USS Fitzgerald 'at fault': Crew failed to react to approaching cargo ship in devastating crash that

[Globenim]

No way! CNN wouldn't just lie to us and perpetuate untrue stories! Its free press and therefore infallibe and true. Didn't you listen to the "Americans" who keep "explaining" to us that we are all clueless children and Western "free" press is truth and justice and learn something from all the threads and posts citing anonymous reports by random nobodies about China?

You must be navy shills denying the truth!

 

[Piotr]

No way! CNN wouldn't just lie to us and perpetuate untrue stories! Its free press and therefore infallibe and true. Didn't you listen to the "Americans" who keep "explaining" to us that we are all clueless children and Western "free" press is truth and justice and learn something from all the threads and posts citing anonymous reports by random nobodies about China?

You must be navy shills denying the truth!

CNN=CIA. All US Mainstream Media are run by CIA.

The fact that CIA (CNN) admited that US Navy was at fault shows that there is growing infighting between CIA and US Department of Defence. Syria where US Military is killing CIA founded Daesh terrorists is another example of infighting between CIA and US Department of Defence.

 

[Penguin]

A U.S. Navy spokeswoman said the investigation was in the early stages and it was premature to speculate on the causes.

Funny how everybody here misses that....

The fact that even CIA run CNN admited that US Navy was at fault is saying something.

And you believe the CIA run CNN? Assuming CNN is indeed CIA run, that would make you what?
Why would the CIA allow that to happen, why do they want you to believe that? Think about it.

 

[Nan Yang]

HOW. DO. YOU. KNOW. THE. AUTHENCITY. OF. THE. ARTICLE?

It did not name names, it could have come from ANYONE. I could be the one that told CNN that (I was in the Military, hence a defence official). To start, the article failed to mention the ACX Crystal route, I don't know about you, but if two ship crashed, it mean both side (not just one side, in this case, the destroyer) failed to avoid each other. Now do tell me, if Fitzgerald is at fault for failure to avoid Crystal, wasn't it the same applies to Crystal too? Because it also failed to avoid Fitzgerald.

One look of this article would know this is written without substance. You can challenge the hell out of it but it would mean jack shit on anything, first, the article is not well written, without discussing the merit of the case, and secondly, it did not tell you who said this, which mean this article have no accountability.

I can start an article and say it's the Chinese who behind this, paying off ACX Crystal skipper to crashed deliberately to a US Navy Warship, and name some of my Navy Friend and use them as "Unnamed Source". Does that mean we can bet on the Chinese is going to denied it?

You are funny.

Gosh... Just give up already

 

[Slav Defence]

Thread reopened- Do not provoke each other.

 

[powastick]

The one at fault was the US Navy, since they can't blame the ACX anymore, now they claim both are at fault. US army with the big budget can't even pay for the damages. Which is sad. US military is creating excuses to avoid paying compensation.

 

[terranMarine]

USS Fitzgerald collision: Crew 'should have spoken up' before accident, official says

Crew members aboard the USS Fitzgerald "should have spoken up" long before the American warship collided with a massive cargo vessel off the coast of Japan last month, U.S. officials said on Friday.

"There were many people who should have spoken up," one U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about an ongoing investigation, told Fox News.

The "rules of the road" at sea mandate states that any ship should keep out of the way of any ship on her right, or starboard, side.

The USS Fitzgerald was struck on her starboard side on June 17 by a cargo ship three times larger than the American warship. Seven American sailors were killed in the incident.

But the investigation into the collision still has a long way to go, a Navy official said Thursday.

"We are in the early stages of the investigation process to develop a comprehensive picture of what caused the collision and do not have any definitive information to release at this time," Rear Admiral Dawn Cutler, U.S. Navy Chief of Information, said in a statement. "It is premature to speculate on causation or any other issues. Once we have a detailed understanding of the facts and circumstances, we will share those findings with the Fitzgerald families, our Congressional oversight committees and the general public."

One U.S. official pointed to the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation Rules & Regulations Handbook which clearly states this rule: "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."

There are two navigation teams aboard every Navy warship, one on the bridge where the ship is driven and another team below the bridge in the combat information center, where a backup chart and radar team are located. This means there were two teams of sailors that missed recommending and taking "decisive and early action," the official told Fox News.

The crew of the USS Fitzgerald made “a slew” of mistakes in the minutes leading up to the collision with a Philippine cargo ship off the coast of Japan last month, which killed seven sailors, according to a damning report released Friday.

Preliminary findings in the investigation into the accident between the warship and the ACX Crystal on June 17 suggest the Navy crew made multiple errors, two defense officials told CNN.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...-spoken-up-before-accident-official-says.html

“They did nothing until the last second,” one official said. “A slew of things went wrong.” A second official said the tragedy “will wind up being our (the US Navy’s) fault.”

The collision between the guided-missile destroyer and the cargo ship took place 56 nautical miles off the coast of Honshu, Japan, in an area heavily trafficked by commercial shipping.

Both officials told CNN that the initial investigation found that the Fitzgerald sailors failed to understand and acknowledge the other ship was approaching and failed to take action to avoid the collision.

It remained unclear if the crew ever called the commanding officer, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, to come to the bridge. He was badly injured in the collision.

The officials said investigators also are looking at the possibility that the Fitzgerald was traveling at a higher speed than expected to reach a destination the next day.

The preliminary findings will be reviewed by Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, commander of the Seventh Fleet, and are likely to lead to recommendations about potential punishment.

In addition to the US Navy, the US Coast Guard and Japanese naval and maritime authorities are conducting investigations.

The two ships collided right next to the Fitzgerald’s berthing area, where sailors sleep. Top Navy officials have said the catastrophe could have been even worse, with the possibility of the ship sinking.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/21/uss-fitzgerald-crew-made-slew-of-mistakes-before-deadly-crash-report/

 

[xunzi]

LOL I knew this from the beginning.

One U.S. official pointed to the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation Rules & Regulations Handbook which clearly states this rule: "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."

@jhungary getting exposed!

 

[Offshore]

Professionalism in America army is just a myth.
Thanks to Hollywood.
The reality they are as "good" as Indian army

 

[jhungary]

LOL I knew this from the beginning.

One U.S. official pointed to the U.S. Coast Guard's Navigation Rules & Regulations Handbook which clearly states this rule: "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."

@jhungary getting exposed!

exposed what??

First of all, ONE US Official (Which one? Who is it?) pointed to the US Coast Guard's Navigation and Regulations Handbooks clearly states this rule: "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."

Let's see.

According to USCG Navigational Rules 1972.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navrules/navrules.pdf

Rules 2 - Responsibility

RULE 2 Responsibility (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. (b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Layman Translation

The rules is to set forth to ALL VESSEL which does not account for either Stand on or Give way vessel, but both, both are basically accountable for the action at seas, regardless of whether or not their status or limitation

Rule 5 - Look Out

RULE 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

Rule 5 states that every ship should places look-out to fully appraise the situation, something ACX Crystal did not do.

RULE 7 Risk of Collision

Rule 7 (a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist. (b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects. (c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information. (d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account: (i) such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change; (ii) such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.

The assumption for the US Navy ship was not to be made with Scanty information, risk of determination factor on how close the vessel is toward the Navy Vessel, and (very importantly) not only provided on compass bearing.
Can any one tell me where and which direction is both ship is heading during the collision? If not, how do you know?


RULE 8 - Action to Avoid Collision

Rule 8 (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship. (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided. (c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close quarters situation. (d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear. (e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion. (f) (i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel. (ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part. (iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

In Layman Term, the stand on vessel (the one that required to give way) should only comply to this rule to this part if there is sufficient sea room (In IMO Term, it's called Limited Passage)

Can anyone tell me how much searoom did USS Fitzgerald have when it collide with ACX Crystal?

Rule 14 - Head-On Situation

RULE 14 (a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. (b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel. (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

So, if the ships collided head on (which we don't know if this is the case) Both ship should alter her course starboard, not just the ships that on the other starboard.

RULE 17 Action by Stand-on Vessel
Rule 17 (a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. (ii) The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules. (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision. (c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side. (d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

The Stand on Vessel, the one that should keep her course, should still be taking evasive action if either the give way vessel failed to act, or the action by give way vessel alone cannot avoid collision. USS Fitzgerald is small, but it is still 9600 tons vessel, it cannot "dodge" any vessel like a motor launch or small boat, chances are if in a collision course, the action by Fitzgerald alone should not be enough to alter the course. Which mean ACX crystal is AS REQUIRED TO AVOID as much as the USS Fitzgerald have in this case.

-

Now, for a simple response given by someone who claim to be an US Official which is not even a US Coast Guard Official because he or she is pointing to the handbooks and say this "generalised" comment, without knowing the investigation and circumstances, and we are suppose to hold his/her word (We don't even know the gender of the person as it did not say) as god's sworn truth?? LOL.

Let me give you (AND YOU GUYS) a hint, my cousin is a serving member of the US Coast Guard, my dad was ex-Navy, I have a lot of Navy friend enough to feed me information to know this

No ships was exempted from the responsibility for causing a collision, without knowing the circumstance, how do you or anyone know the truth behind the collision? And you are telling me, these people supposed to know nothing on the official investigation which give generalized statement like this know better than any of us?

Really funny guys.

Funny how everybody here misses that....


And you believe the CIA run CNN? Assuming CNN is indeed CIA run, that would make you what?
Why would the CIA allow that to happen, why do they want you to believe that? Think about it.

lol. These people jump at ANY news that they can find and without the fact that supporting their claim, they just look, and yes, it looks like it's for real blaming the US Navy, that's good enough for them to post their verbal diarrhea up on the internet.

There are no "report" or "investigation" leak to the media suggesting which other way maybe to blame for the incident, they did not realise these supposed news were already in circulation right off the bat after the collision. For a non-informed person, it is easy to look like the US Navy is at fault, it was hit on the starboard, and starboard mean give way, but for a well informed person, did the buck stop there?

You can blame it on their education and the comprehension level on a subject, but I would not be surprised, judging by the recent trend this forum is heading.

Best just ignore these people.

I have said it before and I will say it again. That jhungry fool is wasting forum bandwidth, just like how he drains my country's welfare like a parasite.

lol, your country? How fair dinkum are you?

@Slav Defence is this an appropriate post on this forum?

Post like this is stupid (There are no other word for it) for someone placing this post, their mental ability should be examined by a General Practitioner.

I am alright if you want to challenge me in a meaningful way, but without regarding to the subject (Which I seriously doubt the poster know anything about) and go straight to accusing me as a dole bludger is, again, no other word for it, stupid.

Gosh... Just give up already

lol, first of all, it wasn't me who start this thread, and I wasn't even aware of this thread before someone named @Beast trying to troll me, I always say we should wait for the official report, but you and your folks are the one that post every which information there are on the internet and take it *** a pile of gold regardless of the source or what it actually say.

Why don't you just give up already??

If you don't want to get shafted, don't post stupid article.

 

[Penguin]

Professionalism in America army is just a myth.
Thanks to Hollywood.
The reality they are as "good" as Indian army

Hollow claims. You do realize the USS Fitzgerald is NAVY (not army)?

What does it mean to be an Army professional?
An Army professional, uniformed or civilian:

• is an expert certified within the profession, consistently demonstrating competence, character, and commitment
• is bonded with comrades in a shared identity and culture of sacrifice and service to the Nation
• stewards the future of the Profession
• adheres to the Army’s Ethic

http://cape.army.mil/repository/aaop/overview/Overview-Lesson-Plan-Slides.pptx
http://cape.army.mil/repository/aaop/overview/Overview-Lesson-Plan-Slides.pptx
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/what-military-professional

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/19...rds-or-less-a-first-round-of-contest-results/

 

[xunzi]

exposed what??

First of all, ONE US Official (Which one? Who is it?) pointed to the US Coast Guard's Navigation and Regulations Handbooks clearly states this rule: "When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of the other vessel."

Let's see.

According to USCG Navigational Rules 1972.

https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navrules/navrules.pdf

Rules 2 - Responsibility

RULE 2 Responsibility (a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case. (b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Layman Translation

The rules is to set forth to ALL VESSEL which does not account for either Stand on or Give way vessel, but both, both are basically accountable for the action at seas, regardless of whether or not their status or limitation

Rule 5 - Look Out

RULE 5 Look-out Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

Rule 5 states that every ship should places look-out to fully appraise the situation, something ACX Crystal did not do.

RULE 7 Risk of Collision

Rule 7 (a) Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist. (b) Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects. (c) Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information. (d) In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account: (i) such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change; (ii) such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.

The assumption for the US Navy ship was not to be made with Scanty information, risk of determination factor on how close the vessel is toward the Navy Vessel, and (very importantly) not only provided on compass bearing.
Can any one tell me where and which direction is both ship is heading during the collision? If not, how do you know?


RULE 8 - Action to Avoid Collision

Rule 8 (a) Any action taken to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship. (b) Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of course and/or speed should be avoided. (c) If there is sufficient sea room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close quarters situation. (d) Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear. (e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion. (f) (i) A vessel which, by any of these rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea room for the safe passage of the other vessel. (ii) A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the action which may be required by the rules of this part. (iii) A vessel, the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the rules of this part when the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.

In Layman Term, the stand on vessel (the one that required to give way) should only comply to this rule to this part if there is sufficient sea room (In IMO Term, it's called Limited Passage)

Can anyone tell me how much searoom did USS Fitzgerald have when it collide with ACX Crystal?

Rule 14 - Head-On Situation

RULE 14 (a) When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other. (b) Such a situation shall be deemed to exist when a vessel sees the other ahead or nearly ahead and by night she could see the masthead lights of the other in a line or nearly in a line and/or both sidelights and by day she observes the corresponding aspect of the other vessel. (c) When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether such a situation exists she shall assume that it does exist and act accordingly.

So, if the ships collided head on (which we don't know if this is the case) Both ship should alter her course starboard, not just the ships that on the other starboard.

RULE 17 Action by Stand-on Vessel
Rule 17 (a) (i) Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way, the other shall keep her course and speed. (ii) The latter vessel may, however, take action to avoid collision by her maneuver alone, as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these Rules. (b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision. (c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side. (d) This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.

The Stand on Vessel, the one that should keep her course, should still be taking evasive action if either the give way vessel failed to act, or the action by give way vessel alone cannot avoid collision. USS Fitzgerald is small, but it is still 9600 tons vessel, it cannot "dodge" any vessel like a motor launch or small boat, chances are if in a collision course, the action by Fitzgerald alone should not be enough to alter the course. Which mean ACX crystal is AS REQUIRED TO AVOID as much as the USS Fitzgerald have in this case.

-

Now, for a simple response given by someone who claim to be an US Official which is not even a US Coast Guard Official because he or she is pointing to the handbooks and say this "generalised" comment, without knowing the investigation and circumstances, and we are suppose to hold his/her word (We don't even know the gender of the person as it did not say) as god's sworn truth?? LOL.

Let me give you (AND YOU GUYS) a hint, my cousin is a serving member of the US Coast Guard, my dad was ex-Navy, I have a lot of Navy friend enough to feed me information to know this

No ships was exempted from the responsibility for causing a collision, without knowing the circumstance, how do you or anyone know the truth behind the collision? And you are telling me, these people supposed to know nothing on the official investigation which give generalized statement like this know better than any of us?

Really funny guys.



lol. These people jump at ANY news that they can find and without the fact that supporting their claim, they just look, and yes, it looks like it's for real blaming the US Navy, that's good enough for them to post their verbal diarrhea up on the internet.

There are no "report" or "investigation" leak to the media suggesting which other way maybe to blame for the incident, they did not realise these supposed news were already in circulation right off the bat after the collision. For a non-informed person, it is easy to look like the US Navy is at fault, it was hit on the starboard, and starboard mean give way, but for a well informed person, did the buck stop there?

You can blame it on their education and the comprehension level on a subject, but I would not be surprised, judging by the recent trend this forum is heading.

Best just ignore these people.



lol, your country? How fair dinkum are you?

@Slav Defence is this an appropriate post on this forum?

Post like this is stupid (There are no other word for it) for someone placing this post, their mental ability should be examined by a General Practitioner.

I am alright if you want to challenge me in a meaningful way, but without regarding to the subject (Which I seriously doubt the poster know anything about) and go straight to accusing me as a dole bludger is, again, no other word for it, stupid.



lol, first of all, it wasn't me who start this thread, and I wasn't even aware of this thread before someone named @Beast trying to troll me, I always say we should wait for the official report, but you and your folks are the one that post every which information there are on the internet and take it *** a pile of gold regardless of the source or what it actually say.

Why don't you just give up already??

If you don't want to get shafted, don't post stupid article.

You need to ask the US media for the name of that official. But that is the style of US reporting citing US officials instead of the name of the person. But I must say that when time comes, with more available information and investigations are finished, you will get exposed!

 

[KAL-EL]

Hollow claims. You do realize the USS Fitzgerald is NAVY (not army)?

What does it mean to be an Army professional?
An Army professional, uniformed or civilian:

• is an expert certified within the profession, consistently demonstrating competence, character, and commitment
• is bonded with comrades in a shared identity and culture of sacrifice and service to the Nation
• stewards the future of the Profession
• adheres to the Army’s Ethic

http://cape.army.mil/repository/aaop/overview/Overview-Lesson-Plan-Slides.pptx
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/what-military-professional

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/19...rds-or-less-a-first-round-of-contest-results/

You don't actually think any of the anti American trolls care about a pesky detail like that do you?

 

[jhungary]

You need to ask the US media for the name of that official. But that is the style of US reporting citing US officials instead of the name of the person. But I must say that when time comes, with more available information and investigations are finished, you will get exposed!

Then expose me WHEN THE TIME COMES, not before.

The "Official" could have been anyone, I used to work for DoD, in name and term, I can be an "Official" representing the United States Government. The question is, what did that person say with respect to the knowledge imposed by his/her scope. the person CNN quoted may have been a Department of Housing Agent, what did he know about Maritime law?

The thing is, without knowing who said what, what "The official" said should be taken in by a grain of salt, as much as the opinion given by you and me. Especially "The Official" claim such a generalised statement regarding a complex issue, and that generalized statement is wrong as a starter.

And I won't get exposed, if you care to read my previous comment, my comment toward that Skipper with USS Fitzgerald is that he is at some fault to begin with, he is a goner, most probably will be relief of his command, I have made numerous comment about that in the thread before, what I said here and in the previous thread is simply when a collision happens, it usually involved in both party and to reply the previous post about some poster claiming it is solely US Navy Fault that caused this accident. Some of my previous quote regarding who to blame on the incident

yes, the captain will have to answer to this even if it was not at fault, because for a Naval Captain, the ship's crew is under his command, and if an accident is avoidable and even it was not at fault, he will still be on hook for command failure resulting death or serious injury to person or persons under his/her command

We need more information to assign blame, but I can see the Captain career is all but over

Again, do you know why the two ship crashed? Cause I don't.

There are MILLIONS of scenario that can resulting in a billions dollar destroyer cannot avoid a oncoming cargo ship, some of them are pure negligence in the US part, like the lookout is asleep or they are partying 1 am??, and the crystal done everything right? some of the reason where both side are at fault (Both failed to notice each other or something), and some of the reason are purely the Crystal is at fault (They are on autopilot, did not post look out, or Crystal is overtaking Fitzgerald from the starboard) . Again, do bear in mind, radar and navigation aid can be turned off, and the ship could have rely on the look out. There are many factors that this can happen.



The Captain of Fitzgerald is responsible for the ship and crews, as I said in the beginning, the crash is an avoidable act and he has failed his duty of command, he is going to be relieved for sure. People died and he was asleep? Either his order to the OOD is not clear enough to not be able to wake him before this happen (Which is his fault), or the OOD does not do his job he was assigned to (which is to wake him if they are close passing traffic) and that would be the Captain fault as well because it is about training of the OOD.

The problem here is the liability of the incident. It's not the same as to failure to avoid a collision. Because at sea, if both side follow all the rules, nobody is ever going to crash on each other, meaning if a crash happened, both side is at fault and should be equally blamed for the crash. That's a given. However, as to who cause this crash, that is debatable. For the family of the US sailor, they need to know why the crash happened. Yes, the Captain would very likely to be charged by UCMJ for dereliction of duty, but that's not the answer for their family, they will need to know the full account on the incident.

If they think this is unprofessional, than that's their problem

So, if anything is getting exposed, it exposed the Chinese PDF member here either have a tendency to jump the gun and post without using their brain and think about it for a moment first, or the Chinese member here can actually see into the future.

 

[xunzi]

Then expose me WHEN THE TIME COMES, not before.

The "Official" could have been anyone, I used to work for DoD, in name and term, I can be an "Official" representing the United States Government. The question is, what did that person say with respect to the knowledge imposed by his/her scope. the person CNN quoted may have been a Department of Housing Agent, what did he know about Maritime law?

The thing is, without knowing who said what, what "The official" said should be taken in by a grain of salt, as much as the opinion given by you and me. Especially "The Official" claim such a generalised statement regarding a complex issue, and that generalized statement is wrong as a starter.

And I won't get exposed, if you care to read my previous comment, my comment toward that Skipper with USS Fitzgerald is that he is at some fault to begin with, he is a goner, most probably will be relief of his command, I have made numerous comment about that in the thread before, what I said here and in the previous thread is simply when a collision happens, it usually involved in both party and to reply the previous post about some poster claiming it is solely US Navy Fault that caused this accident. Some of my previous quote regarding who to blame on the incident






So, if anything is getting exposed, it exposed the Chinese PDF member here either have a tendency to jump the gun and post without using their brain and think about it for a moment first, or the Chinese member here can actually see into the future.

You have to understanding that the investigation is not completed and thus that official may not want his name in the article but that does not mean that official is a low end in the department nor he/she was not an expert in the field. CNN and other major US media are citing this guy so I'm pretty sure he is not some junkie but a high-class official. We are dealing with a big issue here where family of the dead want a real investigation so expect more information to come out sooner than later.

As who fault it is, I already told you that I'm very confident that US navy will be the main fault while some fault may only be from the Crystal if it's true that everybody was asleep as claimed which I doubt. The fact is Fritz totally blindside the Crystal by turning off radar broadcasting. So it is the navy responsibility to avoid any ships. Also you have to understand that these huge boat are not the same as car so the right of road don't always apply. Who had the right of ways remain to be seeen but from common logic tell me the Fritz should not across in front due to the fact the Crystal is a heavy boat, slow and not very maneuverable. That is like asking a freight train to stay clear out of a bus crossing a rail track.