been out of his tree on drugs and thought it hilarious to have a coming together with a tanker. I seriously doubt the latter; some might construe such a comment by me as in bad taste and highly inappropriate. If anyone thinks thus then I apologise unreservedly because that is not my intention here. My comment is intended to demonstrate that, without the facts to hand, we do not know what happened and every opinion forwarded on the matter is just that. An opinion and, unfortunately, mostly ill-informed.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by breitlings

i believe warships have right of way over any commanded vessel and have a safety zone in which they can fire. one of my family in the coast gaurd said it best "ships turn around when you fire in front of them"

Utter bullshit.

ColRegs Rule 1, Paragraph (a):

"These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels."

There can be exemptions and special circumstances such as, for example, if McCain was restricted in her ability to manoeuvre (as defined in Rule 3 (g)) but being a warship does not give her right of way on that basis alone.

I'm getting out of this thread before I start self-harming. Seriously

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by cop414

Thanks for the information Paul, very interesting.

Originally Posted by Muzz

Wow Paul, that completely sums it up perfectly. The last few years we have seen a lot of relief vessel masters that are junior coming in. Most of the time we reject them on our projects.

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

x2 thanks Ruud for sharing your experience and insight

Originally Posted by linesiders

Great post!

Thank you, boys

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

Utter bullshit.

ColRegs Rule 1, Paragraph (a):

"These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels."

There can be exemptions and special circumstances such as, for example, if McCain was restricted in her ability to manoeuvre (as defined in Rule 3 (g)) but being a warship does not give her right of way on that basis alone.

I'm getting out of this thread before I start self-harming. Seriously

Look at where she was hit. Was she not the stand on vessel. And what did you quote. It says nothing about the right of way just that the rules apply to all boats. What vehicles do you think have right of way above a warship?

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by breitlings

Look at where she was hit. Was she not the stand on vessel. And what did you quote. It says nothing about the right of way just that the rules apply to all boats. What vehicles do you think have right of way above a warship?

What I said was that it's foolish to opine without all the facts in front of me.

Warships do not have right of way because they are warships.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

What I said was that it's foolish to opine without all the facts in front of me.

Warships do not have right of way because they are warships.

Are you saying that types of vessels don't have right of way because of their type? For example sailboat under sail vs recreational powerboat? And warship isn't a type in this right of way rules.

Or just suggesting that just because it is a warship it doesn't mean it always has right of way?

[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.

[Ruud Van Driver]

Originally Posted by breitlings

Are you saying that types of vessels don't have right of way because of their type? For example sailboat under sail vs recreational powerboat? And warship isn't a type in this right of way rules.

Or just suggesting that just because it is a warship it doesn't mean it always has right of way?

I was referring specifically to warships that are underway and not engaged in any extraordinary activity as defined in the Collision Avoidance Regs. I suspect that you know full well what I meant but, for some reason known only to yourself, you're trying to prove a point by baiting me. Ok, I'll bite. Some vessels will have right of way over others; what I wrote above over-simplified things because it would take way too long to explain every situation as well as bore to death most of those who might be following the the thread.

But since you want to go there, a power driven vessel is required to keep out of the way of those under sail and fishing vessels. However, given that both of the two subject vessels are power driven, then what you're trying to drive at here is not relevant.

A warship might have right of way over another power driven vessel because of the nature of its work. Let's take an aircraft carrier that's engaged in the launching and recovery of aircraft as an example; this vessel is clearly restricted in its ability to manoeuvre as defined in Rule 3 (g) so other vessels would be required to keep out of her way.

if you want to get really technical, which you do not have the background, experience or the knowledge to do, the type of vessel is also irrelevant when, for example, one is overtaking another. The one do the overtaking will aways keep out of the way of that which is being overtaken.

If you want to go any further, look up a copy of the ColRegs which you should be able to find online. Let me know if you don't understand what you read in them and I'll help you out as best I can.

[BLACKHORSE 6]

Hoping to hear of a good outcome concerning the missing sailors...

[daveathall]

I am sure that the inquirers will find out what went wrong, there are many things that will never be known, whether that be lack of information or security considerations, the inquiry will decide.

More importantly, a minimum of ten sailors have tragically lost their lives, the countless number of relatives and friends that this will impact will be innumerable. Many sailors have been injured, physically and mentally, It's just awful, we should spare a thought for them first.

[linesiders]

BTW - some early morning reporting is she lost steering on the approach to the straight.

[ras47]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I don't know where you have sourced your information but no. Just, no.



Regulations cover cargo vessels (bulk carriers, heavy lift, PSV, etc.) and passenger vessels. It's not just limited to tankers and container ships.



They typically operate on auto-pilot on ocean voyages. When in situations such as entering/leaving port, navigating in congested waters, sailing in restricted visibility, it is common (and prudent) practice to be on hand-steering.



Ships of a given size, size being measured in gross registered tons (GRT), are required to carry at least one satellite navigation system, which means GPS. In most cases, 100% redundancy is required i.e. a back-up unit.



If you really want to know which ships are required to carry what, then look up the Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS), Chapter V, Regulation 19.



What are these 'systems' you mention that are old and without proximity warnings? Presumably, you refer to radar. The tanker in question is over 10,000 (GRT) and is required to carry both X Band (3cm wavelength) and S Band (10cm) radars and both are to be fitted with Auto Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA). What ARPA does is automatically acquire targets within a user-defined proximity to the ship (unless the operator disables this function) and, when selected by the operator, displays the required information comprising the following:



1. Range in nautical miles;

2. Bearing in degrees;

3. Course in degrees;

4. Speed in knots

5. Closest Point of Approach (CPA)

6. Time of Closest Point of Approach (TCPA).



A warning will sound when a target is going to pass within a certain distance in a required time and this is user-defined parameter. When deep sea, I had mine set to sound an alarm at a CPA of 1.0 miles in 15 minutes. In an area such as the Malacca Strait, which has dense traffic in close proximity, these parameters are way too high and I would invariably use 0.5 miles in 15 minutes.



What DOES NOT happen is that the 'system' will take collision avoidance action of its own accord. The ARPA simply serves to warn the operator that a target will pass within the user-preset distance within the user-defined time.



Enforcement is not lax. Ships' equipment is covered by various statutory and Class certificates, most of which are subject to renewal every five years and annual verification. Therefore, not lax. However, some surveyors are not as diligent as others and mistakes can be made but not at the magnitude to which you suggest.



The bridge is required to be continuously manned by a watch-keeper and a lookout whilst at sea. However, the watch-keeper can act as lookout during daylight hours only. That would not be the case in areas of high density traffic, restricted visibility. etc.



I trust the foregoing clarifies







I don't doubt this, my friend, not for one second. However, the subtle difference between what you're saying here and what I wrote earlier is that my comments are based on what HAS happened and yours are what WILL happen







To assume thus would be a direct contravention of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended. That would be asking for serious trouble.







The bridge team of the warship might have been (and I would be amazed if they weren't) well aware of the presence of the other ship.



Like I said earlier though, we don't know what happened, and the McCain could have attempted collision avoidance. On the other hand, the senior officer on the warship might have been out of his tree on drugs and thought it hilarious to have a coming together with a tanker. I seriously doubt the latter; some might construe such a comment by me as in bad taste and highly inappropriate. If anyone thinks thus then I apologise unreservedly because that is not my intention here. My comment is intended to demonstrate that, without the facts to hand, we do not know what happened and every opinion forwarded on the matter is just that. An opinion and, unfortunately, mostly ill-informed.

I have boarded ships with woefully outdated electronic equipment just as I described. Having the regulations doesn't mean they are followed by everyone. How do the authorities police a Liberian-flagged tanker? And if they pull this tanker's license to operate, do you think that would really stop them from doing so? I know what they SHOULD have as far as electronics suites. Many of them do. Maybe most of them do. But there are a whole lot that simply do not. I have no idea if the ship in question was up to snuff. But I've seen way too many of these ships with systems from the Stone Age.

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by Ruud Van Driver

I was referring specifically to warships that are underway and not engaged in any extraordinary activity as defined in the Collision Avoidance Regs. I suspect that you know full well what I meant but, for some reason known only to yourself, you're trying to prove a point by baiting me. Ok, I'll bite. Some vessels will have right of way over others; what I wrote above over-simplified things because it would take way too long to explain every situation as well as bore to death most of those who might be following the the thread.

But since you want to go there, a power driven vessel is required to keep out of the way of those under sail and fishing vessels. However, given that both of the two subject vessels are power driven, then what you're trying to drive at here is not relevant.

A warship might have right of way over another power driven vessel because of the nature of its work. Let's take an aircraft carrier that's engaged in the launching and recovery of aircraft as an example; this vessel is clearly restricted in its ability to manoeuvre as defined in Rule 3 (g) so other vessels would be required to keep out of her way.

if you want to get really technical, which you do not have the background, experience or the knowledge to do, the type of vessel is also irrelevant when, for example, one is overtaking another. The one do the overtaking will aways keep out of the way of that which is being overtaken.

If you want to go any further, look up a copy of the ColRegs which you should be able to find online. Let me know if you don't understand what you read in them and I'll help you out as best I can.

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.

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by breitlings

Are you saying that types of vessels don't have right of way because of their type? For example sailboat under sail vs recreational powerboat? And warship isn't a type in this right of way rules.

Or just suggesting that just because it is a warship it doesn't mean it always has right of way?

Right of way only matters after the fact. I was sailing in San Diego bay a couple summers ago, not motoring but under full sail, when I noticed a powerboat (recreational) off my bow about 300 yards away and she was on a collision course with me at probably 10-12 knots. This idiot seemed oblivious to the rules and was making no attempt to change course to avoid me as we were closing on each other so I did what any good sailor would do in that situation. I came about to avoid a collision.

I always give wide berth to commercial vessels as I know they are very limited on maneuverability and I have sailed through the shipping lanes at night here in the waters off the coast of Southern California. Always keep a good watch for tankers and container ships as they are not lit very well at night.

How well are warships lit at night? I've never seen one in operation at night so I'm genuinely curious.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by SDRider

night? I've never seen one in operation at night so I'm genuinely curious.

In SandDog and you don't see warships lit up at night ; ) Answered your own question hahaha.

In all seriousness, sometimes they will light up, sometimes they are not to be training to not be easy to spot. Unsure what the common procedure is in this particular instance but I would suspect normal navigation lights

[breitlings]

Originally Posted by SDRider

Right of way only matters after the fact. I was sailing in San Diego bay a couple summers ago, not motoring but under full sail, when I noticed a powerboat (recreational) off my bow about 300 yards away and she was on a collision course with me at probably 10-12 knots. This idiot seemed oblivious to the rules and was making no attempt to change course to avoid me as we were closing on each other so I did what any good sailor would do in that situation. I came about to avoid a collision.

I always give wide berth to commercial vessels as I know they are very limited on maneuverability and I have sailed through the shipping lanes at night here in the waters off the coast of Southern California. Always keep a good watch for tankers and container ships as they are not lit very well at night.

How well are warships lit at night? I've never seen one in operation at night so I'm genuinely curious.

i completely agree. i understand it as " here are the rules but every boat has an obligation to avoid a collision" and most of recreational boating is staying away from other boats. in sailboat racing the tacks and right of way is important.

[MonBK]

The National Enquirer just released a picture of the navigator.

I guess it's better then to have Paul at the helm?

[SDRider]

Originally Posted by breitlings

i completely agree. i understand it as " here are the rules but every boat has an obligation to avoid a collision" and most of recreational boating is staying away from other boats. in sailboat racing the tacks and right of way is important.

I used to race sailboats.

[lapince]

Euh.... don't these types of ships have ultra developped radars and sonars to avoid collisions? And I mean a tanker isn't the smallest ship in the pond was everybody drunk or sleeping?

[lapince]

https://youtu.be/_VHXRYXzEVU

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