ot: so how do a merchant ship and destroyer have a collision?
 

pilot error or what?

Well, I always wonder the same thing, in the middle of nowhere two giant boats crash. Wonder if there was any people looking???

I've been wondering the same thing. Plenty of radar, electronics.

i know this is serious as it seems lives have been lost
 

but you'd think modern ships would have radar collision avoidance systems. or maybe in a great big ocean "mostly" no need.

Two ships in the night?

I am not a sailor or an expert in any way in the ways of the sea.

however.

Seems like some kind of gross negligence.

I read that the destroyer was stationary, so the freighter hit it.

Coincidentally, a Nantucket high-speed ferry went up on a jetty in Hyannis harbor last night. Talk about embarassing. No word yet if the captain's name is Hazelwood.

They weren't in the middle of the ocean, they were off of Japan in an area that is relatively busy. Encounters between naval vessels and merchant ships are difficult because of a completely different manner of training and approach on each vessel. Quite frankly, when I was at sea I did everything I could to avoid naval vessels as they were completely unpredictable.

In this case, there are some conflicting issues. While the merchant ship was using AIS (Automatic Indentification System) the naval vessel was not. Rumor had it that the AIS track showed the Crystal turning to port well before the collision for navigation purposes. In general, the vessel on the other's starboard side in a crossing situation is supposed to maintain course and speed while the other vessel is required to take action to avoid collision. The rules also require that in general a vessel should avoid turns to port.

My guess is that the destroyer missed the boxboat's subtle turn to port, and did not act in the risk of collision. The box boat probably went hard to starboard when it was realized she was in extremis, hence the damage to her starboard bow.

On a US. ship there are a slew of folks with different jobs on the bridge, plus others in the CIC all of whom have various duties. A merchant ship in those waters would typically have an officer (probably the Second Mate) a helmsman and a lookout on watch. If the officer was relying too heavily on his ECDIS (electronic charting system) and its use of AIS to display traffic, he could have missed the destroyer, even though it would have been a good target on the radar. All merchant vessels carry a collision avoidance equipped radar that will track targets and determine closest point of approach (CPA). To attain the rank of Second Mate, you need several years of sea time and a degree from a maritime college. Training has been standardized worldwide by a UN Convention.

Meanwhile on the naval ship there may very well have been a junior officer with far less maritime related training and experience. The navy has a much different mission.

The media has been reporting that the container ship displaced (weighed) 29,000 tons. This is incorrect, the vessel has 29,000 gross tons, which is a volume. The container ship had a max. Deadweight of nearly 40,000 tonnes which is a reflection of how much it can carry. The vessel probably displaced somewhere in the neighborhood of 35,000 tonnes (half a load) at the time of the collision, v. The destroyer's 8,300, which says to me it was a glancing blow. If the ship had truly t- boned that little navy boat the damage would have been far worse.

I could go on. And on. But that's enough for now.

CaptStash....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40314128

This link shows a very erratic course taken by the freighter. Looks like they may have made an initial course deviation that took them towards an island, reversed course to find the channel, then veered to get back on their originally intended course.

I suspect that if the US ship was stopped, the decision to do so while broadside to an erratically approaching craft was a poor one and will likely cost the commander his career.

Thanks for posting that. It's one weird track. It will be interesting to learn what the heck was going on. In most collisions, both ships are at fault. I still doubt (hope?) that the destroyer wasn't stopped. That would be just plain nuts. All merchant ships are also required to carry a Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) like an airplane's black box. It will have voice, ECDIS, GPS and radar data. With any luck that will be retrieved and reveal a lot.

CaptStash....

A few years ago we had an large ship strike the Oakland/SF Bay bridge, something very stationary and in every nav chart plotter/chart for over 80 years. End result was pilot error-.

Exxon Valdez syndrome...

Well the USN does, called bridge crew and lookouts plus radar. BUT ships did not turn all that well and takes miles to stop. I wonder if it was rules of the road confusion or steering casualty. CO of USN ship in trouble regardless along with OOD, bridge crew, etc.

Guessing the captain need to work on his resume and buy some civilian clothes.

1) You have no clue what caused the Exxon Valdez disaster. Hazelwood's error was in not being on the bridge. It wasn't even remotely alcohol related.

2) The pilot error you are referring to was the on the Costco Busan, which was a container ship. There was a lot more going on there than the pilot who was taking unreported prescriptions.

It's easy to blame people for mistakes when you don't understand how things work. Ships are complicated, slow, ponderous beasts that don't handle even remotely like a motorboat on a lake. The causes of this collision will become known in due time, but guessing that someone was either asleep or incompetent is unfair and premature.

CaptStash....