5 ms·

>>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 t

>>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
  TIL! Thanks! I had always thought the only rule that mattered was relating to boats overtaking on the right.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Since the navy boat is much faster, we can't assume it was being overtaken. How often do such boats bob along at 10 knots in shipping lanes? IMHO it seems more likely that the navy were overtaking, but unfortunately their course cut too close to the course of the cargo ship. Imagine a car in the leftmost lane racing to get ahead of slower traffic, then turning or merging right. Only, instead of doing so directly ahead of a cyclist as such cars often do, this one merged right in front of a 29,000-ton cargo ship.
  - mjlee 9y ago
    >How often do such boats bob along at 10 knots in shipping lanes? Very often. Shipping lanes are often the most direct route from A to B and 10kts is about the most economical speed for many different ships.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      We're talking about the navy destroyer? That is news to me.
      - mpyne 9y ago
        A destroyer can certainly move fast, but they don't have to, and in fact it would generally be safer in a crowded area to try to maintain the same speed as the civilian traffic, on top of being fuel efficient.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        I don't think "safety" was the primary objective on the navy boat, but even if it had been, an accident with this damage (starboard deckhouse of navy, port bow of cargo) when both boats are going similar speeds means that the navy boat was the "give-way" yet stupidly crossed the "stand-on". There are red and green nav lights installed on every motorized boat ever manufactured, to help idiots not make that mistake. The assumption that the speeds are the same makes this incident entirely the navy's fault.
valuearb 9y ago
Perhaps I shouldn't have been so certain about that point. But look at the angle the Crystal hit at. If the Crystal had hit at a 90 degree angle the destroyer would have been split in two. The damage shows it was clearly hit at less than a 45 degree angle. If the Crystal was approaching with a smaller angle (I think it's 25 degrees) it loses it's right of way. Essentially it's running down the destroyer. Now we know the Crystal should have been cruising at a more leisurely pace than the destroyer, so in reality that might mean the Crystal was ahead of the destroyer before the collision. But I strongly suspect something happened where the Crystal was the faster vessel and overtook the Fitsgerald, the crash itself is evidence of it.

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
TIL! Thanks! I had always thought the only rule that mattered was relating to boats overtaking on the right.
jessaustin 9y ago
Since the navy boat is much faster, we can't assume it was being overtaken. How often do such boats bob along at 10 knots in shipping lanes? IMHO it seems more likely that the navy were overtaking, but unfortunately their course cut too close to the course of the cargo ship. Imagine a car in the leftmost lane racing to get ahead of slower traffic, then turning or merging right. Only, instead of doing so directly ahead of a cyclist as such cars often do, this one merged right in front of a 29,000-ton cargo ship.
- mjlee 9y ago
  >How often do such boats bob along at 10 knots in shipping lanes? Very often. Shipping lanes are often the most direct route from A to B and 10kts is about the most economical speed for many different ships.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    We're talking about the navy destroyer? That is news to me.
    - mpyne 9y ago
      A destroyer can certainly move fast, but they don't have to, and in fact it would generally be safer in a crowded area to try to maintain the same speed as the civilian traffic, on top of being fuel efficient.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        I don't think "safety" was the primary objective on the navy boat, but even if it had been, an accident with this damage (starboard deckhouse of navy, port bow of cargo) when both boats are going similar speeds means that the navy boat was the "give-way" yet stupidly crossed the "stand-on". There are red and green nav lights installed on every motorized boat ever manufactured, to help idiots not make that mistake. The assumption that the speeds are the same makes this incident entirely the navy's fault.

valuearb 9y ago

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so certain about that point. But look at the angle the Crystal hit at. If the Crystal had hit at a 90 degree angle the destroyer would have been split in two. The damage shows it was clearly hit at less than a 45 degree angle. If the Crystal was approaching with a smaller angle (I think it's 25 degrees) it loses it's right of way. Essentially it's running down the destroyer. Now we know the Crystal should have been cruising at a more leisurely pace than the destroyer, so in reality that might mean the Crystal was ahead of the destroyer before the collision. But I strongly suspect something happened where the Crystal was the faster vessel and overtook the Fitsgerald, the crash itself is evidence of it.