3 ms·
This may be a question that has been answered, but I haven't seen it in any news services I've looked at. Has blame been assessed for these collisions? If I u
by mikekchar 9y ago
This may be a question that has been answered, but I haven't seen it in any news services I've looked at. Has blame been assessed for these collisions? If I understand correctly, they've been running into container ships, so by the "big boat gets the right of way" rule, I guess the military ship is at fault. So far I haven't heard the results of any investigations, though. I seems incredulous, to be honest, and I'm really hoping that we'll eventually get some explanations -- even if it's human error. The article itself seems a bit speculative and I was hoping for more concrete information.
- hudibras 9y agoI'll lay this down as timestamp'd predictions for future reference. 1. The McCain collision was the result of the merchant ship not seeing (visually or on radar) the McCain and turning directly into the path of the Navy ship. In that location, there would have been little warning for McCain, and with the combined speeds of the ships easily over 40 knots the damage would be devastating. McCain will still shoulder some of the blame, the CO and OOD will be reprimanded, but ultimately this will be seen as a "normal" collision that unfortunately happens every so often. 2. The Fitzgerald collision, however, will be found to be caused by gross negligence on the part of the Navy ship, and at least two officers (the Officer of the Deck and the Tactical Action Officer) will be court-martialed. There's no excuse for that collision, with that geometry, in that part of the world, and with such little warning (not waking the CO, for example).