US Navy Ship and Philippine Merchant Ship Collide

[Kathianne]

7 US Sailors missing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-idUSKBN1972SW


At least three injured, seven missing after U.S. Navy destroyer collides with merchant vessel off Japan Sat Jun 17, 2017 | 12:00am EDT
By Idrees Ali (https://www.reuters.com/journalists/idrees-ali) and Tim Kelly (https://www.reuters.com/journalists/tim-kelly) | TOKYO/WASHINGTON


Seven crew members are missing and at least three injured after a U.S. Navy destroyer collided early on Saturday morning with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel south of Tokyo Bay in Japan, the U.S. Navy said.


The Japanese Coast Guard said the U.S. ship was experiencing some flooding but was not in danger of sinking, while the merchant vessel was able to sail under its own power.

...

[NightTrain]

Those big container ships are notorious for not paying attention to other traffic in the way. Many small vessels like sailboats cruising around the Gulf of Mexico have been hit by those ships and they didn't even stop to assist - just kept on hauling ass.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers and I hope a few of those philipinos go to jail to set an example. My guess is they had that ship on autopilot with no one watching the radar.

Given that the container ship was clearly at fault, why on earth didn't our Destroyer take evasive action? With the billions we've spent on radar systems for our Navy, this is inexcusable. They didn't know there was a 700 foot ship bearing down on them in a collision course?

[Gunny]

Those big container ships are notorious for not paying attention to other traffic in the way. Many small vessels like sailboats cruising around the Gulf of Mexico have been hit by those ships and they didn't even stop to assist - just kept on hauling ass.

It will be interesting to see what the investigation uncovers and I hope a few of those philipinos go to jail to set an example. My guess is they had that ship on autopilot with no one watching the radar.

Given that the container ship was clearly at fault, why on earth didn't our Destroyer take evasive action? With the billions we've spent on radar systems for our Navy, this is inexcusable. They didn't know there was a 700 foot ship bearing down on them in a collision course?

I was kind of wondering that, but let's wait for the resident squids (@aboutime) . There's plenty of screwy variable that go on at sea. The weather giving false reports comes to mind first. You can't turn a ship on a dime like in the movie "Battleship" (although that broadside was cool :) ) .

[Elessar]

I was kind of wondering that, but let's wait for the resident squids (@aboutime) . There's plenty of screwy variable that go on at sea. The weather giving false reports comes to mind first. You can't turn a ship on a dime like in the movie "Battleship" (although that broadside was cool :) ) .

There are so very many things that pop into my mind. What were the bridge crews of BOTH vessels doing?
Just wrapping up an 'operation', was the Fitz steaming at darkened ship?

Was this a crossing situation?

Being struck on the starboard (right) side would initially indicate that the merchie had the Right of Way unless:

...the Fitz was at anchor - unlikely 56 miles off shore;
...the Fitz was 'Restricted in the Ability to Maneuver' displaying Red over White over Red lights;
...the Fitz was a 'Vessel Not Under Command' due to propulsion problem(s) and displaying Red over Red over Red lights.

Was it an overtaking (passing) error?

If the Fitz was overtaking, then the merchie would be the 'stand-on' vessel maintaining course and speed,
and the Fitz the 'give-way' vessel...to maneuver to avoid collision.

Why was the CPA (closest point of approach) so rapidly decreased? Was the Danger Signal
(5 rapid blasts of the ship's horn) used by either vessel?

There could be so many more probabilities.

One thing is certain...the Fitz's C.O. is toast as might be some of the bridge crew to lesser
degrees.

The investigation could be interesting.

[aboutime]

I was kind of wondering that, but let's wait for the resident squids (@aboutime) . There's plenty of screwy variable that go on at sea. The weather giving false reports comes to mind first. You can't turn a ship on a dime like in the movie "Battleship" (although that broadside was cool :) ) .

Thanks Gunny. Today, with all of the automation involved, where only one, or two civilians might be paying attention on the bridge. There's a possibility (sounds like it to me) that the Container ship changed course 25 minutes before the collision. That MIGHT have been programmed....(SHIP AUTOPILOT) like on airliners. At specific times, course changes take place...but I suspect, there was no Human intervention at the time.
On the other side of the coin. THERE IS NO REASON for a U.S. Navy Destroyer of today to NOT see, or know about the CARGO ship's movements.
As I have seen over many, many years. Despite the fact that the CO was injured, and flown from the ship. HE LOST HIS COMMAND, the second the OOD, and others on the Bridge in the Pilot House....WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
The COMMANDING OFFICER (CAPTAIN) IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING.

[Kathianne]

Thanks Gunny. Today, with all of the automation involved, where only one, or two civilians might be paying attention on the bridge. There's a possibility (sounds like it to me) that the Container ship changed course 25 minutes before the collision. That MIGHT have been programmed....(SHIP AUTOPILOT) like on airliners. At specific times, course changes take place...but I suspect, there was no Human intervention at the time.
On the other side of the coin. THERE IS NO REASON for a U.S. Navy Destroyer of today to NOT see, or know about the CARGO ship's movements.
As I have seen over many, many years. Despite the fact that the CO was injured, and flown from the ship. HE LOST HIS COMMAND, the second the OOD, and others on the Bridge in the Pilot House....WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.
The COMMANDING OFFICER (CAPTAIN) IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING.

That is exactly what I heard, I think. Something to the effect: 'The container ship was heading into port and for an unexplained reason, began to turn around, into the US vessel. The assumption is that the destroyer was on auto-pilot and wasn't able to adjust in time when the 4X larger ship hit.'

[aboutime]

That is exactly what I heard, I think. Something to the effect: 'The container ship was heading into port and for an unexplained reason, began to turn around, into the US vessel. The assumption is that the destroyer was on auto-pilot and wasn't able to adjust in time when the 4X larger ship hit.'

Gotta agree, and disagree in a way Kathianne. U.S. Navy ships are FORBIDDEN from any AUTOPILOT use. The safety of the entire crew RESTS with those on watch in the pilot house, watching radar, steering, engineering, and a multitude of other safety factors. Especially at Night when only specified people are on WATCH. Watches normally last Four Hours on the Bridge (pilot house). I believe just the opposite took place, though I am only guessing; if there was any use of an AUTOPILOT, steering the ship, navigating, and engineering...I suspect, as I mentioned...it was on the Civilian ship.

Unless navigational duties have changed. I AM SURE, there are several people on the bridge during EACH WATCH.
It appears to me...the Merchant ship collided with the Navy ship, based on the ANGLE OF ATTACK (they call it) Much like two cars...ONE coming from a side street, into the RIGHT SIDE (Starboard) of the Navy ship. IMO

It also appears, from photos I have seen. The BRIDGE was struck, which would explain the CAPTAIN being injured.

[Little-Acorn]

Whether the container ship wasn't paying attention, or was deviating from its course toward port, or was totally in the right, or ANYTHING....

...how could any ship, especially a big one, possibly get close enough to a U.S. warship to collide with it?

All I can think, is that the container ship wasn't the only one not paying attention.

Has the U.S. Navy learned nothing from the USS Cole? :dunno:

[NightTrain]

They found the missing 7 US Sailors... they were drowned in the crushed compartments.

Such a needless tragedy.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/06/18/us-navy-calls-off-search-for-7-missing-sailors-several-bodies-found-inside-destroyer.html

[Russ]

Very tragic. These young sailors had a lot of life ahead of them. I have to agree with Acorn - I would think our Navy ships are supposed to be able to avoid stealthy, intentional attacks by terrorists and rogue states, so it is indefensible and sad that a destroyer could be a victim of an accidental and non-stealthy collision with a huge cargo ship.

[Gunny]

Very tragic. These young sailors had a lot of life ahead of them. I have to agree with Acorn - I would think our Navy ships are supposed to be able to avoid stealthy, intentional attacks by terrorists and rogue states, so it is indefensible and sad that a destroyer could be a victim of an accidental and non-stealthy collision with a huge cargo ship.ThreatCon Level comes to mind. Security is minimal out in the middle of the sea nowhere near a possible threat. Fifty miles out at sea is a LOT of water. Nobody stands at 1 Alpha 100% of the time. You'd have a bunch of nut-cases on your hands.

It's ALL speculation at this point. If I know one thing about the US Naval Service, somebody will be blamed, and as El and At said, this Captain is cooked, hurt or not barring some miracle mechanical failure beyond human control. The Ship's Captain is God at sea. That axe swings BOTH ways.

[aboutime]

Whether the container ship wasn't paying attention, or was deviating from its course toward port, or was totally in the right, or ANYTHING....

...how could any ship, especially a big one, possibly get close enough to a U.S. warship to collide with it?

All I can think, is that the container ship wasn't the only one not paying attention.

Has the U.S. Navy learned nothing from the USS Cole? :dunno:

L.A. Agree totally. As for your question about the navy learning anything. I'd be willing to bet...NOBODY on that bridge was paying attention to their duties. There should be a mass COURT MARTIAL of the C.O. the OOD, and everyone on watch at the time.

EVERY SAILOR who honestly cares about their safety at Sea these days should know. TOO MUCH DEPENDENCE ON ELECTRONICS VS WIDE AWAKE EYES ON THE BRIDGE means the difference between LIFE AND DEATH.
SOMEBODY HAS TO BURN FOR THEIR LACK OF CONTROL.

[Elessar]

L.A. Agree totally. As for your question about the navy learning anything. I'd be willing to bet...NOBODY on that bridge was paying attention to their duties. There should be a mass COURT MARTIAL of the C.O. the OOD, and everyone on watch at the time.

EVERY SAILOR who honestly cares about their safety at Sea these days should know. TOO MUCH DEPENDENCE ON ELECTRONICS VS WIDE AWAKE EYES ON THE BRIDGE means the difference between LIFE AND DEATH.
SOMEBODY HAS TO BURN FOR THEIR LACK OF CONTROL.

I always hate that it comes down to mass punishment in these cases, but bridge crews have got to be aware and on their toes.
Up there, EVERYONE is a lookout!

[aboutime]

I always hate that it comes down to mass punishment in these cases, but bridge crews have got to be aware and on their toes.
Up there, EVERYONE is a lookout!

Elessar. Agreed. You know, as well as I. It only takes ONE mistake out there to change everything in seconds. Everyone IS a Lookout...until someone falls asleep, or isn't paying attention as they should. On the MID-WATCH, on the bridge...Well...you know.

[Elessar]

Elessar. Agreed. You know, as well as I. It only takes ONE mistake out there to change everything in seconds. Everyone IS a Lookout...until someone falls asleep, or isn't paying attention as they should. On the MID-WATCH, on the bridge...Well...you know.

Absolutely! When I was a BMOW (Boatswain's Mate of the Watch for you non-sailors) I had a few Lookouts
and Helmsmen relieved for inattentiveness. Sent them down to messcook instead...then the BMC would rip
into their asses!

[Gunny]

L.A. Agree totally. As for your question about the navy learning anything. I'd be willing to bet...NOBODY on that bridge was paying attention to their duties. There should be a mass COURT MARTIAL of the C.O. the OOD, and everyone on watch at the time.

EVERY SAILOR who honestly cares about their safety at Sea these days should know. TOO MUCH DEPENDENCE ON ELECTRONICS VS WIDE AWAKE EYES ON THE BRIDGE means the difference between LIFE AND DEATH.
SOMEBODY HAS TO BURN FOR THEIR LACK OF CONTROL.I actually don't get it, myself. As many watches as they have going at any given time, how can ALL miss a ship? Crap, you've got to be half-inventor to UA smoke and avoid them.

[Kathianne]

Of the 7, one could have saved himself:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/navy-sailor-could-have-saved-himself-chose-to-save-his-kids-or-die-trying


Navy Sailor Could Have Saved Himself, Chose to Save His ‘Kids’ or Die Trying MICHAEL DALY (http://www.thedailybeast.com/author/michael-daly)

06.20.17

Gary Rehm, 37, called the sailors on the USS Fitzgerald his ‘kids.’ And when his kids were trapped after the collision with a container ship, he sacrificed himself to save them.


As news spread through the rest of the 7th Fleet that seven sailors had perished (http://www.thedailybeast.com/bodies-of-missing-sailors-found-search-halted) when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship (http://www.thedailybeast.com/seven-us-sailors-missing-after-collision-with-container-ship-in-japan), the crew of another hard-luck destroyer assembled on its stern.


The USS Cole had lost 17 sailors to a terrorist bomb in 2000. The current crew gave tribute to their ill-fated comrades from Saturday’s collision by standing in formation in the shape of the digits 62, the hull number for the destroyer Fitzgerald.


“Few words can express our sorrow for the loss of our USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) shipmates—a simple picture must try,” read the caption when the USS Cole—hull number DDG 67—posted the tribute photo on the 7th Fleet website on Sunday.

...

The most senior of the seven, Gary Rehm, had his own particular word for these brothers/shipmates.


“The sailors on the ship he called his kids,” his uncle Stanley Rehm Jr. told The Daily Beast. “He called them his kids.”


And, by various accounts, Gary Rehm had saved at least 20 of them after the collision. He then went down to save more.


“He said, ‘If my kids die, I’m going to die,’” the uncle said.


Gary Rehm perished with the six others.


“He could have walked away and been safe,” the uncle noted.

...

[jon_forward]

Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, incompetence. Just a few words that come to mind. The container ship did a 180 turn 25 minutes before impact. More than enough time for our ship to avoid a the train wreck. The Captain is toast, as well be most all the bridge crew and many others. Sad we lost 7 sailors over a dumb thing such as this. I feel the Captain thought it was safe to relax the rules so far from land and got snake bit. Radar, eyes, totally asleep at the wheel.

[Gunny]

Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, incompetence. Just a few words that come to mind. The container ship did a 180 turn 25 minutes before impact. More than enough time for our ship to avoid a the train wreck. The Captain is toast, as well be most all the bridge crew and many others. Sad we lost 7 sailors over a dumb thing such as this. I feel the Captain thought it was safe to relax the rules so far from land and got snake bit. Radar, eyes, totally asleep at the wheel.Thanks for clearing that all up for us, Barnacle Bill. It'll save us that pesky Naval Board of Inquiry and any court-martial proceedings where the accused had Rights.

We can skip straight to the hanging,

[Kathianne]

Of the 7, one could have saved himself:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/navy-sailor-could-have-saved-himself-chose-to-save-his-kids-or-die-trying

More, this man was the hero, no matter the cause of the collision:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/06/21/paying-last-full-measure-devotion-uss-fitzgerald/




...

That’s a somewhat antiseptic description, particularly for those without experience on naval vessels. As I described in my previous article, a warship at sea experiencing either fire or flooding conditions results in an environment below decks which is as close as you’ll likely come to hell on Earth. It’s cramped, frequently dark and the sounds, smells and sights can be overpowering. When there is flooding taking place, the immediate, imperative goal is to stop the water from entering the ship before she goes down taking all onboard with her.


Petty Officer Rehm was someone who was up topside at one point as the emergency unfolded. He had “made it” to where there was fresh air and the chance to escape if the ship wound up foundering. He could have chosen to stay there. He could have bailed out. But he didn’t. He went back down below decks into that hellscape of flooding and blaring alarms to rescue his crewmates. He did so repeatedly, saving twenty of them. But his last trip to get the remaining men was one too many.


During a flooding emergency as I described above there are a number of actions which the Damage Control (DC) team will attempt, depending on the conditions. There are patches which can be applied to the rupture in the hull, jammed into place even as the ocean is rushing in and stiffened with jacks. There are portable pumps which are rushed into the flooding compartments to try to evacuate the water as seals are established. But if all that fails there eventually comes a time when the order is given to “Set Zebra (http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/14325/css/Material-Conditions-Of-Readiness-341.htm).” That’s your final line of defense. There are watertight bulkheads throughout the ship with hatches allowing the crew to cross from one area to the next. If you can’t stop the flooding at the hull, you locate the nearest watertight bulkheads and you close and dog down those hatches. You allow the spaces on the other side to flood in the interest of keeping the rest of the ship afloat. And yes, sometimes you have to follow that order even when there are living souls on the other side. It’s a question of saving the ship and the rest of the crew. You just do it.


Petty Officer Rehm went repeatedly into that flooding zone to rescue his shipmates, obviously being aware that they could set Zebra at any time. They did, and he was on the wrong side of the bulkhead. A truly horrifying way to go, but he fought to save his crewmates to the very last. Few of us can contemplate what those final moments would have been like and we might all be left wondering if we ourselves could have found the inner strength to make that last trip as he did.


Even though this was not an event which took place during battle, Petty Officer First Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr. sacrificed his life and died the death of a hero. His name should be added to the list of sailors who will have ships of the line named after them in the future. And a posthumous award for his unbelievable bravery, devotion and sacrifice would not be out of order. God Bless and rest in peace, Petty Officer Rehm. Few of us will ever match your mettle.

[jimnyc]

Got 20 guys out while risking his life. Gave up his life in continuing to try and help the rest. This man defines "hero" and would probably be the type and the first to say he wasn't.

[aboutime]

Gross negligence, dereliction of duty, incompetence. Just a few words that come to mind. The container ship did a 180 turn 25 minutes before impact. More than enough time for our ship to avoid a the train wreck. The Captain is toast, as well be most all the bridge crew and many others. Sad we lost 7 sailors over a dumb thing such as this. I feel the Captain thought it was safe to relax the rules so far from land and got snake bit. Radar, eyes, totally asleep at the wheel.


Were you there? I have 30 years of navy life, 20 at sea, and I'll even admit we should wait to LEARN ALL OF THE DETAILS before condemning everyone. If you haven't stood a watch on a ship...On the Bridge; you are totally uninformed. In 1966, I was aboard the USS Lasalle LPD 3 in the Virginia Vacapes, at night, in foggy conditions, at about 10:00 p. m. So I know it can happen to anyone, at anytime. Everyone was fully awake, and special watches (LOOKOUTS) had been posted per the Captain's Night Orders. Which are a NAVY WIDE STANDARD at sea.
For you to assume the Captain thought ANYTHING is nothing short of STUPID. Unless...you were there.

[Gunny]

Were you there? I have 30 years of navy life, 20 at sea, and I'll even admit we should wait to LEARN ALL OF THE DETAILS before condemning everyone. If you haven't stood a watch on a ship...On the Bridge; you are totally uninformed. In 1966, I was aboard the USS Lasalle LPD 3 in the Virginia Vacapes, at night, in foggy conditions, at about 10:00 p. m. So I know it can happen to anyone, at anytime. Everyone was fully awake, and special watches (LOOKOUTS) had been posted per the Captain's Night Orders. Which are a NAVY WIDE STANDARD at sea.
For you to assume the Captain thought ANYTHING is nothing short of STUPID. Unless...you were there.Not weighing in anything here on what happened, but it was my observation that nothing seemed to be what it looked like at sea. I knd of gave up trying to figure it out beyond being aware of our position from shore. We could be 10 miles out and it looked like we were just yards away.

The Red Sea and the Straight of Hormuz were always the worst to me. It NEVER seemed like we were far enough away from Iran to suit me and I considered the Red a death trap. This one MM on the Peleilu got no end of delight in tormenting me.:laugh: