US Navy destroyer collides with merchant vessel

Forums › Off topic › US Navy destroyer collides with merchant vessel

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Fred99

8465 posts

Uber Geek

# 1851205 23-Aug-2017 12:36

kryptonjohn: Fred99 you can't seriously be comparing weekend warrior Captain Fred on his H28 with professional navy officers in charge of a $2billion state of the art warship with every item of radar, gps, night vision, ais, navigation crew, helm crew, lookout crew, security (intrusion) crew etc?

I am in a way, eyeballs are eyeballs no matter who is behind them. Trained pilots have driven planes and helicopters into the ground when they trusted their eyes instead of instruments.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851225 23-Aug-2017 12:56

Fred99:
kryptonjohn: Fred99 you can't seriously be comparing weekend warrior Captain Fred on his H28 with professional navy officers in charge of a $2billion state of the art warship with every item of radar, gps, night vision, ais, navigation crew, helm crew, lookout crew, security (intrusion) crew etc?

I am in a way, eyeballs are eyeballs no matter who is behind them. Trained pilots have driven planes and helicopters into the ground when they trusted their eyes instead of instruments.

Fair enough. But on a warship there should be many eyeballs in elevated positions designed to give a great tactical view and they never should not know where they are and everyone near is, in a $2billion ship.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851228 23-Aug-2017 13:01

Yes they do. I don't need a source and you would be unlikely to find one, but this is from ACTUAL experience

Afraid I don't believe your alleged experience is in operating large ship or naval radar.

What experience do you have in detecting radar/radio signals to find things? a nav radar is good to about 48miles max to find something, but the radio signals travel considerably further and can be detected many many times that distance away. can you see a 500ft warship from 12 miles away when its over the horizon and it doesn't have ais? doubt it very much.

I've used conventional pleasure boat radar. 12 miles away is only below the horizon if you are standing at sea level. Even piddly little pleasure boat radars with the radome 15 feet above the water are good to 4-5 miles or so.

Any marine radar's effective range is determined by it's power, it's height, the height of the target and the composition of it's target. Large ship radars are hundreds of feet up in the air. They''ll easily see another large ship 12 miles away. In fact from a height of 200' you have line of site to a sea level object at 17 miles. If two objects are 150' high they can see each other at 30 miles. Lets say the superstructures are only 75' they can still 'see' each other at 20 miles. Plenty of time to avoid collision.

common sense isn't a valid justification for an argument as common sense just isn't that common these days.

Something being uncommon in no way makes in any less compelling.

for all we know the radar may have had a defect or any number of other things.

but everyone is so quick to come to assumptions on these things.

At least on that I can agree. If the radar was defective and they didn't realise or act on it then that's negligent.

Jase2985

8757 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851276 23-Aug-2017 14:08

kryptonjohn:

Afraid I don't believe your alleged experience is in operating large ship or naval radar.

Who are you to question what experience I may or may not have had?

You don't have a clue what I have done in my life or what I do.

kryptonjohn:

I've used conventional pleasure boat radar. 12 miles away is only below the horizon if you are standing at sea level. Even piddly little pleasure boat radars with the radome 15 feet above the water are good to 4-5 miles or so.

Any marine radar's effective range is determined by it's power, it's height, the height of the target and the composition of it's target. Large ship radars are hundreds of feet up in the air. They''ll easily see another large ship 12 miles away. In fact from a height of 200' you have line of site to a sea level object at 17 miles. If two objects are 150' high they can see each other at 30 miles. Lets say the superstructures are only 75' they can still 'see' each other at 20 miles. Plenty of time to avoid collision.

navigational radars like those used on warships are not hundreds of feet in the air like you claim, you would be lucky if they are a hundred feet in the air. can it see a large ship 12 miles away, yes, be only if its set up correctly, ie has the right gain ran and sea settings setup on it. have those wrong and you will struggle to see something 300ft from the ship let alone 12 miles.

the point I was making that you missed is if the radar wasn't on, which the US do do, is you are down to visual range which is 6 nautical miles or so. and in the dark and with lots of lights around its hard to get bearings on things and judge distances.

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851324 23-Aug-2017 14:29

Jase2985:

Who are you to question what experience I may or may not have had?

Nobody. Note that you questioned the same of me. Double standards, much?

You don't have a clue what I have done in my life or what I do.

Correct. But I do know nonsense when I see it - such as "you can't see anything 12 miles away.

Jase2985

8757 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851332 23-Aug-2017 14:47

kryptonjohn:

Jase2985:

Who are you to question what experience I may or may not have had?

Nobody. Note that you questioned the same of me. Double standards, much?

I haven't questioned your experience. ive questioned the information your have provided as it differs to my actual experience.

kryptonjohn:

Jase2985:

You don't have a clue what I have done in my life or what I do.

Correct. But I do know nonsense when I see it - such as "you can't see anything 12 miles away.

the fact you have made up a quote from one of my posts doesn't give much weight to your argument.

given the horizon from a 15m bridge (and that's being generous) is at 7.5nm there would be little of the ship visible at 12 miles and due to the paint scheme which is designed to make it disappear at that distance my comment "I doubt it" still holds true. given I have experience in this as mentioned befor

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851340 23-Aug-2017 15:07

Can't see/unlikely to see - whatever.

Your 15m number seeing 7.5 nm to an object at sea level not a giant tankers superstructure.

And the radome is certainly far higher than 15m.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
64233 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851357 23-Aug-2017 15:41

One person supports this post

Folks... This is still true today as it was back in 1993:

My technology disclosure | Digital Transformation | Enterprise Content Management | Customer Relationship Management | Data Insights, Business Intelligence and Advanced Analytics

kryptonjohn

2523 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

# 1851363 23-Aug-2017 15:55

Was a classic then, still a classic now!

Sidestep

715 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

# 1851377 23-Aug-2017 16:27

One person supports this post

Pumpedd:

This is super scary really when you consider the amount of air traffic thats about us. Maybe ships need to learn from air pilots?

And last month the "greatest aviation disaster in history" was narrowly averted.

An Air Canada A320 came within feet of landing on top of two fully fueled Boeing 787's, a 737 and an A340 lined up on a taxiway and loaded with passengers.

The NTSB investigation will likely find human error - the pilots were tired and disoriented.

I'm guessing they'll find the 3 recent USN ship collisions have the same cause. Overworked, overstretched crew.

Bring on AI (as long as it doesn't want to kill us all)

gzt

10862 posts

Uber Geek

# 1851498 23-Aug-2017 20:28

US Navy 7th fleet admiral has been removed from command:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uss-john-s-mccain-collision-us-navy-removes-commander-7th-fleet-joseph-aucoin/

US Navy comments on earlier Fitzgerald collision:

Wikipedia: On 17 August 2017, Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral William Moran announced that Commander Bryce Benson, Executive Officer Commander Sean Babbitt and Ship Command Master Chief Petty Officer Brice Baldwin are to be relieved of shipboard duty, and close to a dozen other sailors will receive non-judicial punishment. Moran stated that "serious mistakes" were made by the "bridge team" (those conducting safety watch on board the ship's bridge) which caused them to lose "situational awareness," thus rendering it impossible to avoid the collision even after the container ship had already been sighted.

Edit: Adding: Entire US Navy will now pause operations for a review:

New York Times: First, Admiral Richardson said, he ordered an “operational pause” for Navy fleet commanders to review teamwork, safety, seamanship and other “fundamentals” aboard all 277 Navy vessels. Commanders will space out the review to avoid hampering operations, like the war games in South Korea that started on Monday.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6