No matter exactly how it happened, this never turns out well for the Captain. Even if he isn't found at fault, it will always be a stigma on him. Career path ended.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/12/world/meast/bahrain-navy-collision/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Good thing it wasn't a suicide boat, full of explosives.

Another link. This has some video of the damage done to the destroyer.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/12/world/us-japan-navy-ship-collision/index.html

I hope they give that anchor back... those things are expensive

Wow. That's the worst thing I've seen done to an Arleigh Burke since Battleship..

Damage to the starboard side... ships are supposed to pass each other port to port according to the rules of the road. That whole bridge watch team is going to fry along with the CO and most likely XO.

There is an "oh *hit" moment. Damn..

From CNN:

"The crew is evaluating the damage, which appeared in photos released by the military to be a large dent in the side..."

LOL..no..letting a shopping cart run amok in a supermarket parking lot results in a "large dent". THAT looks like a damn near more like a "gaping hole".. LOL..

Better pics over at HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/12...d#slide=1367877

The hole is said to be 10ft x 10 ft approximately. I'd be willing to bet when the dust settles they'll be making a trip back to Pascagoula. Good thing nobody on either ship was injured.

Wonder what the tanker looks like..?

That almost looks like it was T-boned. I bet everything that wasn't tied down ended up on the deck!

Doubt it. A tanker that size would have very likely cut the Porter in half if they'd collided like that.

Wow. That captain's just sustained a career-ender. Not good.

Word.

Looks like some underwater damage as well, judging by the deformation at the waterline seen in some images. The bow of some supertankers has a significant bulbous portion designed to reduce head-resistance, and it 'looks' like that may have contacted the hull below water, in addition to the obvious damage from the above water impact.

Wouldn't the extent of the damage depend on the speed? I'm guessing that was little more than a love tap, maybe they both took evasive action and it almost worked. In any case, letting the Porter get into a position to be hit will definitely end the captain's career, and the watch/bridge officers like you said.

Though that was constrained by the quay - if it had been free to move aside the collision may not have been quite so... immediate in causing the sinking there - though sinking alongside is probably not quite so bad as in the middle of the ocean.

Entire Bridge Team, CO, XO, OOD, EOW, and all lookouts on duty are in a sh!tstorm right now. CO and OOD are probably getting career enders. XO will probably never get a command, and EOW just lost any chance of an XO billet. A bunch of enlisted PO's are getting CPO's and O's all up in their a$$es right now and having their colon's fully and completely examined right now. OMG does it suck to be on that ship right now!

-Skater

+1

Yeah, I can imagine they're under the microscope right now. When I was in Germany one of the launchers in another battery of my battalion shot 450 mils off azimuth during a live fire at Grafenwöhr. I think the battery commander, XO (who's also the Fire Direction Officer), platoon leader, platoon sergeant, and launcher chief were basically told to look for new jobs. The whole rest of the battalion had their lives made very uncomfortable from the scrutiny afterward. We even had to give up our "Hollywood" callsigns because "they may have contributed to the confusion." A btry was "Gator," B was "Bulldog," and C (mine) was "Strike" (the coolest of the bunch IMO.) Afterward it was red, white, & blue, or some similarly lame #%&*$#. All because multiple people didn't realize the actual & command azimuths were 450 mils/25 degrees different. We even had a "safety T" diagram that gave min & max values for azimuth, elevation, and fuze time! It *should have* been impossible to screw up!

Of course..I got lost in the alternate world of YouTube..as often I do.. If you like entertaining ship handling:

That, my friends, is a nautical bully.

Probably dropped a fireball in the throttle quadrant and couldn't select reverse. You've never had the old water bottle under the rudder pedal trick? Fun stuff..

how do you not see a Oil Tanker on the Surface Radar?

It was Japanese owned..maybe they were actually whaling in disguise and using their new anti Sea Shepard cloaking device...

This is the tanker in question: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?mmsi=371687000

Not exactly a small ship. Also, it says it's Panamanian.

there is no excuse for this kind of stuff

i don't know if the CO was on deck or not - if he was he certainly deserves to be sacked

there are supposed to be lookouts on the bridge at ALL TIMES. i really hate that ships think they can operate without lookouts at night just because they have radar.

The ship is actually Japanese- it's just registered in Panama- a fairly regular practice:



Seeing as the Commanding Officer is responsible for everything that happens aboard the ship, he will most definitely lose his job. Especially since his (much smaller) ship would have to give right of way to the larger tanker in pretty much every situation. The XO will probably also be canned, as she was responsible for all training and discipline of the ship's crew. As for the lookouts, they're part of the bridge watch team and are stationed 24-7 aboard Naval warships, *especially* in the Straits of Hormuz or other channels where maneuvering is restricted. Which is why the entire bridge watch team will also be among those lynched in the fact-finding and inquiries.

Some interesting discussion going on here:

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2012/08/never-switch-to-decaf-on-midwatch.html

Hmm, i used to sail a lot in the Channel, North sea and Baltic sea. Usually a sailing boat under sail not motoring has always the way of right, however it is only sensible (reasonable?) that you as the smaller boat evade any merchant shipping in time, executing clear maneuvers early enough for the other ship to see your intention and how you change course.
(A complete different story in dense fog if your sailing boat has no radar - you will have to hoist a metallic refector so they "see" you on their radar in time, also giving acoustic signals regularly and lighting up your sail with a torch may help - or not.)

Now for the life of me i cannot imagine how a destroyer in plain daylight, and equipped with radar and a military watch, can overlook a tanker ?

Greetings,
Catfish

Hilarious Beach

the windows driver for the controls crashed.

That last vid Beach posted is just freakin incredible.

Things to look at:

1. Not really a protected anchorage
2. Notice how the ferry Capt drops his anchor to pivot on it, he also has at least one bow thruster.
3. I am assuming they do not have a stern control station so that guy was doing that from the bridge with radio spotters on the stern.
4. That is prolly a 6in to 10 in nylon line that pops like a piece of string, very dangerous to be around when they pop, even more so than cables because of the elasticity.
5. The wind looks to be blowing 30+ knots witha good swell coming in the harbor also.

It was amazing he even got close, nevermind that naval vessel in the way too, and that small coastal ship docked brodsides to the seaway.

Oh and when they dropeed that port stern line in the water, they were VERY lucky that it didn't get sucked into the wheel(s), would have been a whole different ballgame then. Like game over and Ferry on the rocks.

How the heck did this happen? The wind?

That's probably not too far from the truth, sad to say. One of my best friends sailed on the Amistad, Bounty, and other sailing ships growing up, and is second mate on merchant tankers now. He's also a reserve officer in the Merchant Auxiliary of the Navy, and he's repeatedly bemoaned to me how much new gadgets on the bridges of warships are taking away from basic seamanship skills of OOD's and bridge watch teams.

Given that after being 'stopped by the tug' it managed to rebound and then make a straight astern correction... no, probably carrying too much momentum and the tugs being a little small to absorb it all. They seemed to not be making a full-out effort for some of the time too, but I think there was a crash happening there from the start...

I get the impression that for a boat that size the goal is to come to a halt a little short, and then the tugs help nudge you to the berth ~ possibly with some assistance... if you are aiming to come to a halt firmly on land, then that might be where you do come to a halt.

I knew you'd get a kick out of that one Nixer! In the comments it also says something about how prior to the video even starting he had already snagged one of the other ship's anchors. I think you can see it hanging from the starboard side at one point maybe (?)..

I was amazed how close his stern came to that other wharf (or whatever you call it).. Those guys there tying the lines looked like they were in serious danger too - whether by a snapping line, or getting caught by a wave and pulled into the water or whatever. Big stones on those boys..

I wonder why he couldn't just go back out of the harbor and put his nose into the wind and waves and ride it out. It looked like it would be safer than all that maneuvering. Whew..I was sweating for him!

Ya' gotta love You Tube..!

It certainly looks like the wind did it. It doesn't seem so bad until the ship moves off away from the camera, then you see that (Turkish?) flag start to snap and you can see the mist blowing across the scene. All that surface area on the bigger ship and those tugs just never stood a chance maybe..

That's what I thought too. I would have figured you'd have seen a huge froth coming from the back of the tugs right from the start of that video. They never really seemed to have "Jesus Power" in there... (?)

BeachAV8R

Slightly OT - but can anyone guess which video I watched next after Nixer's first one?





BeachAV8R

I know, that 747 was never going to fit in there - a must watch..

Nah he watched the same one I did, the chick in the pink.

And Beach, he didn't snag that other ships anchor, no way would that blue ship(ette) be allowed to drop an anchor at dock that far away from it. He was using his anchor as a pivot point. Was a real no go from the start IMO. I have had oil company dispatchers ask me to move my boat to a different dock in 60+ knot winds. I politely declined.

In the tug vs containership vid, if they were docking the ship, why the heck were the tugs between the ship and the dock??? You can hear the wind howling at the end of that vid, maybe they were trying to hold it off?? Dunno. Just glad I wasn't on that tug.

Oh, as far as the Navy way, (#%&*$# can the Capt, XO etc) I think that is total BS. The Navy sends you trained, experienced and supposedly competent subordinates, that as a Captain you should be able to rely on to perform their duties. Is the freakin Capt supposed to stay awake 24/7 for his whole tour of duty?

Using the Navy's line of thinking, everybody who had anything to do with the training of whomever was at the con and the officer in charge on the bridge should be canned too...and their superior officers of their respective training commands, the Admiral in charge of that ship, his superior, Hell, with that kind of logic,,Can the freakin SecNav too! Heck, go back a few years and find out who gave the real culprits godd efficiency reports and can them also.

Honestly, if you can't delegate responsibility and authority, you are in a VERY screwed up organization. This crash and burn crap due to mistake by your subordinates is a huge problem within our military. BUT, if after a thorough, impartial investigation it's found the Captain failed in his duties, then by all means can him.

I just find is quite sickening that the higher ups are totally insulated from this Domino effect, it stops at the Capt....Why?

Nixer, there is nobody in command on a vessel with more authority than the Captain. In this case, "Captain" is being used as a title more than a rank. In this case, the vessel's Captain was a Commander in rank. CDR Martin Arriola. The reason the domino effect stops with the Captain, is because the Captain IS the top. While the vessel may, on occasion, have guests on board higher in rank, their authority does NOT supersede that of the vessel's Captain, and in the end, on watch or not, the Captain is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens aboard his command.

-Skater

Nixer, the Commanding Officer is the be-all, say-all of that vessel because we're talking about a military warship, not a corporation or a big-box department store. When mistakes are made or accidents happen, people die. Everything is intricately interconnected between each department and watch stander aboard the ship, but at the end of the day, the CO is the one who determines the overall personality of that ship. And as Skater said, the buck stops at the CO because there's no Admiral constantly looking over his shoulder or babysitting.

Also, not every CO gets canned every time the poop hits the fan. In the span of 3 weeks, we killed a guy, then broke a $7 million dollar generator that laid up the ship for two months and cost eight figures to replace, but at the change of command ceremony a few months later, our CO was still promoted to Admiral (and rightly so). However, the Reactor Officer, the Executive Officer, and several watchstanders were disqualified or otherwise punished as well.

I have no doubt that the fact finding and inquiries will point to a culture of lax watchstanding, a lack of formality, and complacency. That kind of thing rolls down from the top, which is why the CO will be held responsible.

I will defer to both Skater and Navy Nuke...as a simple guy who just drives a boat, my dander gets up when I smell CYA for the command structure.

Skater and Navy Nuke, as you've been there you'll know best in how the Navy will react re the career of the personnel involved.

But I do see Nixer's point. Those who picked the crew, and especially those who trained the crew and pronounced them fit for duty on a multi-million dollar vessel (which also is armed to the teeth) should also be held responsibility in such a case....unless the accident happened due to some serious lack in judgment by the Captain, like on that Italian cruise liner that got beached because Il Capitano wanted to impress his GF with his leet shiphandling skillz.

How much influence does the Captain of a US Navy vessel have over selecting his crew? His XO can probably pull some strings or call in some favors, I'd imagine, but I guess he pretty much has to "make do" with the personnel that is assigned to his ship?

All in all this could be an interesting debate: how much personal responsibility and initiative in decision-making vs. "following orders" does a serviceman/woman have to show in a modern military? And at what point are superiors responsible for the action of their subordinates, and how much personal responsibility is reasonable? I mean, having senior officers micromanaging everything (especially with complex weapon systems such as Navy vessels) is highly impractical.

There is another military reason why the Commander or Captain is held to the ultimate responsibility. It makes an atmosphere that demands those in command apply every effort to properly train and set the bar for performance. It does not breed laziness or in attention in them. They know that failure of any portion of their command can and will be directly attributed to them. So they pay attention to everything. It also forces them to confront difficult tasks rather than hand them off and let someone else take the fall. That is why the Captain is expected to be on the bridge during the most demanding times.

Also it builds that iron in a unit because subordinates will more willingly accept a discipline structure that has that component (the boss will take the hit if things fail) having his word is law. He can be tough on them because they know it will be tougher on him.

It is right way.

Being new to the boards I will try to tread lightly, but I still have to back up Skater & Navy-Nuke. Unlike in most land based situations, a command decision at sea rests with only one person, the C.O. There is no one to call for help. I have served with some whom were beloved and under some who were "tolerated" at best by the crew. The senior P.O.'s, CPO's have a pretty wide latitude in the decision making of their respective divisions and departments. It is expected of them. Those who "just follow orders" are not suffered for very long by Div O's & Dept Heads. The P.O.D. (Plan of the Day) comes out and the Divisional CPO'S & P.O.'s are expected to carry it out without being told how to do it. They should know how by then. While the X.O. is also the Training Officer, it falls upon the division leaders to implement and accomplish proper training of everyone under their purview. So if it is found out that training was not adequate or not being held, or even worse "gun decked" then responsibility is held right down to the division training petty officer. Just as I was held responsible for everything that the two airmen that worked for me did when I made 3rd Class P.O., I was still held responsible for what everyone who worked for me did when I retired as an EWCS. And it goes right on up the line and ends at the Commanding Officer. What your crew does on or off duty reflects upon who they work for all the way up the chain of command.

As for undesirable crew members, there are ways to get them out of a division or department and even transfered off of the ship. When a young sailor arrives at your command, they should have at minimum the basics of what is needed to perform their duties. Then it is upon the senior enlisteds to continue to build upon the basics and turn him or her into a crackerjack sailor. If the new crew member is P.O or CPO, then there is no excuse. With the exception of the differences between each command, they should already know how to do their jobs and at most some remedial training if just coming off shore duty back to a sea command. But for all of the responsiblity and accountability up & down the chain of command, the ultimate responsiblity for everything from bow to stern, port to starboard and topmast to keel, rests with the C.O. and that is the Navy way. As an old, moldy Master Chief once told me, "there is the wrong way, the right way, the Navy way and my way. And only one is the wrong way".
Sorry for the long post.

Take care,
C2

As the Capt of a small offshore supply vessel, believe me when I say I understand the concept of command responsibilty. When I am on watch, I am responsible for everything that happens on and with my boat. While certainly not combat situations, I feel that we make decisions that could seriously affect someones life expectancy all the time.

That being said, when I go off watch, my licensed mate IS the man.

Doing what I do would be IMPOSSIBLE if I was held responsible for my mates actions or inactions.

I find it interesting that the captain even of a small civilian working vessel does not bear the ultimate responsibility to the vessel's owners for all that happens thereon. I don't understand how someone can be the Captain, but not be responsible for the deportment of his or her crew. Maybe it is because I too am former military, and a supervisor's responsibility (in my case, as an NCO) was drilled into me from day one in basic combat training.

I supervise a unit of attorneys in a mid-sized prosecutor's office. If something goes wrong, and the failure can be traced back to the culture in my unit, or my failure to supervise or to train the attorneys in my charge appropriately, then I expect my elected official to hold me personally and directly responsible. I'm their supervisor and the program director. It's my responsibility to ensure that they are aware of policy, that they implement that policy, and that they follow the rules and do the right thing for the right reason, in all they do using the authority our elected official gave them when he appointed them, and me. That responsibility does not end at 5pm, and it comes with the territory; if I'm out sick and they're working, I'm still responsbile, overall, for the work product coming out of our group. I simply can't imagine it any other way.

As the "Captain" of a very small crew (4 people)..you can bet we share the glory when everything goes right, but I get called in on the carpet when things go wrong...



I always try blaming it on the First Officer, but that never flies..

All I can say about that Cat is does your office operate 24/7/365?

I could NEVER sleep if I was responsible for my Coast Guard Licensed subordinates actions.

My world at work moved very fast at times, should I be responsible if my mate has a fuel spill while I am asleep?

My sitiuation is alot different than the Militarys.

In some ways, yes, it does. Law enforcement doesn't stop at 5pm-criminals don't punch a time clock and some of us are on 24/7 call (though right now, thank God, I'm not one of those). Explaining precisely how and why it works like that would hijack the post too far so I'll leave it there. Suffice to say that if I had crime-scene responsibilities, like our homicide team does, and one of mine showed up drunk on the scene of a murder, I'd have some serious 'splainin' to do that same night to my elected one.

Look, I'm not pointing fingers at you, so don't act like you're being attacked-you're not. I'm simply amazed that a supervisor can have absolutely no responsibility for the job-related actions of his subordinates. Frankly, I've never heard of that kind of arrangement before. But you learn something new every day.

In the end, I consider my real responsibility to keep my crew safe and vessel functioning and intact. I work 28 days on and 14 days off. I average about 5 to 6 hours sleep in 24 hour period. I have been run off jobs for putting the safety of my crewmembers ahead of the job. BUT, thank God, if my mate screws up I am Not responsible. I didn't pick him (he BTW is a 35 year vet Capt who is happy to let me handle the Capt crap)

Btw sitting in bar in the middle of bost driving country with another 20 yr plus Capt who says "Ya'll don't have a clue"