On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:17:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/28/2017 11:00 AM, wrote:

It appears that the ACX was pretty far away from the destroyer and
passing in front was not an unreasonable maneuver.
Are you saying that if you see a vessel approaching from your
starboard side you will stop and wait, no matter how far away it is?
I think that the OD made the determination that if the freighter
maintained course and speed, he had plenty of time to be gone when the
freighter got there. As it was the freighter turned 90 degrees and it
took 10 minutes to hit the destroyer on the starboard side. That makes
it sound like he would have been a couple miles behind the destroyer
if he stayed on course. The open question is why the destroyer did not
detect the course change and take evasive maneuvers. I still have not
seen the movements of the destroyer or what it's base course was when
this all started.
My only thought about "arrogance" is these destroyer guys think they
are race car drivers and think freighter captains are truck drivers.


I am saying that according to the regs, it's up to the give way vessel
to do whatever is necessary to avoid a collision. If the freighter
changed course but was still to starboard of the destroyer, it was up to
the destroyer to take whatever action is necessary to avoid a collision,
regardless of how far away it is. Obviously, they didn't.

I am still curious what the destroyer was doing.
Also was the 90 degree torn to starboard a scheduled course change for
the freighter or an evasive maneuver.

The CO's career is over. The two things the Navy doesn't tolerate
regardless of who was at fault is groundings and collisions. The only
naval officer who grounded a ship but later was given command was
Chester Nimitz (as an ensign) in WWI. He was forgiven in WWII.

Indeed. This guy will be toast ... unless he is politically connected.
JFK should have been court marshaled in 43. He got a medal and a trip
to Washington.