VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.
Has the result of the investigation been announced so quickly?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.
Judging by photos in post #1 US destroyer suffered more damage than the container ship. Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.
According to Maritime Record
http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...mmsi:548789000/imo:9360611/vessel:ACX_CRYSTAL
the USS Fitzgerald is a 9,600 tons ship, ACX Crystal have an empty weight of 29,060 tons and fully loaded dead weight almost 40,000 tons, it was 3- 4 times weight than the USS Fitzgerald, the Fitzgerald is actually quite strong to survive a crash like that. The force of 20,000 tons (if the ACX Crystal is empty) at 10 second contact at 16.8 knots would mean 30 millions newton of force in case you don't know, it's equal to a ~0.3kt Nuclear Bomb. Which is greater than any missile power in the world (Bar nuclear missile)
Calculate the N/s here
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/impact-force-calculator.html
And a hit like that and the ship is still under power itself is saying something..
Can you explain how it's the fault of US Navy for the collision and not the other way around?
Lets be honest here. Guys like Muhammad and Piotr have no interest in reviewing the facts. The Fitzgerald got hit by a cargo ship, therefore it must be "weak" and "unprofessional." It's their anti-american bias at play.
Judging by photos in post #1 US destroyer suffered more damage than the container ship. Unsafe and unprofessional US Navy is to blame for this collision.
such weak ship consider what will happen if missile strike it
It is not as if ship collisions in open water are rare. Intellectual dingbats thinks that just because there are a lot of maneuvering room, there are no regulations, official and unofficial, on behaviors. These two ya-hoos are too lazy to use the Internet search to find the history of collisions events and give the necessary latitude until the full investigation is complete.Lets be honest here. Guys like Muhammad and Piotr have no interest in reviewing the facts. The Fitzgerald got hit by a cargo ship, therefore it must be "weak" and "unprofessional." It's their anti-american bias at play.
Though, I am not professional. My opinion is, a destroyer is equipped with sophisticated system of sensors and radars. How the destroyer unable to detect a huge ship in its sensitive limits/vicinity/zone?
actually, judging from the photo in Post 1. Where the US ship was hit on the side (suffer damage on Starboard) and the cargo ship is damaged at the bow, under maritime law term "Constant Bearing, Decreasing Range" the fault is with the Philippine Cargo ship, not the Naval Destroyer.
......
The only instant the US Destroyer is at fault is when the ACX Crystal cannot turn for some reason and had been noticing the collision with USS Fitzgerald but Fitzgerald failed to act.
It's not easy to spot a ship crossing into you especially ship basically only require to look and scan where you are going, and from the photo, it was the Crystal that hit Fitzgerald. Not the other way around.
When two crafts crosses, the craft on the starboard (right, the Cargo ship) side has right of way. The craft on the port (left, US naval ship) side must slow and turn to starboard to pass behind the other craft.
The Cargo ship is the stand-on vessel. Just from looking at the damage on the photos, the American Naval ship is at fault.
In any case, the state of art naval ship should have seen/detected the cargo ship tens of miles away, and as a great agile craft, it should have easily avoided the collision.
If you are approaching another vessel on a constant bearing, and under the rules are required to maneuver, you will do so in ample time. Any resulting alteration of course and speed will be large enough to be readily apparent to the other vessel. A succession of small changes in course and speed should be avoided.