3 ms·
I imagine this is actually a harder problem on the water. With ships of this size and mass and the inertia they have, in an environment where hard stops and tur
by zaphar 9y ago
I imagine this is actually a harder problem on the water. With ships of this size and mass and the inertia they have, in an environment where hard stops and turns are very difficult, any warning might trigger after it's too late to do anything about it.
- dkhenry 9y agoThe ships are surprisingly agile. If you were paying attention you could maneuver out of most of the things heading towards you in open waters. However in the environment these ships were in its less of a "look there is a boat coming right for me" situation and more of a "which side of the shipping lane am I supposed to stay on again" kind of deal.
- Someone 9y ago"The ships are surprisingly agile" For an example, see https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs (same class of ship as the McCain and the Fitzgerald, but two respectively one years newer. I doubt that makes a difference, as all three are "Flight 1", according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer)
- soneil 9y agoHalf of the point of being able to spot each other miles away, is to make this a nonissue. It seems obvious that if you ask a tanker to make a 90° turn, it's going to take them a few miles. But it's easy to forget that if they corrected course 6 miles away, a 5° correction would have been plenty. This should be a solved problem. More accidents are caused by the failure to keep a proper watch, than anything else. (last number I saw was 40%.) We have the technology - it's been mandatory past 300tonnes for over 10 years. Unfortunately the navy regularly opt-out. Apparently even in busy lanes at night.