On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:54:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 9:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and
crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."


NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone
wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar
high-tech ship:

Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its
bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the
location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the
speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times
keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only
what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the
next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail.

In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in
a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the
ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea —
when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later
found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around
them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost
focus on their own immediate course ahead.


Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship.
Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as
operators of computer consoles.


It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on
computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has
stood watches while underway.



Well, that certainly explains the infallibility of our naval ships.

I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.

Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite
On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."



I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction".

A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction".
- show quoted text -
....

Beats me, Rich. That's why I put the FWIW in my post...


The AIS shows a couple off course maneuvers shortly before the crash.
Maybe defective autopilot and nobody on bridge.

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 09:54:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 9:39 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 9:26 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and
crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."


NPR has a pretty decent early analysis of what might have gone
wrong...it includes this about a previous incident on a similar
high-tech ship:

Sailors in the Fitzgerald's combat information center and on its
bridge are responsible for using the ship's sensors to plot the
location of each one, as well as the directions they're headed and the
speed at which they're sailing. Officers and sailors must at all times
keep what the Navy calls good "situational awareness" about not only
what their own ship is doing, but about what might be ahead in the
next patch of ocean where the Fitzgerald wants to sail.

In 2012 a sibling of the Fitzgerald, the destroyer USS Porter, was in
a congested, high-traffic seaway called the Strait of Hormuz — the
ribbon of water that connects the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea —
when it collided with an oil tanker. The Navy's investigation later
found that as sailors tried to keep track of the traffic all around
them, including those ships headed the other direction, they lost
focus on their own immediate course ahead.


Ergo, the high technology doesn't always promote good seamanship.
Training as careful sailors may be more important than training as
operators of computer consoles.


It will probably please you to know that Navy ships do not rely only on
computer consoles for situational awareness. Ask any sailor who has
stood watches while underway.



Well, that certainly explains the infallibility of our naval ships.

I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 16:41:05 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite
On 6/19/2017 9:20 AM, Tim wrote:
FWIW, I picked this up from a French gentleman in FB.

"In France whe have more informations ...
It's a japanese container carrier boat but With a Philippine flag and crew.
And this boat at the Last moment abruptly changed his direction ...
Investigation is underway With this crew..."



I wonder what they mean by "abruptly changed direction".

A ship like that, loaded as it was, can't "abruptly change direction".
- show quoted text -
....

Beats me, Rich. That's why I put the FWIW in my post...


The AIS shows a couple off course maneuvers shortly before the crash.
Maybe defective autopilot and nobody on bridge.

It is still unclear exactly when the crash happened. The first erratic
turn was to starboard. The question is which way was the Fitz going
and when did that turn occur. I am sure everything that happened on
both bridges was recorded. The freighter had AIS so it was pretty
modern. The Navy logs everything. The question is what that reveals.
I imagine this will be a battle of the lawyers long before anything
gets released. Unfortunately the mere fact that the destroyer was hit
on the starboard side makes it pretty hard to say they are not at
fault to some extent.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:


I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have
really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience
on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage
of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the
services.

On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:


I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have
really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience
on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage
of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the
services.


Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation
simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I
got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators.

On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:


I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have
really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience
on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage
of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the
services.


Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation
simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I
got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators.

The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the
Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't
making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have
the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they
screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:


I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have
really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience
on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage
of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the
services.


Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation
simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I
got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators.

The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the
Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't
making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have
the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they
screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



So if the officer is texting and the helmsman sees an imminent collision,
he just ignores it because he has no permission to change course, eh?

--
Posted with my iPhone 7+.

On 6/19/2017 2:57 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:


I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have
really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience
on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage
of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the
services.


Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation
simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I
got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators.

The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the
Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't
making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have
the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they
screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



So if the officer is texting and the helmsman sees an imminent collision,
he just ignores it because he has no permission to change course, eh?


Funny.

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:57:37 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/19/2017 2:20 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/19/17 1:09 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:00:00 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/19/17 12:05 PM, wrote:


I am still waiting for more information before I start jumping to
conclusions.
I have seen the track of the freighter but I have not seen that laid
down over the track of the destroyer. There is a lot of chatter out
there but not much that has been confirmed.

As for the ship itself, WWII pretty much proved big heavily armored
"battleships" were just bigger targets. They were really only useful
for shore bombardment. Light and fast is better than slow and tough
because armor seldom actually stood up to a large naval rifle in the
first place. Most naval museums seem to show a piece of armor over a
foot thick with a bullet hole in it. These days the hole is likely to
be through the deck anyway, even from a missile.


Well, I'm betting on lack of knowledge of what happens or can happen at
sea, too much dependence on computer monitors, and not enough time on
ship operations simulators, assuming the navy uses them.

There may be too much dependence on technology but unless things have
really changed there was no shortage of drills and actual experience
on a ship. I doubt there are any simulators. There may be a shortage
of experienced sailors tho as turnover is a big problem in all of the
services.


Hmm. The U.S. maritime trades unions have big time ships operation
simulators for training. So do some European nations. Some years ago, I
got to "drive" (and crash) a tanker on one of the union simulators.

The helmsman on a Navy ship follows the orders of the Officer of the
Deck or the Captain if he/she is on the bridge. The helmsman isn't
making unilateral decisions. Line officers who are qualified to "have
the con" are well trained and versed in navigation rules ... unless they
screw up and make the wrong decision or don't make a timely decision.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



So if the officer is texting and the helmsman sees an imminent collision,
he just ignores it because he has no permission to change course, eh?

Most of the time war ships are operating pretty far away from the
regular shipping lanes but when you are close aboard another vessel
(we are still talking miles away) you will have an officer on the
bridge and there is usually a senior noncom there too, who usually has
a lot more bridge time than the OD.
At least that is the way it worked in the puddle pirate navy,
I wouldn't count on the helmsman actually seeing a collision happening
in time to do much about it anyway, particularly if you are getting T
boned from 090. That is what Radar and lookouts are for.

As an aside, I would not be surprised if there are simulators for
aircraft carriers but these smaller ships are pretty nimble and the CO
usually prides himself in being able to wave off the tugs and dock
them without help.