http://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf
US NAVY REPORT ON THE COLLISION.
- FITZGERALD officers possessed an
unsatisfactory level of
knowledge of the
International Rules of the Nautical Road. Watch team members were
not familiar with
basic radar fundamentals, i
mpeding effective use.
- The Officer of the Deck and bridge team
failed to comply with the
International Rules of the Nautical Road. Specifically:
FITZGERALD was
not operated at a
safe speed appropriate to the number of other ships in the immediate vicinity.
FITZGERALD
failed to maneuver early
as required with risk of collision present.
- FITZGERALD
failed to notify other
ships of danger and to take proper action in extremis.
- Watch team members responsible for radar operations
failed to properly tune and adjust radars to
maintain an
accurate picture of other ships in the area.
- Watchstanders performing physical look out duties did so only on FITZGERALD’s left (port) side, not on the right (starboard) side where the three ships were present with risk of collision.
- Key supervisors responsible for maintaining the navigation track and position of other ships:
Were
unaware of
existing traffic separation schemes and the expected flow of traffic.
Did not utilize the
Automated Identification System. This system provides real time updates of commercial ship positions through use of the Global Positioning System.
* The bridge crew – including the commander – didn’t know how the helm worked on the USS McCain.
Much of the track leading up to the Singapore Traffic Separation Scheme was significantly congested and dictated a higher state of readiness. Had this occurred, maximum plant reliability could have been set with a Master Helmsman and a qualified Engineering Lee
Helm on watch.
If the CO had set Sea and Anchor Detail adequately in advance of entering the Singapore Strait Traffic Separation Scheme, then it is unlikely that a collision would have occurred. The plan for setting the Sea and Anchor Detail was a failure in risk management, as it required watch turnover of all key watch stations within a significantly congested TSS and only 30 minutes prior to the Pilot pickup.
If JOHN S MCCAIN had sounded at five short blasts or made Bridge-to-Bridge VHF hails or notifications in a timely manner, then it is possible that a collision might not have occurred.
If ALNIC had sounded at least five short blasts or made Bridge-to-Bridge VHF hails or notifications, then it is possible that a collision might not have occurred.
The Commanding Officer decided not to station the Sea and Anchor detail when appropriate, despite recommendations from the Navigator, Operations Officer and Executive Officer.
Senior officers and bridge watchstanders did not question the Helm’s report of a loss of steering nor pursue the issue for resolution.
The collisions that killed 17 sailors this summer were
“preventable” lapses in basic seamanship, the Chief of Naval Operations admitted today.
After USS Antietam ran aground in January, some crewmembers still needed to get time at-sea for their training and certifications, so they were transferred to the McCain. “This is not unusual,” said Richardson, but in this case, no one made sure the crewmembers from Antietam, a cruiser, were properly trained to operate the somewhat different equipment on the McCain, a destroyer. “A couple” of those ex-Antietam sailors were on the McCain‘s bridge at the time of the collision.
No one else on the McCain’s bridge seemed to know what they were doing, either, including the ship’s commander. When they belatedly realized a current was pushing them onto a collision course with oncoming ship traffic, they tried to adjust the steering system – reconfiguring it five times in the three minutes before impact. Instead of correcting course, they lost control of the ship.
One mistake on the Fitzgerald was even more basic. The ship had posted look-outs as it went through busy sea lanes, but they were only looking left (port). No one was watching the ship’s right (starboard) side – which of course is where it was hit.
Interestingly one of the main recommended Navy solution was to have more ships.
It is interesting that no matter what the problem one of main solutions is more ships.
With budget restrictions -instead of cutting back on procurement, the Navy cutback on maintenance and training.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...ing-caused-the-recent-us-navy-collisions.html
I am not the judge, the report from the US NAVY is the judge, I am just presenting known facts to support my views. Knowing someone on that ship does not warrant you any special jurisdiction to determine whether the USN Ship was not at
FAULT. Are you the judge now? Are you some kind of accredited accident investigator? Even if you are one, you need to be able to present all the facts before such a judgement to prove it. I don't think you would know what exactly happen and how exactly it happened. The statement you made above is now applied to you, the ball is in your court now. LOL.
. After all the above bullshit statement, let me summarize your argument in one sentence,
1)
You are just saying I have no right to judge the accident. My answer is I am not the judge, the US NAVY report is the one claiming the US NAVY was at fault.
See simple and straightforward, saves me alot of time to have to read all your crap.
Why is it not about
professionalism? How does to be more '
careful and professional' equate to not being about professionalism. You are sounding incoherent now, having some schizo attack I reckon?
How does not adhering to
standard protocol and
procedures not equate to
professionalism. Explain to me genius? Are you saying USN is supposed to crash their ships once in a while? Seamanship was intended to ensure no such
'incidents' happen, procedures and protocol was incorporated to prevent such 'incidents', according to the report that incident was preventable and avoidable had the Naval Ship followed standard protocol. Are your ships racing at 300km/hr? Heck, it's max 30 knots, do you have some common sense? Professionalism is not just about fighting wars, it's about ensuring you can navigate your ships safely and professionally to reach the point of conflict to FIGHT WARS. Otherwise, your ships might as well crash into any other ships and sinkn even before reaching the point of conflict. Were you telling me you are studying law or something? The standards in your Uni sure is
LOW.
Nope, you did not. You explained to me how two parties can be at fault and caused the accident, you did not explain to me how a party at fault did not cause the accident. Well, normally the one calling some low IQ is the party who can't comprehend certain concepts and answer intelligently.
It is a USN ship, hence being a subset of the US Navy, the US Navy is at fault and the institution who will bear this responsibility should be the Navy but the captain of the ship representing the command authority on behalf of the Navy should be fired due to incompetence. However, if there ever was any claims, it has to be claimed against the Navy not those individuals. Hence, the Navy as a military institution is
AT FAULT and is responsible for the naval officers serving under their banner. Example, if Navy personnel cause damage to certain civilian properties during active duty, the private civilian have the right to sue the Navy and not those individuals.
1) Explain to me why they are firing those commanders if the Navy is not at fault?
Navy sends ‘unequivocal message’ in firing commanders over deadly John S. McCain collision
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ident-was-preventable/?utm_term=.d8a7ea6976d4
2) Please write in to this website and argue with them the Navy Report is false and those USN Ships were not at
FAULT.
Navy crews at fault in fatal collisions, investigations find
https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/
Sure, there is no criminal case at all, since it's just butchering your own sailors right?
. I am not a judge and you are not a judge, it's not our call to determine whether there is criminal negligence of the Navy.
https://nationaltriallaw.com/can-sue-va-army-navy-air-force/
Can I sue the VA, Army, Navy, or Air Force?
Read the law above, the liability due to any negligence by any federal employee during active duty is the United States government, and it's subset the Department of Navy.
I do not lay any blame to anyone for this accident yet, since both parties could be at fault and caused the accidents. But I do lay the blame on the professionalism of the Navy in this regard, which was our original argument anyway before you went off topic. Blaming someone on an accident is different to blaming someone for the lack of professionalism. WITHOUT FACTS? YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING THE NAVY IS INNOCENT WITHOUT ANY FACTS. Just google and you can see the whole news media is full of reports on the Navy AT FAULT.
Navy crews at fault in fatal collisions, investigations find
https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/
SHORTCOMINGS? LOL.
BASIC PROFICIENCY
Why can't fault be determined if you only investigate one party? It could be both parties at fault and caused the accident. But who cares, the debate is now about whether the US NAVY is at fault. The answer is yes IT IS. The US Navy is at fault for not showing proper seamanship and conduct their activities professionally while adhering to incorporated naval procedures and protocol. Was the commercial ship at fault too? Maybe, but who cares. THE ARGUMENT was US Naval Professionalism, had they practiced it, that incident could have been prevented even when the captain of that commercial ship had been sleeping. This not an excuse for showing lack of professionalism. You cannot create excuse after excuse to hide this level of incompetency.
The reason you quoted sputnik was because you did not find any support from mainstream western media, this is soooooooo DESPERATE.
SPUTNIK?
OMG!! The very news media you despise is now used as evidence of the commercial ship at FAULT? Please this news report said
MAYYYYYYYY BE LIABLE. CHECK THE DATE OF THE REPORT, it's before the official Navy Report, hence nobody knew who was
AT FAULT.
This is HOW I KNOW! Now go argue with the host of mainsteam western media about how they are lying.
https://www.defensenews.com/breakin...ault-in-fatal-collisions-investigations-find/
So now Sputnik is the judge and the navy report is not? OMG. Sputnik said the ship MAY BE LIABLE. Check the date of that Sputnik report genius. Someone is getting pretty desperate quoting Russian sources to back them up.
Prove to me the US Navy report did not lay the cause of the incident? Print out the statement that says, WE DO NOT KNOW THE CAUSE of the incident and yet out crew is at FAULT.
At this rate of exposure and conviction, USN will not have to worry about the PLAN in the SCS since the USN will be left with no ship to sail and all officers in jail...
