Guys that I know who have helped build them say they: "Have the most advanced radar systems in the fleet".
Well, if all that's true............
Then how DOES THIS HAPPEN ? ? ? (click for link)
I just don't get it...
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
Old No7
Thanks for the perspective, pig hunter. I guess I was lucky never to have served on a ship run by a "head case". So this old Navy guy was right in there with No.7 thinking "How the H does that happen???"new pig hunter wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:41 pm Stupid, but I saw it, and such was not only on my ship, my classmates on other ships told many similar stories.
...... SO, Reason #1: the CO is a head case.
Yep. Physics in action (and helm inaction). Don't listen to your electronics and don't steer to evade the bigger, less maneuverable vessel. Inevitable.new pig hunter wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:57 pm I'm enjoying this post .... Here's the scenario that my practiced eye sees in the two pictures below:
..... note that the damage is to the starboard (right) side of the Navy ship, and the port (left) side of the merchant. What I am seeing in my mind is the classic Crossing scenario. ...
NOW, was I standing there watching this happen ?? Of course not. Do I have the experience to make the call on this one ?? You betcha. And what I see is a classic example of "failure to yield the right of way."
........ Heck, maybe that Navy bridge watch team had set the autopilot and were lighting the candles on a birthday cake & serving-up the ice cream and nobody was paying any attention to anything external ...... and had the bitch box volume turned way down so they couldn't hear CIC yelling about the heart-stopping Constant Bearing Decreasing Range (CBDR) situation ......
So I am definitely in the camp of "how in the H did this happen ??" The scenario is so straightforward and textbook ...... and it happened just like the textbook said it would. I can't wait to find out what the court of inquiry has to say ......
Good point. I was negligent by not including that sentiment in my original posting; please forgive me.
Maybe the Navy captain was trying to cross the container ships "T". Not really needed to day, but once it was the ultimate ship to ship combat maneuver.new pig hunter wrote: ↑Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:40 pm an excerpt from the New York Times ....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/worl ... .html?_r=0
Sean P. Tortora, a veteran merchant marine captain and consultant who said he had sailed through the area of the collision many times, said that evidence suggested the Fitzgerald was at fault.
Captain Tortora described the collision as a “T-bone” in which the bow of the Crystal hit the starboard side of the Fitzgerald. “From what I’ve seen, the Fitzgerald should have given way and passed to the stern of the container ship,” he said.
He added that a common cause of collisions, at sea or on the simulators used for training, is a misjudgment of distance and speed on the part of a captain trying to cross in front of another vessel. “They think they can make it and they make a run for it,” Captain Tortora said.
I caught a glimpse of a story that the seven that could not be found were behind waterproof doors that were locked on purpose to save the ship? I have no idea about this statement whatsoever, but I did see it in print. If so I imagine it's not the first time that's happened.
This ↑↑↑.Ray wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:53 pm After the fire party on-scene leader sets a watch over a secured door, hatch, or scuttle due to fire or flood then it cannot be opened even for pleas for help from the other side....the door simply cannot be closed again against the flow of water or a wall of flame or the pressure from the heat of an intense fire.....often the volume of the next compartment or space in the progression of the flood would be large enough to compromise the structural integrity of the ship if flooded......