7 ms·

What did the commander have to do with this accident? He was asleep in his stateroom. Edit: The captain is responsible for his crews performance and the navy w

What did the commander have to do with this accident? He was asleep in his stateroom. Edit: The captain is responsible for his crews performance and the navy way means he'll never be given command again, regardless of the results of the investigation. But my response was to someone who apparently thought the captain was gunning the engine while playing chicken with the cargo vessel. For one specific point, the destroyer wasn't on collision course, the cargo vessel was.

fnovd 9y ago
If your child accidentally set himself on fire on your babysitter's watch, would you accept "I was asleep" as an excuse?
- valuearb 9y ago
  Do you think a ships captain is a robot immune to the requirements of sleep?
  - barrkel 9y ago
    Was he asleep when he chose who to be on watch? Why are you fighting the captain's corner so hard in the face of good reasons for someone in a position of authority to take responsibility for a failure? It's refreshing, frankly - non-military life doesn't usually work that way.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      We don't know what specifically caused the accident yet. We do know the Captains career is over regardless of the cause. It's still possible the captain did his job well, and still one of his crew members screwed up. And comparing a ship's captain to a babysitter? When a babysitter comes to my house I expect them to be attentive for 4 hours and then to go home. I don't expect captains to never sleep during long voyages. There is a whole process around allowing the captain to sleep, and waking them for any possible problem, which obviously didn't occur her. But by all means some posters can compare his job to babysitting.
      - fnovd 9y ago
        Your critique of my analogy reminds me of this web comic: http://imgur.com/a/BqPzT http://imgur.com/a/BqPzT
  - astrodust 9y ago
    They don't do a random draw to see who gets to be the captain. You're supposed to be able to operate under extreme conditions, including sleep deprivation, if it's necessary.
    - mpyne 9y ago
      Collisions can happen anytime a ship is underway, which in the U.S. Navy can happen for months on end. Navy ships can be refueled and resupplied without having to visit port. So yes, provision has to be made for a CO to sleep at some point. And the Navy accordingly has provisions for this -- provisions which failed here. The CO will be held accountable for maintaining -- or not -- an environment conducive to safe navigation, but in any event the blame will not attach solely to the CO here.
- qbrass 9y ago
  It doesn't matter if you accept the babysitter's excuse or not, CPS is taking your kids away from you either way. That's the proper analogy.
khuey 9y ago
The commander bears at least some responsibility for everything that happens on his command. The Navy will do a thorough investigation and probably lots of things will be to blame, but "he was asleep at the time" is not a get out of jail free card.
mc32 9y ago
True but he should not have allowed a climate/attitude where this could happen. It was his responsibility to keep his sailors at the ready and never allow them to become complacent.
zzalpha 9y ago
Is this comment intended to be sarcastic? If lookouts were not posted or the radar was not properly manned, the commander is ultimately responsible. Heads will proverbially roll on this one, and his will absolutely be one of the first.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Not sarcasm. I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel and I was just pointing out he wasn't involved in the decision making. And we do know he will lose his command and never get another one, whether he's shown to have culpability for his crews failures or not. It's the navy way.
  - zzalpha 9y ago
    * I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel* Odd, because when I go back to the OP, I don't see any indication that suggests he thinks the captain made an active decision to be reckless. Maybe they edited after you replied? Or is it the quotes around "accident" in this sentence that lead you to interpret their comments this way? There is absolutely no reason a modern warship should have an "accident" like this. If so, I read this differently. In my view, an accident is something that occurs due to unexpected changes in a situation. For example, if a car crash occurred because a deer jumped across the road and lead a vehicle to swerve, I'd use the word "accident". But in cases of negligence, I find the word "accident" makes it far too easy to blame the situation rather than the people. In this case, in my view these two ships colliding was no "accident" in that there must have been clear, conscious human decisions that lead to the event, even if those decisions were simply "I'm going to have a nap now (and thus be negligent in my duties)". Incidentally, I think we're far too willing to refer to car crashes as "accidents", and for this same reason.
- mpyne 9y ago
  What happens if the CIC (where the radar operators would sit), lookouts, and bridge team were all properly posted with trained watchstanders, who collectively dropped the ball? Don't get me wrong, the CO is still "accountable" here, but while the buck may stop with him, there is going to be plenty of room for blame by the time this is all settled out. I don't care who the CO is, there's no excuse for a Navy watchteam on a modern destroyer to miss on oncoming container ship so badly.
tyingq 9y ago
More than one process had to break down here, which implies some systemic laxness.
gaius 9y ago
It was his responsibility to ensure someone competent to do so was on watch, so while it is a failure of personnel management rather than one of ship-handling, it is still the Captain's responsibility.
dba7dba 9y ago
I never served in any navy but I've learned a lot of USN through my readings of history and other topics. In USN, the captain is ultimately responsible for everything that happens to the ship and on the ship. I admire this trait in USN. 1) I really do feel bad for the poor captain as this is most likely not his fault directly but someone else's. You will probably see one of these on the final report for placing the blame on the captain: - Not keeping crew trained/motivated enough to be alert to avoid the accident. - Not giving clear instruction to the crew to wake him up when another ship is near by. - Having a hostile environment where the subordinates avoid waking him up or dealing with him directly. - Not keeping equipment in proper order I'm not saying any of it may be true or not, but usually that seems to be the common thread. 2) Check the case of 2009 USS Port Royal grounding. A USN missile cruiser grounded near Honolulu Airport. Airline Passengers coming in for landing at Honolulu Airport could see the grounded ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_USS_Port_Royal_grounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_USS_Port_Royal_grounding The captain was relived of his duty within days. He didn't even get to stay long enough to command recovery effort of the ship. The final report states following as the reasons of the grounding. combination of a misread navigation system, a sleep-deprived commanding officer, broken equipment, and an inexperienced and dysfunctional bridge team. The ship had just finished a major overhaul and they were busy testing the system, resulting in a captain with not enough sleep. The direct reason for actual grounding? Military contractors (engineer/technician) had flown into Hawaii to work on the ship during the overhaul and were on the ship. They were on the ship during the testing out in the sea which lasted longer than planned that day. And the contractors really really wanted to get back to their hotel that evening to play a round of golf the next day before returning to US mainland. To allow the military contractors to leave the ship on the small crafts that evening safely, someone ordered the USN cruiser move closer to the port. And it was during this movement, the cruiser grounded. This is not in the wiki but I remember reading about this in the local newspaper. Because some dudes wanted to play golf before leaving Hawaii, they ended up being one of the direct causes of causing multi million dollar damage to a USN cruiser. 3) Grounding a USN ship usually gets the captain fired, almost 100% of the time, like within days of it happening. Considering bureaucratic delays usually involved in an institution like USN, disciplining captain for accidental damage of a ship is lightening fast. HOWEVER, Admiral Nimitz did ground a destroyer when he was a young captain sometime in 1920s. He famously went to sleep quite peacefully on the deck of the ship that night because he knew there was nothing that could be done that night. Ultimately, he was not blamed for the grounding because the chart he was following was later proven to be faulty. He went on to lead the USN brilliantly in defeating the Japanese Navy in WW2. Considering how revered Admiral Nimitz is by USN, it's quite an exception.

fnovd 9y ago

If your child accidentally set himself on fire on your babysitter's watch, would you accept "I was asleep" as an excuse?

valuearb 9y ago
Do you think a ships captain is a robot immune to the requirements of sleep?
- barrkel 9y ago
  Was he asleep when he chose who to be on watch? Why are you fighting the captain's corner so hard in the face of good reasons for someone in a position of authority to take responsibility for a failure? It's refreshing, frankly - non-military life doesn't usually work that way.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    We don't know what specifically caused the accident yet. We do know the Captains career is over regardless of the cause. It's still possible the captain did his job well, and still one of his crew members screwed up. And comparing a ship's captain to a babysitter? When a babysitter comes to my house I expect them to be attentive for 4 hours and then to go home. I don't expect captains to never sleep during long voyages. There is a whole process around allowing the captain to sleep, and waking them for any possible problem, which obviously didn't occur her. But by all means some posters can compare his job to babysitting.
    - fnovd 9y ago
      Your critique of my analogy reminds me of this web comic: http://imgur.com/a/BqPzT http://imgur.com/a/BqPzT
- astrodust 9y ago
  They don't do a random draw to see who gets to be the captain. You're supposed to be able to operate under extreme conditions, including sleep deprivation, if it's necessary.
  - mpyne 9y ago
    Collisions can happen anytime a ship is underway, which in the U.S. Navy can happen for months on end. Navy ships can be refueled and resupplied without having to visit port. So yes, provision has to be made for a CO to sleep at some point. And the Navy accordingly has provisions for this -- provisions which failed here. The CO will be held accountable for maintaining -- or not -- an environment conducive to safe navigation, but in any event the blame will not attach solely to the CO here.
qbrass 9y ago
It doesn't matter if you accept the babysitter's excuse or not, CPS is taking your kids away from you either way. That's the proper analogy.

khuey 9y ago

The commander bears at least some responsibility for everything that happens on his command. The Navy will do a thorough investigation and probably lots of things will be to blame, but "he was asleep at the time" is not a get out of jail free card.

mc32 9y ago

True but he should not have allowed a climate/attitude where this could happen. It was his responsibility to keep his sailors at the ready and never allow them to become complacent.

zzalpha 9y ago

Is this comment intended to be sarcastic? If lookouts were not posted or the radar was not properly manned, the commander is ultimately responsible. Heads will proverbially roll on this one, and his will absolutely be one of the first.

valuearb 9y ago
Not sarcasm. I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel and I was just pointing out he wasn't involved in the decision making. And we do know he will lose his command and never get another one, whether he's shown to have culpability for his crews failures or not. It's the navy way.
- zzalpha 9y ago
  * I was replying to someone who assumed some arrogant naval captain was playing chicken with a merchant vessel* Odd, because when I go back to the OP, I don't see any indication that suggests he thinks the captain made an active decision to be reckless. Maybe they edited after you replied? Or is it the quotes around "accident" in this sentence that lead you to interpret their comments this way? There is absolutely no reason a modern warship should have an "accident" like this. If so, I read this differently. In my view, an accident is something that occurs due to unexpected changes in a situation. For example, if a car crash occurred because a deer jumped across the road and lead a vehicle to swerve, I'd use the word "accident". But in cases of negligence, I find the word "accident" makes it far too easy to blame the situation rather than the people. In this case, in my view these two ships colliding was no "accident" in that there must have been clear, conscious human decisions that lead to the event, even if those decisions were simply "I'm going to have a nap now (and thus be negligent in my duties)". Incidentally, I think we're far too willing to refer to car crashes as "accidents", and for this same reason.
mpyne 9y ago
What happens if the CIC (where the radar operators would sit), lookouts, and bridge team were all properly posted with trained watchstanders, who collectively dropped the ball? Don't get me wrong, the CO is still "accountable" here, but while the buck may stop with him, there is going to be plenty of room for blame by the time this is all settled out. I don't care who the CO is, there's no excuse for a Navy watchteam on a modern destroyer to miss on oncoming container ship so badly.

tyingq 9y ago

More than one process had to break down here, which implies some systemic laxness.

gaius 9y ago

It was his responsibility to ensure someone competent to do so was on watch, so while it is a failure of personnel management rather than one of ship-handling, it is still the Captain's responsibility.

dba7dba 9y ago

I never served in any navy but I've learned a lot of USN through my readings of history and other topics. In USN, the captain is ultimately responsible for everything that happens to the ship and on the ship. I admire this trait in USN. 1) I really do feel bad for the poor captain as this is most likely not his fault directly but someone else's. You will probably see one of these on the final report for placing the blame on the captain: - Not keeping crew trained/motivated enough to be alert to avoid the accident. - Not giving clear instruction to the crew to wake him up when another ship is near by. - Having a hostile environment where the subordinates avoid waking him up or dealing with him directly. - Not keeping equipment in proper order I'm not saying any of it may be true or not, but usually that seems to be the common thread. 2) Check the case of 2009 USS Port Royal grounding. A USN missile cruiser grounded near Honolulu Airport. Airline Passengers coming in for landing at Honolulu Airport could see the grounded ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_USS_Port_Royal_grounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_USS_Port_Royal_grounding The captain was relived of his duty within days. He didn't even get to stay long enough to command recovery effort of the ship. The final report states following as the reasons of the grounding. combination of a misread navigation system, a sleep-deprived commanding officer, broken equipment, and an inexperienced and dysfunctional bridge team. The ship had just finished a major overhaul and they were busy testing the system, resulting in a captain with not enough sleep. The direct reason for actual grounding? Military contractors (engineer/technician) had flown into Hawaii to work on the ship during the overhaul and were on the ship. They were on the ship during the testing out in the sea which lasted longer than planned that day. And the contractors really really wanted to get back to their hotel that evening to play a round of golf the next day before returning to US mainland. To allow the military contractors to leave the ship on the small crafts that evening safely, someone ordered the USN cruiser move closer to the port. And it was during this movement, the cruiser grounded. This is not in the wiki but I remember reading about this in the local newspaper. Because some dudes wanted to play golf before leaving Hawaii, they ended up being one of the direct causes of causing multi million dollar damage to a USN cruiser. 3) Grounding a USN ship usually gets the captain fired, almost 100% of the time, like within days of it happening. Considering bureaucratic delays usually involved in an institution like USN, disciplining captain for accidental damage of a ship is lightening fast. HOWEVER, Admiral Nimitz did ground a destroyer when he was a young captain sometime in 1920s. He famously went to sleep quite peacefully on the deck of the ship that night because he knew there was nothing that could be done that night. Ultimately, he was not blamed for the grounding because the chart he was following was later proven to be faulty. He went on to lead the USN brilliantly in defeating the Japanese Navy in WW2. Considering how revered Admiral Nimitz is by USN, it's quite an exception.