3 ms·
The article makes a lot of sense. If you know ships than it's not difficult to imagine how timidity - an unwillingness to literally "rock the boat" by making a
by markbnj 9y ago
The article makes a lot of sense. If you know ships than it's not difficult to imagine how timidity - an unwillingness to literally "rock the boat" by making a course or engine revs change, waking up a senior officer, etc. - could lead to a situation where two vessels are converging past the point where anything can be done about it. In the merchant fleets, and in yachting circles where more competent sailors are involved, the people in control of vessels are taught that the best way to avoid a collision at sea is to make big, early changes to course and speed that the other vessel can clearly recognize and act on. It's possible that's the one sort of action the current culture discourages.
- nnfy 9y agoIs it possibly good navy "opsec" not to telegraph maneuvers?
- zaphar 9y agoI can't imagine that would be the case in the context of at least this latest collision. On a civilian waterway. They don't appear to have been on maneuvers. And by all accounts one of the most crowded waterways you can sail through. That does not seem like the context in which you would want to not telegraph maneuvers. Either way it's still a training and culture issue if they can't recognize the difference between the two contexts.
- cconover 9y agoIf they're not actively engaged in a naval exercise or actual warfighting requiring them to maneuver outside the Navigation Rules[0], they are subject to the rules the same as any other vessel - and even then, that's a pretty hard argument to make without actual shots fired in anger. Considerations are made in the rules for special requirements for lighting of naval vessels that, by the nature of their design, are unable to comply with the rules. However, the rules regarding avoiding collision apply to everyone, at all times. [0] https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pdf https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pd...
- xg15 9y agoThe Trump school of opsec: Never reveal your plans to anyone, not even your own allies or subordinates. This way your enemy will be maximally confused. So will your allies, but... oh, look over there!
- eggpy 9y agoIt's worse opsec to needlessly crash into other ships...
- hudibras 9y ago>the best way to avoid a collision at sea is to make big, early changes to course and speed that the other vessel can clearly recognize and act on. Longtime USN Surface Warfare Officer here: I can assure you that this is Rule #1 in the Navy as well.
- markbnj 9y agoIt's rather bizarre isn't it? Not just the failure to maneuver safely in the presence of another ship, but also the fact that whatever sensor technology they have didn't alert them or was ignored. Pretty much every modern commercial vessel these days has AIS and collision avoidance, I'd imagine naval vessels have _at least_ that. Just an odd thing all around, and to have it happen twice is either a hell of a coincidence or there is indeed something systemic at work.
- tbihl 9y agoFWIW, US Navy ships don't broadcast on AIS, though they monitor it. That means the other vessels around them have to look out the window to notice them (or get hailed on radio.)
- hudibras 9y agoA factor in the McCain collision will likely be the merchant ship's over-reliance on AIS and radar and not getting a visual check before turning into the path of fast-moving ship that a.) doesn't use an AIS transponder, and b.) is purposely hard to see on radar. There will be certainly enough blame to go around to hit McCain's leadership, though. ("They should have known that the merchant couldn't see them well and been prepared for yadda yadda.") The Fitzgerald collision, however, is a real mystery...
- markbnj 9y agoGood points. I would also have expected that they'd be in radio communication maneuvering that closely to a large merchant vessel in a busy seaway.