# Navy destroyer Fitzgerald collides with merchant ship **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 16, 2017, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149 "2017-06-16T23:16:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2017, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/221 "2017-08-21T17:36:15Z")
This is a good response. The Navy needs to get this problem corrected before a ship and its crew is lost in a collision. > **[After warship collision, Navy calls for review of incidents in the Pacific](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-warship-collision-navy-calls-for-review-of-incidents-in-the-pacific/)** > > Navy officials are calling for an "operational pause" and a deeper look into training of forces in the region after USS John McCain collision with tanker > [@](#): > > CNO Richardson called for an “operational pause” with commands and leaders across the fleet, and a deeper look into the training and certification of forces operating in and around Japan. > [@](#): > > CNO Richardson said the review will include – but not be limited to – trends in operational tempo, performance, maintenance, equipment, and personnel. It will also focus on surface warfare training and career development, including tactical and navigational proficiency. > > The investigative team will be diverse, including people from across the Navy (both officer and enlisted), and experts from outside the Navy and the private sector. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2017, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/222 "2017-08-21T18:44:09Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > These collisions are worse than I first realized. Four this year and all in the 7th fleet! > > Does the Navy need to review it’s training? It seems likely there will be a shake up in the 7th fleets command. > > You’d certainly expect the McCain crew to be extra alert after Fitz incident. I’d hope the captain wouldn’t be snoozing in his bunk this time. > > [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/another-us-navy-destroyer-collides-with-a-merchant-ship-rescue-efforts-underway/2017/08/20/c42f15b2-8602-11e7-9ce7-9e175d8953fa\_story.html](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/another-us-navy-destroyer-collides-with-a-merchant-ship-rescue-efforts-underway/2017/08/20/c42f15b2-8602-11e7-9ce7-9e175d8953fa_story.html) As I posted early in the thread: > [@What\_Exit](#): > > From [**pg 81** of 86 of this PDF](https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NavalAccidents1945-1988.pdf), I see there were 456 collisions between 1945 and 1988 for the USN. While I hope the rate has dropped, I think it is safe to assume they are still happening on a regular basis. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2017, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/223 "2017-08-21T21:21:55Z")
The CNO apparently feels these crashes are important enough to take action. It’ll be interesting to see who gets reprimanded this time. Anyone found links to the navigation data on the McCain? Similar to what we discussed with the Fitzgerald? > **[MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic](https://www.marinetraffic.com/)** > > MarineTraffic Live Ships Map. Discover information and vessel positions for vessels around the world. Search the MarineTraffic ships database of more than 550000 active and decommissioned vessels. Search for popular ships globally. Find locations of... I’m not sure how to look the crash up. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/224 "2017-08-22T03:23:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > [Nope.](http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/boards/generalboardinfo/Pages/StatusNonSelect.aspx) And those arctic and antarctic stations are staffed by screened volunteers. You’re simply wrong. You really think that an officer who is expected to resign and does not is going to get good prime duty. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/225 "2017-08-22T09:23:53Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > You really think that an officer who is expected to resign and does not is going to get good prime duty. No. What I think is your earlier assertion about someone being posted to a screened volunteer post as punishment is nonsense. As to “expected to resign”: still more nonsense. The officer’s assignments will be, as always, “for the needs of the Navy” and contingent upon his qualifications for that assignment. Oddly enough, the officer’s fitness reports and other factors play into that decision. “Expected to resign” is not a factor. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/226 "2017-08-22T12:15:11Z")
> [@Isilder](#): > > The question as to why the crew did nothing at all to avoid the other ship nor warn the other ship IS going to be the main issue in the enquiries. That was a typo. It should have been “is now going to be” rather than “is not going to be.” ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/227 "2017-08-23T11:26:08Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > The CNO apparently feels these crashes are important enough to take action. > > It’ll be interesting to see who gets reprimanded this time. [7th Fleet commander relieved of duty.](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-7th-fleet-commander-015604113.html) The article has an interesting tidbit: VADM Aucoin was already scheduled to retire in a matter of weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/228 "2017-08-23T15:32:49Z")
But… he’s wearing camouflage. How will they find him to give him the news? ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/229 "2017-08-23T17:06:08Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > But… he’s wearing camouflage. How will they find him to give him the news? I find that comment offensive on several levels. But onto the larger question, the military is being asked to do more and more with less and less and it’s showing. You can burn people out, and drive other out of the military. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/230 "2017-08-23T22:36:43Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > No. What I think is your earlier assertion about someone being posted to a screened volunteer post as punishment is nonsense. > > As to “expected to resign”: still more nonsense. The officer’s assignments will be, as always, “for the needs of the Navy” and contingent upon his qualifications for that assignment. Oddly enough, the officer’s fitness reports and other factors play into that decision. “Expected to resign” is not a factor. Fitness reports will determine his being promoted. No I picked a extreme example of a posting. No he will not be posted to a volunteer post. But his detail officer will not be able to get him a good posting and normally will not try. If there is a surplus of officers he will be forced out. If there is a shortage then he will get crappy duty until he resigns. Traditions may have changed over the years. But an officer that the upper brass does not want in will be eased out one way or the other. They are not going to oh lwell he will not resign so we are stuck with him. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2017, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/231 "2017-08-23T23:06:18Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > [7th Fleet commander relieved of duty.](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-7th-fleet-commander-015604113.html) The article has an interesting tidbit: VADM Aucoin was already scheduled to retire in a matter of weeks. Should we read something into this? It seems likely that a new Commander had probably already been selected. The Navy could have waited a few weeks for the scheduled transfer of command. The new guy’s first day at work will be memorable. He’s got a big job ahead. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/232 "2017-08-24T00:07:57Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Fitness reports will determine his being promoted. No I picked a extreme example of a posting. No he will not be posted to a volunteer post. But his detail officer will not be able to get him a good posting and normally will not try. If there is a surplus of officers he will be forced out. If there is a shortage then he will get crappy duty until he resigns. Traditions may have changed over the years. But an officer that the upper brass does not want in will be eased out one way or the other. They are not going to oh lwell he will not resign so we are stuck with him. Seriously, do you know what you’re talking about? You are not just wrong. According to your mistaken take, Aucoin would have resigned his commission. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/233 "2017-08-24T00:57:36Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Should we read something into this? It seems likely that a new Commander had probably already been selected. The Navy could have waited a few weeks for the scheduled transfer of command. I think the only thing to read into it is that the Pacific Fleet commander decided that it would be a good idea to have the new blood, so to speak, on station immediately, instead of waiting for Aucoin’s terminal/retirement leave to begin. The Navy has already decided to have a safety and bridge watch-standing review, so there’s really not much else to do, IMHO. > [@](#): > > The new guy’s first day at work will be memorable. He’s got a big job ahead. Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Snnipe\_70E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5a626/32.png) [@Snnipe\_70E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snnipe_70E)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/234 "2017-08-24T05:58:44Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Seriously, do you know what you’re talking about? You are not just wrong. According to your mistaken take, Aucoin would have resigned his commission. Hello. Do you think he is not going to retire now? That he is waiting for his next assignment? If he was not going to already retire he would have been expected to retire. What assignment would a relieved Admiral be given? You choice of Aucoin to make you point is a bad example. The fact that he is retiring could prove my point, except he was retiring anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bones\_Daley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bc8723/32.png) [@Bones\_Daley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bones_Daley)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/235 "2017-08-24T12:18:50Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > I find that comment offensive on several levels. I found it quite amusing. Different strokes … ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/236 "2017-08-24T12:19:09Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > Should we read something into this? It seems likely that a new Commander had probably already been selected. The Navy could have waited a few weeks for the scheduled transfer of command. > > The new guy’s first day at work will be memorable. He’s got a big job ahead. I feel bad for Admiral Aucoin, as he’s a college and a friend. And I feel bad for the Sailors that have died. I think the Admiral was relived for a couple of reasons. First he’s a Naval Flight Officer and these issues are surface training ones, perhaps surface maintenance ones. And his relief is a nuke. So the Navy is trading in an aviator (some of whom aren’t detail orientated in this area) for a nuke who will come in with energy and be nit-noid-y. There will also be a belief that because he wasn’t going to get his fourth star and was going home, Navy wasn’t hurting anyone by firing him. Retired flags always land on their feet due to their connections, and they rarely seem to suffer from being relived. Having said that, I do think firing someone with 4 weeks to go after a 35 year career is gratuitous. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/237 "2017-08-24T16:31:19Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Hello. Do you think he is not going to retire now? That he is waiting for his next assignment? If he was not going to already retire he would have been expected to retire. What assignment would a relieved Admiral be given? You choice of Aucoin to make you point is a bad example. The fact that he is retiring could prove my point, except he was retiring anyway. You’re reaching. You started out with “expected to resign” and then moved onto “undesirable posting”, choosing as an example a post that requires screened volunteers. And now this nonsense post. Of course the VADM is going to retire. What has happened is that his relief has been ordered to relieve him early. There is no expectation–contrary to your earlier mistaken post–of him resigning his commission. What you also fail to grasp is that the retirement itself can be delayed if the VADM is required to face court-martial action. The commanding officers of the ships concerned may also face the same problem if they have already applied and been approved for retirement–that can be delayed until legal proceedings are completed (not to mention they probably don’t have the time in service to retire yet anyway). I have not seen anything in the news about that happening to Aucoin…yet. > [@spifflog](#): > > I feel bad for Admiral Aucoin, as he’s a college and a friend. > > And I feel bad for the Sailors that have died. > > I think the Admiral was relived for a couple of reasons. First he’s a Naval Flight Officer and these issues are surface training ones, perhaps surface maintenance ones. And his relief is a nuke. So the Navy is trading in an aviator (some of whom aren’t detail orientated in this area) for a nuke who will come in with energy and be nit-noid-y. > > There will also be a belief that because he wasn’t going to get his fourth star and was going home, Navy wasn’t hurting anyone by firing him. Retired flags always land on their feet due to their connections, and they rarely seem to suffer from being relived. > > Having said that, I do think firing someone with 4 weeks to go after a 35 year career is gratuitous. [Here is Aucoin’s career history](http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Leadership/Display/Article/644276/commander-us-7th-fleet-vice-adm-joseph-p-aucoin/). Your description about connections may be as mistaken as Snipe’s commentary about commissions, though. 35 years total active federal service is far more than the 20 years required to retire. “Landing on their feet” can likely be a function of their long and varied experience, not to mention the importance of their command experience during those 35 years. If you check Aucoin’s career history, you’ll notice that he’s no lightweight. Was his relief chosen because of being a “nuke”? Doubtful. After all, the relief had already been selected before the latest incident. For both of the posters above: have you never heard of OBLISERV? Nobody’s resigning a commission before their obligated service is completed. Also, nobody’s getting relieved of command just because their ISIC (Immediate Superior in Command) or higher command authority wants to relieve them for the fun of it. The stated reason, of course, is “lost confidence in the CO’s ability to command”. There still must be a defensible cause for relief. The relieved CO has recourse for unfair or capricious relief. This is 2017; the US Navy is not the European navies of the 18th Century. What will happen will play out according to law and regulation. And that’s even more certainly the case given the high profile of the current incidents. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/238 "2017-08-24T17:18:15Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Your description about connections may be as mistaken as Snipe’s commentary about commissions, though. 35 years total active federal service is far more than the 20 years required to retire. “Landing on their feet” can likely be a function of their long and varied experience, not to mention the importance of their command experience during those 35 years. If you check Aucoin’s career history, you’ll notice that he’s no lightweight. Was his relief chosen because of being a “nuke”? Doubtful. After all, the relief had already been selected before the latest incident. > > For both of the posters above: have you never heard of OBLISERV? Nobody’s resigning a commission before their obligated service is completed. Also, nobody’s getting relieved of command just because their ISIC (Immediate Superior in Command) or higher command authority wants to relieve them for the fun of it. The stated reason, of course, is “lost confidence in the CO’s ability to command”. There still must be a defensible cause for relief. The relieved CO has recourse for unfair or capricious relief. This is 2017; the US Navy is not the European navies of the 18th Century. What will happen will play out according to law and regulation. And that’s even more certainly the case given the high profile of the current incidents. I’m well aware of his career history, thanks. I never said that his relief was chosen because he was a nuke. What I said was that aviators view certain facets of leadership differently than surface guys do, and certainly differently than submariners do. Navy leadership (and neither you nor I know for certain) could well have thought that Aucoin was at the end of his career, was an aviator with little experience in surface operations, was never in the maintenance arena, and had a submariner confirmed and in the wings. A submariner who had command of a boat, and as all nukes are, is a detailed sub driver and maintenance guy. This seems like the type of Officer they need out there with the issues they are having so they tapped him early. My point about his connections (and I have no idea what point you are making) is that some think that an Admiral being relived is a huge issue post Navy and it’s not. The retired flag community doesn’t care. So he’s still employable at the highest levels as a civilian. OBLISERV. Have you hear of Enlisted? OBLISERV is an Enlisted requirement, not an Officer one so you don’t know what you’re talking about. Once an Officer has performed his first tour, he/she is no longer obligated for any specific period of time, except as it’s tied to a bonus or educational payback. You shouldn’t be snarky with others when you’re out of your element. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/239 "2017-08-24T17:45:25Z")
[ADSO](http://dopma-ropma.rand.org/pdf/AR350-100.pdf), then. One can certainly see how resigning a commission is considered voluntary. Checking that particular document, one can see that it’s not only tied to a bonus or education payback. The rest of your post can safely (and wisely) be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/240 "2017-08-24T18:02:10Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > [ADSO](http://dopma-ropma.rand.org/pdf/AR350-100.pdf), then. One can certainly see how resigning a commission is considered voluntary. Checking that particular document, one can see that it’s not only tied to a bonus or education payback. > > The rest of your post can safely (and wisely) be ignored. What the hell is that! That is an _ **Army** _ publication from 8 years ago. How do you think that applies to anything having to do with a Navy Flag Officer? And by the way, your Army instruction showed the longest Army ADSO to be 6 years, and that was by going to West Point. (It’s now only five years - it’s changed since your 2009 publication was issued.) So I’d guess that Joey Aucoin who entered the Navy in 1980 would be in the clear, don’t you think? You should stop while you’re behind. I left the Navy a few months ago after 30 years as an O-6. The only two people who had a say in when I left was my immediate boss (an O-9) and my detailer, a fellow O-6. If I didn’t have an education pay back (I didn’t) they didn’t care when I left as long as I had a relief. There is no “tour” requirement. The Navy doesn’t want a bunch of senior Officers just handing around. When you’re done, it’s time to go home. Additionally, the Navy has caps for the total number of Admirals, as well as the total number of four-stars and three-stars. They don’t have the luxury of keeping a three-star around because he has “24 months” left on his tour or some such admin issue. This only makes since when you think about it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=13)