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

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by sfscott

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

He will have to wait until he gets out of the hospital. Medevaced off the ship and currently in stable condition.

Wishing for the impossible for the 7 missing sailors.

[72gmc]

Thanks for this thread. With respect for this unfolding situation, I've always been captivated by how ships work.

I found The Ships of Port Revel a very interesting read. Not just because I'm a John McPhee fan.

[hobbanero]

amazing that I gained a far greater understanding about this incident here than reading the Wall Street Journal.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by sfscott

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

Yup, the USN will let him retire but retire he will.

[CaptStash]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Yup, the USN will let him retire but retire he will.

Not so sure. I suspect he was asleep in his cabin when this happened, which would account for his injuries. I'm not ready to throw anyone under the bus on this one yet. The box boat's weird track has me completely stumped.

I am also afraid that the missing sailors are trapped in the damaged / flooded areas. Not a good prognosis. Fingers crossed for a good outcome.

CaptStash....

[Seramount]

Originally Posted by CaptStash

... Exxon Valdez disaster. Hazelwood's error was in not being on the bridge. It wasn't even remotely alcohol related.

Hazelwood wasn't given a breathalyzer test, but he had consumed several drinks prior to the grounding...

was he legally drunk...maybe yes, maybe no.

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index....=facts.details

[CaptStash]

Originally Posted by Seramount

Hazelwood wasn't given a breathalyzer test, but he had consumed several drinks prior to the grounding...

was he legally drunk...maybe yes, maybe no.

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/index....=facts.details

Unklnown, but it likely had very little if anything to do with why the vessel grounded. It was a long, complicated and discouraging error chain that allowed the incident. I personally know a couple of the players, and blame the culture at Exxon shipping more than anything else. A poorly trained mate was at the con on a new ship he didn't fully understand, and he refused to accept input from a more qualified licensed officer who was sailing in an unlicensed rank. And so it goes.

CaptStash....

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Yup, the USN will let him retire but retire he will.

Originally Posted by CaptStash

Not so sure. I suspect he was asleep in his cabin when this happened, which would account for his injuries.

From a liability perspective you might be right. From a PR vantage, I dunno...

[firemanj92]

Originally Posted by CaptStash

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.



CaptStash....

RE: M/V Costco Busan (I had previous forgotten the type of vessel but dealt with the 50k+ gallons of fuel released into the bay)
Both prescriptions drugs and the pilots medical conditions were not disclosed on his annual forms to the USCG as required and did play a part in his conviction. But what remains is the multiple human errors including the lack of understanding of the vessel's electronic charting system and the meaning of the 2 red triangles (red buoys) marking the towers that he struck. He made the decision to leave port in thick fog (less than 1/2 nautical mi visibility) with no forward lookout posted-several other large commercial vessel pilots chose not to leave port that morning. He also claimed the radar was unreliable but it was in fact reading correctly. He failed to review the ships paper charts when he doubted the electronic systems. He gave the commands which led to the collision of the tower.
As the pilot of one of the 1st emergency responders on scene my point was it was human error and have since corrected my previous statement to give a long drawn out explanation instead of a quick read.

[CaptStash]

Originally Posted by firemanj92

As the pilot of one of the 1st emergency responders on scene my point was it was human error and have since corrected my previous statement to give a long drawn out explanation instead of a quick read.

Agreed. He was actually the only pilot I ever had a serious problem with. I had it o
ut with him when he put my 190,000 ton ship in a close quarters situation docking at Benicia because he wanted to got to dinner with the pilot of the ship behind us. Needless to say, I was not his biggest fan.

CaptStash....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by CaptStash

Not so sure. I suspect he was asleep in his cabin when this happened, which would account for his injuries. I'm not ready to throw anyone under the bus on this one yet. The box boat's weird track has me completely stumped.

I am also afraid that the missing sailors are trapped in the damaged / flooded areas. Not a good prognosis. Fingers crossed for a good outcome.

CaptStash....

Yes, hope against hope for the missing shipmates...as for being asleep, I've seen more than one CO be removed for cause even tho he wasn't on the bridge. This sounds really wonky, hope he survives to hear 'captain's on the bridge' again.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by CaptStash

Agreed. He was actually the only pilot I ever had a serious problem with. I had it o
ut with him when he put my 190,000 ton ship in a close quarters situation docking at Benicia because he wanted to got to dinner with the pilot of the ship behind us. Needless to say, I was not his biggest fan.

CaptStash....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Allright skipper...you need to tell us(me) of your sea borne resume, 'my 190,000 ton'...gads, I thought a CV was big but a 'measly 100,000 tons.

[verticaldoug]

This was already a plot twist in a James Bond Film. Some evil media conglomerate wanted improved ratings , so manipulated the GPS tracking so both ships thought they were elsewhere but actually sent on a collusion course by the evil news conglomerate to get ratings.

Stage two is getting a war. What's up with North Korea?

[bicycletricycle]

Uncommon carriers is a great McPhee book, I really like his books.

Originally Posted by 72gmc

Thanks for this thread. With respect for this unfolding situation, I've always been captivated by how ships work.

I found The Ships of Port Revel a very interesting read. Not just because I'm a John McPhee fan.

[bicycletricycle]

Thank you for the great information. If you feel up to it it would be great if you could update us some if you learn anything interesting. I am personally really interested in complicated control systems and how things can go wrong. It is unfortunate that the news tends to cover these things so superficially.

It sounds like you have experience in these matters. Does the navy have a investigation arm that recommends changes to protocols and/or equipment when these things happen? Would it's findings be public? Does commercial shipping have something like the NTSB?

Originally Posted by CaptStash

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....