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

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.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:39:39 -0500, 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 will not be surprised if the destroyer crew assumed the freighter
was going to stay on course and they thought they would just cut
through,being gone when the freighter got there. Looking at the track,
if they took 10 minutes to hit after changing course 90 degrees
(looking at the track) they would have missed by a couple miles.
I agree they should have negotiated the pass but military guys can get
arrogant some times. I am sure we will be hearing more about it.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:17:55 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:39:39 -0500, 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 will not be surprised if the destroyer crew assumed the freighter
was going to stay on course and they thought they would just cut
through,being gone when the freighter got there. Looking at the track,
if they took 10 minutes to hit after changing course 90 degrees
(looking at the track) they would have missed by a couple miles.
I agree they should have negotiated the pass but military guys can get
arrogant some times. I am sure we will be hearing more about it.

===

The international rules of the road (COLREGS) make no exceptions for
either military vessels or arrogance. The destroyer clearly shares
the largest portion of the blame in my opinion regardless of any
action or inaction on the part of the freighter. This stuff just
isn't supposed to happen and navy heads will roll starting with the
CO.

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.



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

On 6/28/2017 1:49 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:17:55 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 22:39:39 -0500, 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 will not be surprised if the destroyer crew assumed the freighter
was going to stay on course and they thought they would just cut
through,being gone when the freighter got there. Looking at the track,
if they took 10 minutes to hit after changing course 90 degrees
(looking at the track) they would have missed by a couple miles.
I agree they should have negotiated the pass but military guys can get
arrogant some times. I am sure we will be hearing more about it.

===

The international rules of the road (COLREGS) make no exceptions for
either military vessels or arrogance. The destroyer clearly shares
the largest portion of the blame in my opinion regardless of any
action or inaction on the part of the freighter. This stuff just
isn't supposed to happen and navy heads will roll starting with the
CO.


I agree.



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

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:49:39 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 00:17:55 -0400, wrote:


I will not be surprised if the destroyer crew assumed the freighter
was going to stay on course and they thought they would just cut
through,being gone when the freighter got there. Looking at the track,
if they took 10 minutes to hit after changing course 90 degrees
(looking at the track) they would have missed by a couple miles.
I agree they should have negotiated the pass but military guys can get
arrogant some times. I am sure we will be hearing more about it.

===

The international rules of the road (COLREGS) make no exceptions for
either military vessels or arrogance. The destroyer clearly shares
the largest portion of the blame in my opinion regardless of any
action or inaction on the part of the freighter. This stuff just
isn't supposed to happen and navy heads will roll starting with the
CO.

I am sure the CO is going to be seeking other opportunities outside
the Navy but if it is true that the freighter was the stand on vessel
and he did not "maintain course and speed" the CO will stay out of
jail.
I do see the same thing on the water around here all the time but it
is usually because the stand on "captain" thinks he has the right of
way with no responsibility to do anything predictable. Fortunately
they usually manage to pass without swapping paint but not always.

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.

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.

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.

'talkes', 'wouls' ???

Down here we refer to that phenomenon as 'constant bearing, decreasing range (CBDR)'.

You must have missed this:

On Sun, 25 Jun 2017 09:21:03 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

Those are figurative comments, Timmy, not literal comments. Besides,
shouldn't you be at church, helping the other elders poison the minds of
the younger generations with religious bull****?

All that religious bull**** you guys peddle and aim at kids ought to be
labeled for what it is...child abuse.

I can't wait to see Donnie's, "I whole heartedly agree with this post!"

Lack of principle, Donnie, or just too cowardly to stick up for your beliefs?