ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Destroyer USS Fitzgerald Collides with Philippine Merchant Ship; At Least 1 Sail  (Read 3965 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
leucat
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 2


View Profile
« on: June 17, 2017, 12:30:35 am »

https://news.usni.org/2017/06/16/destroyer-uss-fitzgerald-collides-japanese-merchant-ship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Cf4h8XBZeQ
« Last Edit: June 17, 2017, 12:44:10 am by leucat » Report to moderator   Logged
MSC Johnny 2
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 271


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2017, 06:53:49 pm »

https://felixstowedocker.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/update-us-navy-destroyer-collides-with.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Oldkayaker
Supporter
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2017, 09:52:02 pm »

Just based on the photos posted, it would appear that the USS Fitzgerald commanding officer may have some serious explaining to do Huh because of the damage to the starboard side of the Fitz and the port side damage to the merchant ship makes it appear that the Fitz may have violated the right-of-way navigation requirement.

BUT --

Much more information is needed and presumably a full investigation will answer the many serious questions that are yet to be answered.

Stay tuned.
Report to moderator   Logged
seaway7228
Not too shy to talk
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2017, 12:29:36 am »

Whilst premature to make any worthwhile comments, rather speculation,  it should also be considered that the container vessel may have been an overtaking vessel on a converging course. the damage on the stem cannot be seen entirely but the initial strike point coinciding with the destroyers weather deck appears from this photo to be more to the port side of the stem. (not sure what the bulbous bow is like but that would have opened up the destroyers hull to some extent. It is also a question as to whether the destroyer was seen or take seriously as a target (on the radar) and whether the destroyers design contributed to its own demise. An interesting point these days is that a moderate percentage of seafarers and I am talking deck watch keepers have no idea of the arc of visibility of a stern light. When asked they invariably say 180 degrees for all lights. In other words they simply have no idea. Just conjecture. nothing more!
Report to moderator   Logged
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2017, 01:04:21 am »

Container vessel's AIS track prior to collision is VERY weird. So I guess there will be some explaining to do by both captains...
Report to moderator   Logged
António Camilo
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 246


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2017, 02:18:22 pm »

What damage?

Whilst premature to make any worthwhile comments, rather speculation,  it should also be considered that the container vessel may have been an overtaking vessel on a converging course. the damage on the stem cannot be seen entirely but the initial strike point coinciding with the destroyers weather deck appears from this photo to be more to the port side of the stem. (not sure what the bulbous bow is like but that would have opened up the destroyers hull to some extent. It is also a question as to whether the destroyer was seen or take seriously as a target (on the radar) and whether the destroyers design contributed to its own demise. An interesting point these days is that a moderate percentage of seafarers and I am talking deck watch keepers have no idea of the arc of visibility of a stern light. When asked they invariably say 180 degrees for all lights. In other words they simply have no idea. Just conjecture. nothing more!
Report to moderator   Logged
seaway7228
Not too shy to talk
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2017, 04:01:57 pm »

Ummh, the tear in the hull plating running aft from the stem, roughly located over the bulbous bow warning mark and in line with the lower lever of the hawse pipe opening on the port side of the container vessel. Stretches almost as far aft as the draft marks located on the perpendicular.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,954



View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2017, 08:14:19 pm »

I would not wonder when the watch of the Navy ship thought that the container ship is over taking her and
the container ship crew thought it was a crossing.
As the upper rail of the forecastle is bend almost entirely inwards and not like in a head-on or steeper angle
collision backwards it seems that the container ship possible hit the navy ship in a rough angle where the
stern light section stops and the sidelight section starts (22.5 degree abaft of abeam) if not even more from the stern section. The classical area of disagreement between vessels if the one is really a "crosser" or "over-taker".
Nowadays construction of navy ships, possible none detection measures by radar, wasn,t helpful most probably either and could be cause for the container ship not to have the navy ship always in the radar and thinking it was a false echo.
A lot Navy and Coast Guard ships running in the night without lights, combined that with bad radar target and no light could have make the container ship crew believe that there really is nothing until it was too late.

Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,710



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2017, 07:20:34 pm »

Much comment made in the press of ACX CRYSTAL's AIS track, drawing on MarineTraffic plot, published by BBC http://tinyurl.com/y8jbbu88.  Of course, there is no publicly-available plot for USS FITZGERALD, and the MarineTraffic screen shot lacks timings, speeds etc and is unavailable to me now - anyone have one?

On the face of it, a sharp stbd turn (perhaps when the warship's collision course was first realised), followed by a return to the scene for S&R until released after Japanese assistance arrived.
Report to moderator   Logged
Tomislav Raymondi
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,141


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2017, 10:45:09 pm »

As per:

http://gcaptain.com/investigators-seek-answers-into-containerships-collision-with-uss-fitzgerald/

Regards

Tomi.
Report to moderator   Logged
lappino
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2017, 12:45:42 am »


...

On the face of it, a sharp stbd turn (perhaps when the warship's collision course was first realised), followed by a return to the scene for S&R until released after Japanese assistance arrived.

That was what I thought, too, until I was told to check the actual time.

Then it became weird.

Note that the first dash to the right was about 1 hour BEFORE the collision, followed by the full 180 degree turn, and returning to the position where the actual collision happened later, around 1730 UTC.

Edit: now I see that it's possible that times are not correct - but first, both sides need to get their story straight. Container vessel's company first reported that the collision occurred around 1.30 LT (16.30 UCT), consistent with first sudden change in course; however, USN first reported that the collision was almost an hour later. This will be interesting to follow.

« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 01:46:10 am by lappino » Report to moderator   Logged
holedrille
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 118


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2017, 07:16:50 am »

Sounds to me that one of them had their time zone clocks different to the other.
Also I cannot see that the navy ship was an invisible radar target. From the pictures it is by no means a stealth design.
Holedriller
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,710



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2017, 02:49:02 pm »

Quote
Container vessel's company first reported that the collision occurred around 1.30 LT (16.30 UCT), consistent with first sudden change in course; however, USN first reported that the collision was almost an hour later
Japanese authorities now confirm that 0130 is correct (leaving the Philippine ship's captain to try to explain why they delayed reporting the collision for an hour - not that the Amerian ship reported the collision to the Japanese authorities either)
The slight change of course to port shortly before the collision may be more relevant.

Until the speed and track of the warship become available (if they ever do), we probably won't learn much more.
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,710



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2017, 01:10:38 am »

Some good insight in this blog, IMHO:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/internet-of-ships-tells-tale-of-uss-fitzgerald-tragedy-or-half-of-it/
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.063 seconds with 20 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved