6 ms·

So it's a hugely clickbaity title. The article provides no new evidence or even offer any possible causes as to the accident, it just details what happened and

So it's a hugely clickbaity title. The article provides no new evidence or even offer any possible causes as to the accident, it just details what happened and wonders why. We already have a good idea what happened. 1) It was a very dark night, the moon had not yet risen. Even a large cargo ship can be hard to see against a black horizon at night. 2) The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated navigation system on the cargo ship didn't see it. 3) The cargo ship made a significant course change a few miles before the collision, which meant if the destroyer crew had plotted its course prior that change, they might have not realized they were suddenly on a collision course. 4) The cargo ship hit the destroyer from an acute angle, almost from behind. On that heading rules of navigation say it was on the cargo ship to give way to the destroyer, it's possible the crew thought they would. 5) if any of the cargo ship crew were on watch, they could not have seen the destroyer once they were close, given how tall their ships deck was. 6) The track after the collision indicates the cargo ship crew was asleep and the automated navigation system turned at the collision then resumed course, and it took 30 minutes for the crew to take control, figure out what had happened and returned. 7) Allegedly AEGIS radar systems are often tuned to filter out surface traffic so they can be more accurate at picking up air traffic. 8) The fact the captain was asleep in cabin is evidence no alarm was given nor threat detected before impact. Every time the captain goes to bed they leave standing orders to wake them if any ship gets within a certain safety margin. What is still a mystery is why the crew didn't detect the cargo ship before the collision. Certainly a combination of radar and deck watch should have been able to see the ship. It should have been well lit enough to see once it was close. It should have been signaling it's location with a transponder. Even if the crew incorrectly thought it would pass a minimum safe distance the captain should have been woke and brought to the bridge.

Amezarak 9y ago
> 7) Allegedly AEGIS radar systems are often tuned to filter out surface traffic so they can be more accurate at picking up air traffic. They have separate surface search / navigation radars installed. According to Wikipedia, this particular ship had two.
- mjlee 9y ago
  Practically all ships above a certain size have at least two radars solely for anticollision/navigation.
droopybuns 9y ago
>>4) The cargo ship hit the destroyer from an acute angle, almost from behind. On that heading rules of navigation say it was on the cargo ship to give way to the destroyer, it's possible the crew thought they would. how do you come to this conclusion? The destroyer's damage is on the starboard side- it's not on or near the stern. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/06/18/fitzgerald-collision/7f20760e1b5fe4e1b45e231343ee2c0a3f891475/fitzgerald.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/06/18/fitzgerald-... The right of way rule is: "A boat approaching from your starboard (right) side has right of way." Damage on the right side of the destroyer means the cargo ship had right of way. It suggests the crew manning the ~$1bn destroyer failed to yield.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  I believe the GP is saying, like some other commenters have, that cargo ship was not on a perpendicular course, but rather hit something like this: | | \
  - trhway 9y ago
    looks like the destroyer thought that the cargo ship is overtaking, and thus the cargo ship is responsible to yield and later - when it became dangerously close - to take evasive action. While the cargo ship thought that him/her being on the starboard side of the destroyer makes the destroyer responsible to yield/to take the action. Or may be the cargo ship was completely asleep. Anyway, the destroyer waiting for the cargo ship to take that action... that bow coming closer and closer to the destroyer's bridge ... deer in the headlights comes to mind. A junior officer mistake of insisting till the very end on your right of way against a 4x times heavier civilian bathtub of a ship.
- mjlee 9y ago
  It seems the warship was being overtaken here, so rule 13 applies in this case "an overtaking vessel must keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken".
  - droopybuns 9y ago
nawitus 9y ago
> 2) The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated navigation system on the cargo ship didn't see it. I hope this behavior is changed during peace to prevent unnecessary human fatalities.
- nulldev 9y ago
  Turning on transponders across the entire fleet is not a proportional response here. There are lots of military vessels out there and 99.99% of the time they don't crash into cargo ships. A lot of things went completely sideways for this to happen, and there are reasonable failsafes that can be enacted to prevent it in the future.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mjlee 9y ago
  Although the AIS transponder was turned off - the vessel would still have appeared on radar. The cargo vessel's system wouldn't have had the same amount of information for anticollision calculations, but still would have been able to detect it as an obstacle and would have flagged it to anybody on the bridge who was paying attention. Plenty of ships go to sea without transponders on, such as large fishing vessels that don't want to give away where the good spots are.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Large fishing vessels turn on their AIS when crossing shipping lanes. Also, the whole point of modern military naval architecture is to reduce radar cross-section. Sure these boats can be seen from up close, but we can't assume that decades-old cargo ships are outfitted with the latest radar tech either.
    - mjlee 9y ago
      My point was that AIS is not an anticollision mechanism and shouldn't be relied upon. It's also often wrongly configured or just broken. The Royal Navy advertise their 8500ton Destroyer as having the radar cross section of a small fishing vessel: https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 I'm not sure what the weather conditions were like, but even in marginal conditions, they'll have been picked up on radar.
michael_storm 9y ago
> So it's a hugely clickbaity title. The article provides no new evidence or even offer any possible causes as to the accident, it just details what happened and wonders why. That's how news works when something is still being investigated. And your comment proceeds to do the exact same thing: offer details about when happened, and then raise the same unanswered question that everyone has arrived at (including the article). So... what's your point, exactly?
- valuearb 9y ago
  The clickbaity part is the title indicates the article is going to provide an answer. And I at least provided detailed possible issues that contributed to why the collision occurred, and why mysterious behavior occurred (the Crystal taking 30 minutes to turn around). My point is that the NY Times should offer me a high paid job to make their articles better.
tzs 9y ago
> The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated navigation system on the cargo ship didn't see it. It sounds like there may be some design flaws in their navigation protocols or automated systems. When in busy international shipping lanes you are going to be spotted visually and on radar by other ships, including ones from countries that cooperate with those unfriendly powers you want to avoid. Your general position is going to get back to those unfriendly powers. So is there any point in turning off your transponder when in such waters? It seems from my inexpert viewpoint that if you are running with your transponder off, you should also be keeping out of visual and radar range of other ships. Sure, if the transponder is off so that the unfriendly power is only able to track via reports from friendly (to them) ships, there will be some delay in their tracking. The unfriendly power won't be able to launch a long range cruise missile attack on you based on such tracking, but that's only relevant when you are in an active conflict with someone who has that capability. The US currently is not. The unfriendly powers currently interested in US navy ship positions only need to know the general area of the ship to figure out the things they are trying to figure out.
- cameldrv 9y ago
  The AIS transponders are now being read from satellites and there are multi-year histories of ships movements. It's understandable that a Navy wouldn't want this information available. What I don't understand is why they didn't detect the cargo ships transponder and sound an alarm.
CalChris 9y ago
> 1) It was a very dark night, the moon had not yet risen. Even a large cargo ship can be hard to see against a black horizon at night. Negative, skipper. It's easier to spot a cargo ship in cloudless pitch dark. There are red, green and white nav lights. That's minimum and there's usually a Christmas tree of other lights. As a vessel greater than 50m, more lights. Constrained by draft, more lights. Cargo ships are not hard to spot, especially with radar and an AIS receiver. Whether the Fitzgerald itself was visible at all is a good question. It had its AIS transponder off and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has a semi-stealth design. But marine radar still should have spotted it.
- astrodust 9y ago
  Even if it was in the middle of a hurricane with twenty foot swells on a moonless night you'd still expect a destroyer to be able to spot 29,000 tons of metal coming at it.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Dark colored ship with dark colored containers on a pitch black night. Nope can't really spot it. Get out of the city to realize just how dark it can be.
    - astrodust 9y ago
      I know how dark it can be outside of the city. I also don't carry around a radar system worth tens of millions of dollars that's operated by a crew that's supposed to be paying attention to where their $1.7B vessel is going. Surely a ship of that sort has a pretty robust night vision system, if not multiple methods of detecting things including thermal or lidar.
    - twic 9y ago
      I've sailed a yacht across a shipping lane in the middle of the night. You really can spot them.
      - 9y ago
monkey88 9y ago
What about position lights in the cargo ship? That can be seen from afar.
jessaustin 9y ago
The cargo ship made a significant course change a few miles before the collision, which meant if the destroyer crew had plotted its course prior that change, they might have not realized they were suddenly on a collision course. This "change" would have been in keeping with the local TSS [0]. It's like when you're driving and there is a bend in the road, you steer so as to keep the car in its proper lane. [0] https://cdn-business.discourse.org/uploads/gcaptain_maritime_forum/original/1X/010f505a124abfa624a8ed61f6059820a3dc2d37.jpg https://cdn-business.discourse.org/uploads/gcaptain_maritime...

Amezarak 9y ago

> 7) Allegedly AEGIS radar systems are often tuned to filter out surface traffic so they can be more accurate at picking up air traffic. They have separate surface search / navigation radars installed. According to Wikipedia, this particular ship had two.

mjlee 9y ago
Practically all ships above a certain size have at least two radars solely for anticollision/navigation.

droopybuns 9y ago

>>4) The cargo ship hit the destroyer from an acute angle, almost from behind. On that heading rules of navigation say it was on the cargo ship to give way to the destroyer, it's possible the crew thought they would. how do you come to this conclusion? The destroyer's damage is on the starboard side- it's not on or near the stern. https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/06/18/fitzgerald-collision/7f20760e1b5fe4e1b45e231343ee2c0a3f891475/fitzgerald.jpg https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/06/18/fitzgerald-... The right of way rule is: "A boat approaching from your starboard (right) side has right of way." Damage on the right side of the destroyer means the cargo ship had right of way. It suggests the crew manning the ~$1bn destroyer failed to yield.

Amezarak 9y ago
I believe the GP is saying, like some other commenters have, that cargo ship was not on a perpendicular course, but rather hit something like this: | | \
- trhway 9y ago
  looks like the destroyer thought that the cargo ship is overtaking, and thus the cargo ship is responsible to yield and later - when it became dangerously close - to take evasive action. While the cargo ship thought that him/her being on the starboard side of the destroyer makes the destroyer responsible to yield/to take the action. Or may be the cargo ship was completely asleep. Anyway, the destroyer waiting for the cargo ship to take that action... that bow coming closer and closer to the destroyer's bridge ... deer in the headlights comes to mind. A junior officer mistake of insisting till the very end on your right of way against a 4x times heavier civilian bathtub of a ship.
mjlee 9y ago
It seems the warship was being overtaken here, so rule 13 applies in this case "an overtaking vessel must keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken".
- droopybuns 9y ago

nawitus 9y ago

> 2) The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated navigation system on the cargo ship didn't see it. I hope this behavior is changed during peace to prevent unnecessary human fatalities.

nulldev 9y ago
Turning on transponders across the entire fleet is not a proportional response here. There are lots of military vessels out there and 99.99% of the time they don't crash into cargo ships. A lot of things went completely sideways for this to happen, and there are reasonable failsafes that can be enacted to prevent it in the future.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mjlee 9y ago
Although the AIS transponder was turned off - the vessel would still have appeared on radar. The cargo vessel's system wouldn't have had the same amount of information for anticollision calculations, but still would have been able to detect it as an obstacle and would have flagged it to anybody on the bridge who was paying attention. Plenty of ships go to sea without transponders on, such as large fishing vessels that don't want to give away where the good spots are.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Large fishing vessels turn on their AIS when crossing shipping lanes. Also, the whole point of modern military naval architecture is to reduce radar cross-section. Sure these boats can be seen from up close, but we can't assume that decades-old cargo ships are outfitted with the latest radar tech either.
  - mjlee 9y ago
    My point was that AIS is not an anticollision mechanism and shouldn't be relied upon. It's also often wrongly configured or just broken. The Royal Navy advertise their 8500ton Destroyer as having the radar cross section of a small fishing vessel: https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3951 I'm not sure what the weather conditions were like, but even in marginal conditions, they'll have been picked up on radar.

michael_storm 9y ago

> So it's a hugely clickbaity title. The article provides no new evidence or even offer any possible causes as to the accident, it just details what happened and wonders why. That's how news works when something is still being investigated. And your comment proceeds to do the exact same thing: offer details about when happened, and then raise the same unanswered question that everyone has arrived at (including the article). So... what's your point, exactly?

valuearb 9y ago
The clickbaity part is the title indicates the article is going to provide an answer. And I at least provided detailed possible issues that contributed to why the collision occurred, and why mysterious behavior occurred (the Crystal taking 30 minutes to turn around). My point is that the NY Times should offer me a high paid job to make their articles better.

tzs 9y ago

> The destroyer was running without transponder on, as per typical Navy behavior so it couldn't be tracked by unfriendly powers. This meant the automated navigation system on the cargo ship didn't see it. It sounds like there may be some design flaws in their navigation protocols or automated systems. When in busy international shipping lanes you are going to be spotted visually and on radar by other ships, including ones from countries that cooperate with those unfriendly powers you want to avoid. Your general position is going to get back to those unfriendly powers. So is there any point in turning off your transponder when in such waters? It seems from my inexpert viewpoint that if you are running with your transponder off, you should also be keeping out of visual and radar range of other ships. Sure, if the transponder is off so that the unfriendly power is only able to track via reports from friendly (to them) ships, there will be some delay in their tracking. The unfriendly power won't be able to launch a long range cruise missile attack on you based on such tracking, but that's only relevant when you are in an active conflict with someone who has that capability. The US currently is not. The unfriendly powers currently interested in US navy ship positions only need to know the general area of the ship to figure out the things they are trying to figure out.

cameldrv 9y ago
The AIS transponders are now being read from satellites and there are multi-year histories of ships movements. It's understandable that a Navy wouldn't want this information available. What I don't understand is why they didn't detect the cargo ships transponder and sound an alarm.

CalChris 9y ago

> 1) It was a very dark night, the moon had not yet risen. Even a large cargo ship can be hard to see against a black horizon at night. Negative, skipper. It's easier to spot a cargo ship in cloudless pitch dark. There are red, green and white nav lights. That's minimum and there's usually a Christmas tree of other lights. As a vessel greater than 50m, more lights. Constrained by draft, more lights. Cargo ships are not hard to spot, especially with radar and an AIS receiver. Whether the Fitzgerald itself was visible at all is a good question. It had its AIS transponder off and Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has a semi-stealth design. But marine radar still should have spotted it.

astrodust 9y ago
Even if it was in the middle of a hurricane with twenty foot swells on a moonless night you'd still expect a destroyer to be able to spot 29,000 tons of metal coming at it.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Dark colored ship with dark colored containers on a pitch black night. Nope can't really spot it. Get out of the city to realize just how dark it can be.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    I know how dark it can be outside of the city. I also don't carry around a radar system worth tens of millions of dollars that's operated by a crew that's supposed to be paying attention to where their $1.7B vessel is going. Surely a ship of that sort has a pretty robust night vision system, if not multiple methods of detecting things including thermal or lidar.
  - twic 9y ago
    I've sailed a yacht across a shipping lane in the middle of the night. You really can spot them.
    - 9y ago

monkey88 9y ago

What about position lights in the cargo ship? That can be seen from afar.

jessaustin 9y ago

The cargo ship made a significant course change a few miles before the collision, which meant if the destroyer crew had plotted its course prior that change, they might have not realized they were suddenly on a collision course. This "change" would have been in keeping with the local TSS [0]. It's like when you're driving and there is a bend in the road, you steer so as to keep the car in its proper lane. [0] https://cdn-business.discourse.org/uploads/gcaptain_maritime_forum/original/1X/010f505a124abfa624a8ed61f6059820a3dc2d37.jpg https://cdn-business.discourse.org/uploads/gcaptain_maritime...