A.) This is unsubstantiated. If I understand correctly they are the testimony from the Filipino Crew.
B.) All ship have to post look out as per Rule 5 of IMO , they cannot be "ALL ASLEEP" here are IMO International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea
http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions (copies)/COLREG-1972.pdf
So if they are iron fisting the ship and all crew are asleep, then the Filipino crew are at fault regardless of the reason for the collision.
C.) If the crash is indeed happened at 0130Z (or 1630 UTC) the crew of ACX Crystal is further implicating themselves by not stopping and render assistance. Because if that is the time of impact, they only Turn around at 1709 UTC, 49 minutes after the crash they said it happened. A Crash like that would have alarm sounded if they were on Autopilot. And also, if they were on autopilot at 1630, they weren't afterward. According to AIS data, first they change course to 135, then continue at 40 to 50 for 13 minutes. (report AIS heading at 1646UTC is at 051) Meaning someone was in the pilot house on that time period, meaning they are awake after they are supposedly crashed and ignore the incident and continue their course...on a different heading.
D.) When is the crash does not really matter to the cause of the crash. Do bear in mind the ship turned starboard from 70 to 88 (18 degree turn) in 3 minutes according to AIS data, she still have a movement greater than 5 degrees (normal course adjusting limit) which is still at fault if the collision is happened at 1630UTC, because they would have to watch for clearance when they make a turn.
You do realise if the crash happened at 1630, then the are more implication to the Filipino crew than the crash is at 1720 as the US Navy said??
lol A Russian Source? Let me give you a better, and more authorities source
The International Maritime Organisation
http://www.mar.ist.utl.pt/mventura/Projecto-Navios-I/IMO-Conventions (copies)/COLREG-1972.pdf
Rule 2
Rule 5
Rule 17
Meaning?
If the Filipino Vessel posted Look Out as well, it is as much as his fault as the US Destroyer look out fault as per Rule 5, because
EVERY VESSEL (Every mean every, be it stand on or give way) have to have the ability so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision. As per rules 5 of International Rule of Navigation.
And also, if the destroyer did not change course even if it is his turn to give way, as per Rule 17, then it would be the responsibility for the Stand On vessel to make take action to avoid collision
So, basically it take two to tangle, not to mention the AIS data suggested that the Cargo ship make a U-Turn prior if the crash is happened in 1720 UTC and change course for 18 degree if the crash is at 1630 UTC. Both of which would considered a turn and both of it, require the vessel that making the turn (The ACX Crystal) to yield to all traffic regardless of their privilege position, and that is a
FACT not some one who said something without any backing.
The full AIS report (You can access them on
https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/ACX-CRYSTAL-IMO-9360611-MMSI-548789000)
View attachment 404989
View attachment 404990
No, my information is based on the AIS reported data of ACX crystal and the interpretation of International Maritime Organisation law, on the other hand, yours are accounts for "Some" or "Most" expert, without regarding the IMO rules to avoid collision.
You are welcome to challenge what I said I don't mind.
You do know the Density/Buoyance of the sea mean that the figure I quote is usually lower due to the fact that momentum transfer is not limited with friction which you would have in road, seas DOES NOT OFFER Friction, so the actual crash momentum would have transfer more or less completely at sea than on the road.
You are talking about two ships with certain mass crash, not two ship crash into the seas.
And LOL at you, trying to discredit the US Navy, I quote the IMO rules for collision (The rules everybody based on for blame assignment) and you quote the Russian and Chinese?? LOL You make me laugh man. How about I quote some American and Canadian Source and said this is Russian Fault (There are articles out there actually saying that) would that mean it is actually the Russian is at fault in this incident?