US navy destroyer, merchant ship collide

[kham]

gCaptain Actual Weighs In

I could have wrote this. But I way less diplomatic

[kham]

COLREGs – Give Way or Stand On

Some stuff to consider. And it is valid. One thing that complicates all situations is multiple contacts. But, that's why you sim that in training. But again, gCaptains commentary is valid. The level of skill is directly proportional to experience, and time on the bridge. And frankly, its the difference between professional mariners and everyone else

[kham]

U.S. Likely to Bar Japan Investigators from Interviewing Fitzgerald Crew, Official Says

Well
That's not good
And it won't matter what protocol-bullshit handwavium they come out with. Denying access to investigators , is a tell. The automatic assumption I make, and ANY other investigation makes, is they have something to hide. And I'm betting they do. The bad stuff. Like the Gross Incompetence kinda stuff. At this stage? Prove ME WRONG

[Mynock]

I just don't get how two ships with modern radar/communications could get this close to each other without anyone from either ship going "Oh shit we better turn". Wouldn't a Navy Destroyer at least have actual people keeping lookout? Or don't they do that anymore? Shouldn't there have been some like loud blaring alarms going off if they even come within 100 yards of each other?

[kham]

Yes, Yes, and No. Driving a ship is not autonomous, yet, no matter how hard the fucking pixie sailors pretend its going to be...
Yes, there is millions of dollars in technology, and gCaptain is writing fairly extensively about that. But , someone has to be in charge. And what is apparent here, is NO ONE was on either ship. No one took action, except until In Extremis, and in at least one case, The WRONG fucking action. Sorry Navy. Trying to full ahead and dodge IN FRONT of the other ship is not in any fucking book. And trying to lie to my face about how that was all you could do, is just a fucking LIE, and demonstrates complete ignorance of the Rules, and shiphandling. At least the container boat went full astern. There 2 tells now; THIS, and the refusal of the Navy to produce the AIS/ECDIS track of the Fitz. That alone, would answer about 90% of the questions being asked. And, statements from the OOD and OOW would fill in the blanks. Refusing to do so , tells me, they fucked up so bad its going to need a new descriptor
Fun fun

[kham]

An additional point to compare, is the release the other day of some more stuff on that 777 that splattered on the seawall at SFO last year. Mostly technical, but one thing that the assholes that said, need beaten to fucking death with an axe, is they COMPLAINED that the autopilot didn't solve all the problems. You get that? They asshurt that the fucking COMPUTER didn't fix a basic fucking FAILURE in piloting, a fucking rookie gets taught in the first week of flying school. You don't have pilots. You have fuckwits who look good in a suit, and press buttons. Jesus christ

[Mynock]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... destroyer/

Watkins said the fact that the merchant ship hit something and did not radio the coast guard for almost 30 minutes also indicates no one was on the bridge at the time of the collision.

That is some crazy shit.......

[kham]

Don't believe everything you hear - or read; there is substantial hard evidence the container boat reversed course after the collision and was trying render assistance to the Fitz; plus, the 7 missing guys, no one actually said - or knew - or BOTH, they were in a crushed, flooded compartment. The possibility they were in the drink, had to be considered.

[Mynock]

I really hope you're right, because the idea that somebody would actually set the autopilot on something that big and just go take a shit or a nap is nuts.

[kham]

If it was open ocean, that happens a lot more than companies admit. Plus, they sanction it, since, who need someone on watch in the middle of the night? All those hours for nothing? I mean, when have mishaps and accidents EVER happened between 0000 and 0800!

The media is clueless. Autopilots generally hold a set course. With compensation able to correct for wind and current, and torque from screw. It's The ECDIS that can , if you have a smart enough gyropilot, that can follow a programmed track. Not new, at all. Did tests on the interface and PROVED that while it WORKS, it does not have the same skill as a trained wheelsman and mate. EG - it is a machine. It makes no allowances for DTG to waypoint, loaded / light condition, and environmental conditions. We have XTE under 0.1 nm; the machine generally does as passes from one side to the other, as its S-turns get smaller. But never stays on. It's just how they work.
And you certainly wouldn't let it do the job when coming close to port