Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
saychz316

USS Fitzgerald

Recommended Posts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better reading than this old newspaper!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few million dollars in technology and hundreds of sailors didnt prevent a WAR ship from potential attack or accident, but i bet an iphone would of.....scary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike dee said:

A few million dollars in technology and hundreds of sailors didnt prevent a WAR ship from potential attack or accident, but i bet an iphone would of.....scary

Oddly...the military...and government as a whole aren't "allowed" to buy simple off the shelf equipment.  Everything has to go through testing, contract bidding, and other channels....wasting millions...billions of taxpayer dollars...so that the process is deemed..."fair".

You have no idea how much this grates at my soul.  So glad I'm retired and don't have to be part of this crap anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like they use the FAA model.  The same model that makes modern homebuilt aircraft more technologically advanced and affordable than certified aircraft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Commercial off-the-shelf or commercially available off-the-shelf[1] (COTS) is a term used to describe the purchase of packaged solutions which are then adapted to satisfy the needs of the purchasing organization, rather than the commissioning of custom made, or bespoke, solutions. A related term, Mil-COTS, refers to COTS products for use by the U.S. military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an article from USNI that talks about changes that need to be made to surface ship navigation. 

 

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/21/three-changes-the-navy-can-make-to-improve-safe-navigation

 

Quote

Recent mishaps at sea have demonstrated there is considerable room for improvement on the bridges of U.S. Navy warships. While changes are needed and will help improve safety at sea, there is nothing that will keep a ship safe if the officer of the deck, the captain, or the rest of the watch team fail to comply with the “Rules of the Road” or ignore the ordinary practice of seamanship. However, ensuring the bridge team has the best tools, skills, and knowledge at their disposal will help prevent collisions at sea. I suggest three changes.

First, Navy ships should consider transmitting automatic identification system (AIS) data every time enter and leave congested waterways when threat conditions allow. In most busy waterways, warships are the only large vessels not transmitting AIS data. This, combined with the low radar cross-section of many of Navy ships, can cause confusion on the bridges of commercial ships—especially on ships where the officers do not routinely interact with warships. Transmitting AIS would provide an additional safety measure to ensure they are aware of our position, course, and speed. This obviously would give our positions to our adversaries, but a blanket practice of not transmitting should give way to a practice of transmitting based on the threat and safety of navigation. During times of increased tensions or when intelligence suggests a threat, AIS transmissions should be turned off. This change could be implemented nearly immediately with additional guidance from fleet commanders and local operating procedures.

Second, the commanding officer, executive offier, and all officers and chiefs standing bridge watch should be required to complete an automatic radar plotting aid (ARPA) course instead of merely the job qualification requirement or performance qualification system associated with the system aboard their ship. In the commercial world, deck watch officers complete a similar course in accordance with the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention. While the Navy does have a formal qualification process for bridge watchstanders to familiarize them with the operations of their radar sets and ARPAs, such as the SPS-73, knowledge of these systems could benefit from increased training. I believe that many of our bridge watchstanders are not fully familiar with their ARPA and its capabilities—capabilities designed to increase situational awareness which would help prevent collisions. The combined time and cost of a radar observer and ARPA course taken at a commercial training center in the Hampton Roads area is about nine days and $1,800. The time invested on a Navy ship on training towards the SPS-73 certainly does not equal 70 hours of training. The Navy should work with local maritime schools in fleet concentration areas to start ARPA training for deploying ships’ officers or officers transferring to forward deployed ships within the next few months. The long-term goal would be to incorporate ARPA training as part of division officer, department head, and commanding officer pipelines. This training should be U.S. Coast Guard approved which will satisfy STCW requirements. In doing so, we will develop an in-depth level of knowledge on these systems and will greatly improve our watchstanding.

Third, we should ensure that bridge displays are integrated on all ships. Most commissioned ships have an electronic chart information display system (ECIDS), radar, and AIS graphic display. However, on some ships these three data sets are not integrated into a single display. The technology to overlay this data is available and would make the picture on the bridge easier to view by the officer of the deck (OOD) and CO. Allowing an OOD to view that an AIS track is in a traffic separation scheme and that a ship on AIS matches a radar contact with certainty would allow for better watchstanding. Requiring the OOD to look on multiple screens and then correlate the picture in their mind may lead to mistakes. Furthermore, it can lead to misunderstandings within the watch team. We should begin the process to update our bridge displays to ensure the systems are integrated and provide a clearer picture to the bridge team.

None of these suggestions will entirely eliminate the threat of collisions at sea. However, for a relatively small investment, we can enhance our bridge resource management, watchstander situational awareness, make our operations safer, and improve our readiness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having US Navy ships transmit AIS is not the answer for many reasons.

AND...Navy uses AIS in more ways we can discuss here.  

Again...this isn't an equipment issue.  This is a personnel issue.  Some of the findings coming out already show that the merchant hailed the FITZ and it's calls and warnings were ignored.

I cannot stress enough...this is human factor centric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mac said:

Having US Navy ships transmit AIS is not the answer for many reasons.

AND...Navy uses AIS in more ways we can discuss here.  

Again...this isn't an equipment issue.  This is a personnel issue.  Some of the findings coming out already show that the merchant hailed the FITZ and it's calls and warnings were ignored.

I cannot stress enough...this is human factor centric.

I read the container ship was on autopilot and nobody was on the bridge? WTF story is true? Either way somebody effed up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2017 at 8:50 AM, JDMeister said:

 

emmeffer looked drunk... excursion @ 1:06, uturn at 1:50 then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from Reuters.

Quote

Container ship tried to warn U.S. vessel Fitzgerald by light signals 

[Tokyo, June 26, Reuters] The content of a report submitted by the captain of the container ship that collided with an Aegis class destroyer of the U.S. Navy off the Izu peninsula to the owners of the container ship has come to light. The container ship spotted the Aegis vessel on its port side and tried to attract its attention by means of flashing a light, but the U.S. ship maintained its course. The container vessel then tried to turn to the right to avoid a collision, but there was not enough time. 

According to the report, the Philippine-flagged container ship ACX Crystal was heading towards Tokyo Bay at a speed of 18 knots (about 33 km/h). At 01:15 a.m. on June 17, two lookouts spotted the Aegis class vessel Fitzgerald at 40 degrees off the port side at a distance of 3 nm (about 5.6 km). 

About 5 minutes later, the Aegis vessel "suddenly" moved [from the Japanese it is not clear whether this was a move from a stationary condition or a change in movement, i.e. a course change]. Because a collision seemed likely on this course, the container ship, while manually steering, tried to attract the attention of the other ship by flashing a light. However, the American vessel seemed to maintain its course. The container ship therefore turned the rudder hard to starboard, but at 01:30 a.m. the two ships collided. 

In this collision, seven members of the crew of the Aegis vessel lost their lives, making it the worst tragedy for a U.S. navy vessel since the bomb attack on an Aegis class vessel in Yemen in 2000. The captain of the Fitzgerald was wounded in his own quarters, which suggests the possibility that no warning was sounded prior to the collision. 

The owners of the ACX Crystal, Dainichi-Invest Corporation (based in Kobe, Hyogo Pref.) declined to respond to inquiries by Reuters, saying that they could not provide any comment in relation to an ongoing investigation. The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Japan Coast Guard which are investigating the accident also declined to comment.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Orange_R said:

emmeffer looked drunk... excursion @ 1:06, uturn at 1:50 then?

According to articles I've read: sharp turn was apparently to avoid.  The U-turn was to return to the scene.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 7 are dead because the might US Navy warship could not get out of the way of the biggest POS container ship headed right towards them for a long period of time.  

Sounds like Manslaughter charges should brought towards those on the bridge or at least 5 yrs of wet sanding the repairs of the ship!!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wash 10 Crew said:

So 7 are dead because the might US Navy warship could not get out of the way of the biggest POS container ship headed right towards them for a long period of time.  

Sounds like Manslaughter charges should brought towards those on the bridge or at least 5 yrs of wet sanding the repairs of the ship!!!!!

 

We may never know the "real" cause.

I did both Afloat safety and aviation safety.  The Navy says you have 30 days to complete the investigation.  You can request waivers for more time.  Aviation knows there is no getting out of an investigation and has a culture to find the cause and share it...even if it's solely human factors.  The surface Navy...not so much.  The will put it off...hide the facts...play dumb.  They simply don't have the culture of self reporting.  They play "I have a secret" over everything...It's freaking annoying and yeah...downright unprofessional....but they will defend that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Navy,

This is R A D A R, use it, I paid for some of it!!!!!

 

radar_edit.gif.4ffb631bba267f31edf5a895ba2ed5c5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it happened again.

Dafuq is going on? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, saychz316 said:

So it happened again.

Dafuq is going on? 

No discipline. Back in the day You would have been shot for sleeping on the watch.  Now not so much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastcorvairs said:

No discipline. Back in the day You would have been shot for sleeping on the watch.  Now not so much.  

#NewNavy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I point back to my original post #2.

The Navy came out with the "findings" for the Fitzgerald...pretty much what I thought.  I'd really like to see the Safety investigation and the JAGMAN.  
(JAGMAN finds blame and can have criminal consequences, the Safety Investigation finds causal factors and can't be used in the JAGMAN or for criminal proceedings.  Because of that, more people come forward and talk on a Safety Investigation...you find some pretty damning stuff.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If were to allow 7 people to die on my watch, I would be in prison.  

These guys just get reassigned...............

I dont see the Russian Navy crashing into things???????

 

Just wrote a letter to my congressman to speak up, piss off a couple full bird generals and ask how can this happen and no one is responsible.  

If I were to fly in this same manner as the navel personnel operate the fastest, more technological advanced warships in the world and life was lost, I would be prostituted to the full extent of the law!!

Sorry, carry on

Edited by Wash 10 Crew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Findings from the Fitz:

https://news.usni.org/2017/08/17/document-investigation-deaths-7-sailors-aboard-uss-fitzgerald

 

2 hours ago, Wash 10 Crew said:

If were to allow 7 people to die on my watch, I would be in prison.  

These guys just get reassigned...............

I dont see the Russian Navy crashing into things???????

Russian Navy has a small percentage of the ships out compared to the USN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I would like to believe that their ships are antiquated and ours are able to run circles around any other ship.

come on, the Sea Shepard full of pot heads could find and follow other ships!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Wash 10 Crew said:

If were to allow 7 people to die on my watch, I would be in prison.  

These guys just get reassigned...............

I dont see the Russian Navy crashing into things???????

 

Just wrote a letter to my congressman to speak up, piss off a couple full bird generals and ask how can this happen and no one is responsible.  

If I were to fly in this same manner as the navel personnel operate the fastest, more technological advanced warships in the world and life was lost, I would be prostituted to the full extent of the law!!

Sorry, carry on

WTF is a full bird General? :lmao: BTW, if they prostituted you for breaking the law, color me a hooker ;) 

Edited by Orange_R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Preview Post
Sign in to follow this  

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×
×
  • Create New...