It appears that the USS Fitzgerald collision may have been an "Engineering Disaster"... 3

[JohnRBaker]

In the same way that the previously discussed Tesla 'autopilot' accident was seen here as an "Engineering Disaster", it's starting to look like the USS Fitzgerald collision with that container ship may have been one as well:

Freighter Was On Autopilot When It Hit U.S. Destroyer

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/freighter-autopilot-hit-us-destroyer/

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[Spartan5]

As the article pointed out, it is definitely an engineering disaster.

For the Navy, investigators are trying to determine why the ship's radar and other sensors did not detect the Crystal in time to take steps to avoid the collision.

The Fitzgerald is equipped with the AN/SPS-64 advanced military navigation radar, and also uses a commercial radar system to enhance the shipping traffic picture of ships in its vicinity.

Navy ships operate radar systems to detect approaching ships or submarines. Lookouts posted on the bridge are responsible for detecting ships that pose a risk of collision.

Additionally, all commercial ships over 300 tons are required under international rules to operate AIS location data. AIS information from Crystal should have been monitored by sailors on the bridge of the Fitzgerald.

How did one of the modern technological marvels of the world fail to avoid a large lumbering cargo ship on a constant course? That's the engineering disaster.

 

[EdStainless]

No, it is a management failure.
I am fairly sure that all of the equipment was working correctly, if it wasn't there would have been twice as many sailors on watch.
And ships do have lights on them, and there were sailors on watch, and I am sure that their eyes were working.
Careers are over for both the Captain and OOD.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

 

[dik]

A big container ship takes miles to turn and slow down and should be fairly easy to spot... The smaller ship may have given way to the much bigger one. My uncle was a supervisor with Winnipeg Transit, way back, and his comment about cars running into busses was that the car driver didn't see the bus.

Added: Didn't realise the length of the Fitzgerald was 505' v. 730' for the Crystal... the destroyer was bigger than I thought and the container ship was one of the smaller ones... The article indicates how many containers it could carry, not the load at the time of the collision.

The problem, however, is that the AIS data tells only half, or less, of the story. That's because the Fitzgerald had its AIS system turned off, and it was not broadcasting its position and course. That means there's no current public record of the Fitzgerald's actions prior to the collision, and the crew of the Crystal would not have received a collision alarm from the system on their bridge.

Dik

 

[drawoh]

Many, many years ago, I read Supership, by Noel Mostert. Apparently, most shipping accidents take place at certain times of the day, corresponding to the times the third officers are on the bridge and in command. Never underestimate office politics.

--
JHG

 

[msquared48]

I believe both vessels were airing "Titanic" in the officers' mess at the time of the collision.

There is just no excuse for this.

Mike McCann, PE, SE (WA)

 

[IRstuff]

It's completely stupid. There's absolutely no reason the Fitzgerald should have even been close enough for this to happen. The nimble and agile destroyer was almost T-boned by a slow moving freighter. "Mistakes were made."

Another issue is how relatively minor damage completely took out the Fitzgerald's comm systems. THAT is an engineering problem.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[3DDave]

IRstuff, you underestimate the damage to the Fitzgerald.

As far as I can tell the Fitzgerald was on a parallel course at some distance, maybe? 2000ft from the Crystal and the Crystal made a small course change which the Fitzgerald didn't notice. I figure the Fitzgerald crew thought the Crystal would never change course and just stopped looking.

I agree with it being a management problem. The Fitzgerald is not autonomous and sailing is not a new task. Ships have been at see for tens of centuries. Errors are made and careers are ended.

 

[VEBill]

"...the Fitzgerald had its AIS system turned off, and it was not broadcasting its position and course."

It would be understandable that a military ship would not broadcast its AIS signal, but they should always be receiving AIS data from other ships and integrating the data into their tactical picture.

The military ship would also have to be extremely aware that it is not broadcasting AIS, and take responsibility to avoid other marine traffic. In any case, the Fitzgerald is hardly 'Stealth', so it should have been a blip on the freighter's radar.

So, It takes two to tango, I think. Plenty of blame to go around.

 

[dik]

VE1BLL... that's what I thought, but, if you take a look at the map showing all the ships in the area, it's like a freeway for boats. No excuse for the AIS to be disabled. Most of the blame would be to the Fitzgerald...

Dik

 

[IRstuff]

"you underestimate the damage to the Fitzgerald."

I don't think so. US naval ships are supposed to tolerate battle damage; this is equivalent to a single round that completely disabled the ship's comm.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[GregLocock]

The freighters nav lights may well have been off, Piracy is not uncommon.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JohnRBaker]

"you underestimate the damage to the Fitzgerald."

I don't think so. US naval ships are supposed to tolerate battle damage; this is equivalent to a single round that completely disabled the ship's comm.

It's been reported that the USS Fitzgerald suffered extensive below-the-waterline damage (remember seven sailors died when they were trapped in a flooded compartment) and I suspect that the damage was caused by what they call a "Bulbous Bow", as shown in the photo below. If the container ship's bow looked anything like this, that would certainly explain how the damage to the destroyer could be both extensive and severe.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

 

[ScottyUK]

A terrible decision for a crew to make, closing the watertight doors to protect the ship knowing their shipmates were on the other side of them.

 

[racookpe1978]

23 Jun 17 17:30
"you underestimate the damage to the Fitzgerald."

I don't think so. US naval ships are supposed to tolerate battle damage; this is equivalent to a single round that completely disabled the ship's comm.

Looked at that issue back in 1986-87.
In EVERY destroyer-cruiser sized Naval ship in EVERY Navy worldwide sine WWII, one actual hit on every destroyer/frigate/cruiser by a live weapon, dud weapon or single explosion (mine or small boat suicide bomber) knocked one or more of the following: Command, control, conn (ship's control hydraulics or the rudder itself), communication (as here - and many other times), combat (loss of radar, CIC (computer fire control), guns, missiles, missile loading, or gun loading), power (electric general power, electrical 400 Hz fire control power, or both) and propulsion. If you cannot fight, flee, or float, you are dead, are you not?

One hit knocks out every navy's surface ships nowdays. (A near-miss? No, those are survivable. But the first hit, even by a Napoleonic era iron cannonball, knocks out the ship to be vulnerable for the second missile or bomb or dud. And several of the British surface ships in the Falklands sunk by dud hits.

 

[berkshire]

UNDER Col regs,
it would appear that rules 5, 8 , and 15 were violated , and in view of the fact that the damage was to the starboard side of the vessel, unless there was some very fancy maneuvering done at the time, the destroyer appears to be the give way vessel.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[EdStainless]

The bow strike below the waterline is likely what did so much damage.
In shipping lanes this busy I would guess that everyone runs with lights, this is a very heavily trafficked lane.
My hunch is that the Fitz saw the Crystal, platted a course, and didn't see a conflict.
They then ignored it and were busy looking at the next 10-20 potential conflicts, and they didn't keep track of the Crystal.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, Plymouth Tube

 

[drawoh]

JohnRBaker,

Read the Wikipedia page on the RMS Empress of Ireland. They claim that one reaction to the ramming was to phase out straight stems on ships. A slanted stem such as the one in your photo do not punch holes below the waterline, unless there is a bulbous bow.

--
JHG

 

[MintJulep]

Watkins said the fact that the merchant ship hit something and did not radio the coast guard for almost 30 minutes also indicates no one was on the bridge {of the Crystal} at the time of the collision.

I suppose it's possible that the Fitzgerald was for whatever reason trying to communicate with the Crystal, and since no body was at home to answer the phone went for a closer look.

Speculation is fun.

Eventually there will be an investigation report.

 

[IRstuff]

The ship does have a bulb. However, critical systems ought not be in the sections affected.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm