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

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by shovelhd

I gotta agree with the author. That's a pretty significant line to cross. So what about friendly fire incidents? Is that also negligent homicide?

Agree, gotta show intent..think it’s the proverbial ‘slippery slope’...

[CaptStash]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Another take on these 2 collisions.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...eid=dd1101f498

Interesting article, and I tend to agree with the author. The NAVY seems to be missing the importance of the total lack of training that contributed to the collisions. In fact, I could make a good argument that poor training and / or lack of training was the root cause. It really saddens me. The mistakes on the McCain were so ridiculous it would be comical if not for the sailors who perished.

CaptStash....

[Louis]

I might have missed it above, but have official and/or final reports on the investigations been released by the Navy? (esp. the McCain and the Fitzgerald)

[choke]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Another take on these 2 collisions.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...eid=dd1101f498

I disagree with the author. I spent 6 years as an enlisted Marine and I seldom saw officers, and senior NCOs for that matter, punished when they should have been and at times a subordinate was punished. Far too often when something happens the guilty (IMO, not an official one) senior officer/enlisted is forced to take 'early retirement' which is essentially no punishment at all since they still get their pension and benefits. It's as though the rules don't apply equally. The Captain of a ship is ultimately the one responsible and I think the charge is appropriate. As the sign on Harry Truman's desk said, "The buck stops here".

As for intent, it is not a requirement for negligent homicide. Negligent homicide falls under Article 134 of the UCMJ, the catch all General Article. From what I can find online, "negligent homicide under Article 134, UCMJ, requires: (1) that a certain person is dead; (2) that this death resulted from an act or failure to act of the accused; (3) that the killing by the accused was unlawful; (4) that the accused’s act or failure to act that caused the death amounted to simple negligence; and (5) that, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces."

Originally Posted by CaptStash

The NAVY seems to be missing the importance of the total lack of training that contributed to the collisions. In fact, I could make a good argument that poor training and / or lack of training was the root cause.

I agree....but the Captain of the ship is the one ultimately responsible for that poor training. If his superiors, for whatever reason, did not require adequate training then he should have supplemented that training on his own. That's not to say that those responsible for that inadequate training shouldn't be punished as well.

[marciero]

Originally Posted by choke

...
I agree....but the Captain of the ship is the one ultimately responsible for that poor training. If his superiors, for whatever reason, did not require adequate training then he should have supplemented that training on his own. That's not to say that those responsible for that inadequate training shouldn't be punished as well.

The level of knowledge and expertise on this forum are impressive. I have no expert knowledge on this subject but...

In many professional settings, self-assessment is part of training. If that is the part of training that was inadequate then officers may not have the ability to adequately assess their own competencies. Poor training might also leave officers ignorant of certain procedures, rather than, say, a lack of practice with a given procedure. In either of these situations, would some of the blame not fall on the trainers/superiors?

[BdaGhisallo]

http://theothermccain.com/2018/06/17...ank-navy-ship/


This is interesting if true:

"An anonymous email came in over the transom this morning:

Hi, Stacy.
During the early weeks after the USS Fitzgerald was speared by a lumbering Philippine container ship, it was noteworthy that the captain and a couple of admirals were publically named, but not the actual officer in charge, the officer of the deck. (OOD) The other person who should have kept the Fitz out of trouble is the person in charge of the combat information center, the Tactical Action Officer. That individual is supposed to be monitoring the combat radar, which can detect a swimmer at a distance of two miles.
Not until a year later, when the final reports are made public and the guilty parties have been court-martialed, does the truth come out. The OOD was named Sarah, and the Tactical Action Officer was named Natalie, and they weren’t speaking to each other!!! The Tactical Action Officer would normally be in near constant communication with the OOD, but there is no record of any communication between them that entire shift!
Another fun fact: In the Navy that won WWII, the damage control officers were usually some of the biggest and strongest men aboard, able to close hatches, shore up damaged areas with timbers, etc. The Fitz’s damage control officer was also a woman, and she never left the bridge. She handled the aftermath of the accident remotely, without lifting a finger herself!
Look it up: The OOD was Sarah Coppock, Tactical Action Officer was Natalie Combs. . . .
When I noticed last year that they were doing all they could to keep the OOD’s name out of the headlines, I speculated to my son that it was a she. Turns out all the key people (except one officer in the CIC) were female!

Indeed, I did some searching, and Lt. Coppock pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty. Lt. Combs faced a hearing last month:

In an 11-hour hearing, prosecutors painted a picture of Lt. Irian Woodley, the ship’s surface warfare coordinator, and Lt. Natalie Combs, the tactical action officer, as failing at their jobs, not using the tools at their disposal properly and not communicating adequately. They became complacent with faulty equipment and did not seek to get it fixed, and they failed to communicate with the bridge, the prosecution argued. Had they done those things, the government contended, they would have been able to avert the collision."

[chuckred]

I have no idea if these women were any more or less competent than the men they served with. But the article citing an "anonymous email" insinuates they were incompetent officers because they were women, rather than being incompetent officers who happen to be women. No need to question the author's bias, it's obvious (Obama's fault).

If there is a systemic training or command problem, it is a distraction (see a pattern?) to focus on the officers' first names as cause of the effect. But I'm not surprised...

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

http://theothermccain.com/2018/06/17...ank-navy-ship/


This is interesting if true:

"An anonymous email came in over the transom this morning:

Hi, Stacy.
During the early weeks after the USS Fitzgerald was speared by a lumbering Philippine container ship, it was noteworthy that the captain and a couple of admirals were publically named, but not the actual officer in charge, the officer of the deck. (OOD) The other person who should have kept the Fitz out of trouble is the person in charge of the combat information center, the Tactical Action Officer. That individual is supposed to be monitoring the combat radar, which can detect a swimmer at a distance of two miles.
Not until a year later, when the final reports are made public and the guilty parties have been court-martialed, does the truth come out. The OOD was named Sarah, and the Tactical Action Officer was named Natalie, and they weren’t speaking to each other!!! The Tactical Action Officer would normally be in near constant communication with the OOD, but there is no record of any communication between them that entire shift!
Another fun fact: In the Navy that won WWII, the damage control officers were usually some of the biggest and strongest men aboard, able to close hatches, shore up damaged areas with timbers, etc. The Fitz’s damage control officer was also a woman, and she never left the bridge. She handled the aftermath of the accident remotely, without lifting a finger herself!
Look it up: The OOD was Sarah Coppock, Tactical Action Officer was Natalie Combs. . . .
When I noticed last year that they were doing all they could to keep the OOD’s name out of the headlines, I speculated to my son that it was a she. Turns out all the key people (except one officer in the CIC) were female!

Indeed, I did some searching, and Lt. Coppock pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty. Lt. Combs faced a hearing last month:

In an 11-hour hearing, prosecutors painted a picture of Lt. Irian Woodley, the ship’s surface warfare coordinator, and Lt. Natalie Combs, the tactical action officer, as failing at their jobs, not using the tools at their disposal properly and not communicating adequately. They became complacent with faulty equipment and did not seek to get it fixed, and they failed to communicate with the bridge, the prosecution argued. Had they done those things, the government contended, they would have been able to avert the collision."

It's going to be interesting reading some responses. Altho I am not a fan of CO-ED military..particularly on ships and for grunts/fox hole dwellers(more expensive w/o an increase in warfighting 'strength..berthing, medical, etc..but that's another discussion)...The bolded is the most important parts. The fact that they were female isn't the reason they were so inept. They were inept either because they were trained poorly(by a male?), the training wasn't monitored properly by CO/XO(males?) or they just weren't very good at their jobs, regardless of training..but they weren't doing a poor job because they happened to be female.

Not surprised the USN wanted to keep gender out of this tho. Same thing when first female F-14 pilot killed herself behind the CV...Her training progress was poor, well documented..if she would have been a guy, she never would have been allowed into the cockpit of a F-14, behind the boat.

[batman1425]

The author seems to indicate that the Navy knowingly withheld the names of female officers involved in the incident. To what gain? There's also an obvious bias from the author regarding their opinion of the fitness of women in those specific positions so consider that when reading.

Full disclosure, I know nothing about the responsibilities and chain of command in this situation, maybe OldPotatoe or another can jump in to help me out. Could another reasonable explanation be that the publicly named individuals constituted the most egregious lack of responsibility in the situation and thus where the blame is going to hit hardest? This is obviously a complicated, multifactorial situation, where multiple redundant systems all failed, and several people had a hand in failing to act. I just find it hard to believe that the Navy would choose to single out the men for public flogging. What do they stand to gain by doing that? At some point they had to know the names were going to be revealed, at which point, any gender based preferential treatment (if such exists) would be blatantly obvious.

[Spaghetti Legs]

That article/letter is a load of crap; my guess written by a bitter old man. It insinuates that the collision happened because the TAO and OOD were having a spat and that women are somehow more prone to interpersonal problems. Really? Navy wardrooms have the same political maneuvering and likes/dislikes as any corporate office. The dysfunction from this type of stuff is often a function of the leadership, or lack thereof, from the CO/XO.

TAO, at least in the early 90’s, has no responsibility for safe navigation of the ship (I was one), serves as the Commanding Officer’s watch representative for combat readiness and weapons release. The DCO, Damage Control Officer, is the ship’s Chief Engineer and physical strength has nothing to do with the job. It’s an administrative title and the actual day to day responsibilities of damage control fall to the DC Assistant (me again).

My ship was one of the early gender integrated ships and I wasn’t a fan of it, but it wasn’t because women couldn’t do the job. In fact one of my best sailors was a woman. We called her “Thunderella”.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Spaghetti Legs

That article/letter is a load of crap; my guess written by a bitter old man. It insinuates that the collision happened because the TAO and OOD were having a spat and that women are somehow more prone to interpersonal problems. Really? Navy wardrooms have the same political maneuvering and likes/dislikes as any corporate office. The dysfunction from this type of stuff is often a function of the leadership, or lack thereof, from the CO/XO.

TAO, at least in the early 90’s, has no responsibility for safe navigation of the ship (I was one), serves as the Commanding Officer’s watch representative for combat readiness and weapons release. The DCO, Damage Control Officer, is the ship’s Chief Engineer and physical strength has nothing to do with the job. It’s an administrative title and the actual day to day responsibilities of damage control fall to the DC Assistant (me again).

My ship was one of the early gender integrated ships and I wasn’t a fan of it, but it wasn’t because women couldn’t do the job. In fact one of my best sailors was a woman. We called her “Thunderella”.

Doubt that would fly these days in the 'PC' USN...

[bigbill]

I'm a retired submariner and Surface Warfare Officer (SWO). I was a SWO on a carrier during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. By that point, the Navy was fully integrated with women SWO's.

The fact that there were women not being the focus comes down to a couple of things: 1) it played no factor 2) the Commanding Officer is responsible for command climate and that seems to be the driving factor 3) the public secret that the forward deployed surface combatants are overtasked with inadequately trained officers (regardless of gender) and behind on corrective maintenance 4) the fact that the watchteam seemed to be almost all female isn't unusual, even on carriers it was common and makes no difference because everyone gets the same training and drive the same ship 5) and this article is misogynist in nature and doesn't reflect the attitudes of the vast majority of the people who work at the tip of the spear.

The bottom line is the OOD and TAO have some responsibility and were punished accordingly, but it's the Commanding Officer who is responsible for how his/her command operates. This didn't happen in a vacuum.

[verticaldoug]

It's actually a pretty well crafted article which I bet is not written by a bitter old man.

It is probably written as part of a larger agenda by someone. It has just enough facts, but also has some subtle language (ODA and TAA weren't talking to each other!!!! because we all know when women get made they give each other the silent treatment and implying this lead to the crash).

This is what makes this stuff dangerous.

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

It's actually a pretty well crafted article which I bet is not written by a bitter old man.

It is probably written as part of a larger agenda by someone. It has just enough facts, but also has some subtle language (ODA and TAA weren't talking to each other!!!! because we all know when women get made they give each other the silent treatment and implying this lead to the crash).

This is what makes this stuff dangerous.

The Tactical Action Officer and Officer of the Deck are in separate locations. The fact that they weren't talking to each other does not mean they were mad at each other, it means the TAO and OOD failed to do their jobs. When the OOD wasn't getting reports, she should have raised it to another level. If the OOD wasn't listening or taking actions based on data provided, then the TAO should have brought that up to the Commanding Officer. It all comes back to command climate that allowed the breakdown of communications and that's all on the Commanding Officer. That's why he or she gets hammered on this.

[verticaldoug]

Bill

I am not disagreeing with you on content. I am not disagreeing with your on conclusion.

I was trying to point out the article has purpose which is why I doubt it is just written by a crank.

As a career Navy man, you can easily debunk it. As most people are without Naval experience, you can just google a few of the facts- look Natalie and Sara were really charged, but these 'facts' are woven into some subtle weasel words and other stereotypes. (hence my reference to the two not speaking to each other. )

The real purpose of the article is to target a certain type of individual- maybe white male anxiety types, maybe not. Even the reference that Navy tried so hard to hide the fact that they were women, so the angry man can draw the conclusion if they had been men, the navy had thrown them to the wolves. Men are so discriminated against.

I think this type of subtle targeting is happening more and more.

At which point, I now sound like the conspiracy crank.
D