On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:03:46 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 12:01:06 UTC-3, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 06:57:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/27/2017 11:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:27:51 -0400, wrote:

I am hearing that the destroyer was passing in front of the freighter.
The Fitz was the give way vessel and the freighter was the stand on
vessel. The ACX was supposed to maintain course and speed. The story
is it turned right full rudder, and that is what put them on a
collision course. They hit 10 minutes later. If the ACX maintains
course and speed, it passes astern of the destroyer.
ACX was trying to help but following the rules of the road is what
they were supposed to be doing

===

For the "give way" vessel to attempt passing in front strikes me as
being very questionable. It fails to comprehend the various Murphy's
Law possibilities and of course that's exactly what happened. At the
very least the destroyer should have communicated and negotiated their
intentions well in advance of the actual crossing situation to prevent
any possible confusion. We hear commercial ships negotiate meeting
and crossing situations all the time on VHF radio. We've even
participated in a few ourselves where there was ambiguity. I'm always
impressed by the high degree of professionalism that we've encountered
even though much smaller than the big guys.


I don't follow Greg's assertion that the freighter, as the stand on
vessel, would pass astern of the destroyer. The destroyer in this
situation should have passed astern of the freighter. As the "give way"
vessel, it was up to the destroyer to either slow down, stop, turn to
starboard (to pass astern of the freighter) or take whatever evasive
action required to avoid a collision. IMO, the destroyer was at fault
here.

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.


In one of our boating classes we talkes about a reliable way to judge whether a boat approaching would be directly in your path or if it wouls pass ahead or astern of you.
You line up something on your boat with the other vessel. If he stays in this line of sight, you will collide, if he moves ahead of the point...he'll pass across your bow and if he falls behind the reference point...he'll pass behind you.
This all assumes you keep the same speed and course.

That is summarized by "constant relative bearing and decreasing
range". That is why the destroyer has the lions share of the blame.
They are supposed to be tracking "targets" with far more sophisticated
equipment than a freighter. Unfortunately CIC may have known they were
on a collision course sooner than the bridge.
I also understand the RADAR signature of a modern destroyer is smaller
than a freighter.
I already said, the destroyer should have seen the course change of
the freighter, even if it was unexpected, and adjusted their course.

BTW if the course change put the freighter more than 135% abaft the
beam, they became the burdened vessel. I suppose it depends on how
fast the destroyer was moving. The ACX cruises at around 23 kts
(26MPH) according to their wiki.

On 6/28/2017 11:00 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 06:57:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/27/2017 11:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 13:27:51 -0400, wrote:

I am hearing that the destroyer was passing in front of the freighter.
The Fitz was the give way vessel and the freighter was the stand on
vessel. The ACX was supposed to maintain course and speed. The story
is it turned right full rudder, and that is what put them on a
collision course. They hit 10 minutes later. If the ACX maintains
course and speed, it passes astern of the destroyer.
ACX was trying to help but following the rules of the road is what
they were supposed to be doing

===

For the "give way" vessel to attempt passing in front strikes me as
being very questionable. It fails to comprehend the various Murphy's
Law possibilities and of course that's exactly what happened. At the
very least the destroyer should have communicated and negotiated their
intentions well in advance of the actual crossing situation to prevent
any possible confusion. We hear commercial ships negotiate meeting
and crossing situations all the time on VHF radio. We've even
participated in a few ourselves where there was ambiguity. I'm always
impressed by the high degree of professionalism that we've encountered
even though much smaller than the big guys.


I don't follow Greg's assertion that the freighter, as the stand on
vessel, would pass astern of the destroyer. The destroyer in this
situation should have passed astern of the freighter. As the "give way"
vessel, it was up to the destroyer to either slow down, stop, turn to
starboard (to pass astern of the freighter) or take whatever evasive
action required to avoid a collision. IMO, the destroyer was at fault
here.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

===

The wording of the COLREGS is interesting. Actually it is the
responsibility of both vessels to avoid a collision. That's why the
final report usually assigns some blame to each, with the burdened
vessel getting the lions share.

Other interesting factoids: The destroyer was almost certainly not
broadcasting an AIS position, at least not on civillian frequencies.
That's why we are seeing tracks of the freighter's course but not the
destroyer's. There is a world wide network of AIS receiving stations
that forward their position plots to central servers. One of the best
known is www.marinetraffic.com. Our own experience on the water with
military/USCG/Law Enforcement indicates that they rarely broadcast
their AIS position. That may have contributed to the confusion (if
any) of the freighter. It might have also have been a factor on the
destroyer if the navy doesn't train with AIS plotting and
interpretation. Relying on RADAR only does not tell the whole story.
We've found AIS to be invaluable when sorting out complex situations,
especially at night.

Another interesting bit with regard to observing constant bearings as
an indicator of a collision course: With large vessels it is
important to take bearings on both the bow and stern of the
approaching vessel. We have seen situations (with large ships), where
we have a changing bearing with the bow but a constant bearing
somewhere aft (or vice versa). That's just how the geometry works at
close quarters and larger scale.

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.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:04:54 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

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

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.

===

The wording of the COLREGS is interesting. Actually it is the
responsibility of both vessels to avoid a collision. That's why the
final report usually assigns some blame to each, with the burdened
vessel getting the lions share.

Other interesting factoids: The destroyer was almost certainly not
broadcasting an AIS position, at least not on civillian frequencies.
That's why we are seeing tracks of the freighter's course but not the
destroyer's. There is a world wide network of AIS receiving stations
that forward their position plots to central servers. One of the best
known is www.marinetraffic.com. Our own experience on the water with
military/USCG/Law Enforcement indicates that they rarely broadcast
their AIS position. That may have contributed to the confusion (if
any) of the freighter. It might have also have been a factor on the
destroyer if the navy doesn't train with AIS plotting and
interpretation. Relying on RADAR only does not tell the whole story.
We've found AIS to be invaluable when sorting out complex situations,
especially at night.

Another interesting bit with regard to observing constant bearings as
an indicator of a collision course: With large vessels it is
important to take bearings on both the bow and stern of the
approaching vessel. We have seen situations (with large ships), where
we have a changing bearing with the bow but a constant bearing
somewhere aft (or vice versa). That's just how the geometry works at
close quarters and larger scale.

These destroyers have fire control systems on board that will compute
all sorts of things about course and speed of the target but at 0130
they may not have been doing that up in CIC. Even in the puddle pirate
Navy we did plots on every target we saw but where we were most of the
time, they were few and far between. It was an event to track a
target.
I don't know what it is like in coastal Japan in 2017 but our rule of
thumb in 1965 with the electronics we had on board was anything at sea
within 10 miles was considered a collision risk until we were sure we
would miss it ... by 10 miles if possible.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:25:15 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:04:54 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

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

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.

===

The wording of the COLREGS is interesting. Actually it is the
responsibility of both vessels to avoid a collision. That's why the
final report usually assigns some blame to each, with the burdened
vessel getting the lions share.

Other interesting factoids: The destroyer was almost certainly not
broadcasting an AIS position, at least not on civillian frequencies.
That's why we are seeing tracks of the freighter's course but not the
destroyer's. There is a world wide network of AIS receiving stations
that forward their position plots to central servers. One of the best
known is www.marinetraffic.com. Our own experience on the water with
military/USCG/Law Enforcement indicates that they rarely broadcast
their AIS position. That may have contributed to the confusion (if
any) of the freighter. It might have also have been a factor on the
destroyer if the navy doesn't train with AIS plotting and
interpretation. Relying on RADAR only does not tell the whole story.
We've found AIS to be invaluable when sorting out complex situations,
especially at night.

Another interesting bit with regard to observing constant bearings as
an indicator of a collision course: With large vessels it is
important to take bearings on both the bow and stern of the
approaching vessel. We have seen situations (with large ships), where
we have a changing bearing with the bow but a constant bearing
somewhere aft (or vice versa). That's just how the geometry works at
close quarters and larger scale.

These destroyers have fire control systems on board that will compute
all sorts of things about course and speed of the target but at 0130
they may not have been doing that up in CIC. Even in the puddle pirate
Navy we did plots on every target we saw but where we were most of the
time, they were few and far between. It was an event to track a
target.
I don't know what it is like in coastal Japan in 2017 but our rule of
thumb in 1965 with the electronics we had on board was anything at sea
within 10 miles was considered a collision risk until we were sure we
would miss it ... by 10 miles if possible.

===

We do pretty much the same thing on our boat. Big stuff starts
showing up on the radar at about 15 miles and we track it
electronically until it is clearly not a threat. It's not alwways
possible to keep 10 miles away but anything less than 4 or 5 is a real
concern and gets my full attention.

Most of our thorniest issues occur at night when we are running along
the coast 4 or 5 miles out. Some of the ones that stick in my mind
are the places offshore of busy ports like Norfolk, Savannah,
Charleston and Georgetown. Outgoing freighters sometimes get obscured
by the clutter of channel buoys and shore lights, even on radar.
Cruise ships are deceptive because they are so large and so brightly
lit that they feel like they are much closer than actually. AIS has
helped a lot in recent years however. One of the nice things about
AIS is having the vessels name if you need to call them on the radio
for clarification.

On Thu, 29 Jun 2017 00:08:06 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:


We do pretty much the same thing on our boat. Big stuff starts
showing up on the radar at about 15 miles and we track it
electronically until it is clearly not a threat. It's not alwways
possible to keep 10 miles away but anything less than 4 or 5 is a real
concern and gets my full attention.

Most of our thorniest issues occur at night when we are running along
the coast 4 or 5 miles out. Some of the ones that stick in my mind
are the places offshore of busy ports like Norfolk, Savannah,
Charleston and Georgetown. Outgoing freighters sometimes get obscured
by the clutter of channel buoys and shore lights, even on radar.
Cruise ships are deceptive because they are so large and so brightly
lit that they feel like they are much closer than actually. AIS has
helped a lot in recent years however. One of the nice things about
AIS is having the vessels name if you need to call them on the radio
for clarification.

Going out of Norfolk we had the "special sea detail" set until we were
well out to sea and pretty far away from anything. That is a lot of
eyeballs looking around and the captain was usually on the bridge,
even if he did not have the con.

Jun
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.
.....

I've heard the controversy on that. How a mosquito boat could be sliced into by a Japanese man o war.

If the captain and hands had paid attention they easily could have tanked theNippon
..

On 6/29/2017 9:05 AM, Tim wrote:

Jun
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.
....

I've heard the controversy on that. How a mosquito boat could be sliced into by a Japanese man o war.

If the captain and hands had paid attention they easily could have tanked theNippon
.



I don't know about that Tim. Reading the accounts, Kennedy's boat
(PT-109) was not equipped with radar. Although some PT boats were being
equipped with radar, his was not.

The collision occurred at 2am on a moonless night. Pitch black and
lights out on both the PT boat and the destroyer. Kennedy was sitting
in the channel, idling on one of the three engines. By the time someone
noticed the Japanese destroyer heading at them at high speed, they had
10 seconds to fire up the other engines and get out of the way.

That's the "official" account anyway, based on survivor's testimonies.



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

8:53 AMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
I don't know about that Tim. Reading the accounts, Kennedy's boat
(PT-109) was not equipped with radar. Although some PT boats were being
equipped with radar, his was not.

The collision occurred at 2am on a moonless night. Pitch black and
lights out on both the PT boat and the destroyer. Kennedy was sitting
in the channel, idling on one of the three engines. By the time someone
noticed the Japanese destroyer heading at them at high speed, they had
10 seconds to fire up the other engines and get out of the way.

That's the "official" account anyway, based on survivor's testimonies.
- show quoted text -
....

I can appreciate that Richard. And I know freakier accidents and things have happened. Radar would have been a plus but even with one engine, he could have nailed that one and probably gotten clear.

Oh yeah there's rumors of being asleep and rumors of partying. Etc. I wasn't there and I can't say. But what I can say is that there is more than one theory of what happened. And I did note you mentioned the "official" testimony...,