# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/81 "2017-06-19T04:16:49Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#): > > However, the merchant might have been “overtaking” FITZGERALD (coming up from astern) in which case the roles would have been reversed with FITZGERALD being the “stand on” vessel and the merchant would have been required to “give way” and maneuver to avoid FITZGERALD. That might account for the port bow damage to the merchant and the starboard side damage to FITZGERALD. Your analysis largely repeats mine earlier, but I think this is unlikely. The damage pattern is starboard amidships on the Fitzgerald and port bow on the Crystal. This very strong suggests that the former was to port of the latter prior to the collision. If the Crystal was overtaking ie the vessels were within 22.5° of the same course, the Crystal would have had to turn hard to port to hit the Fitzgerald amidships with its bow, and there is no such turn on the AIS. Rather, there is a slight turn to port and then a crash turn to starboard. If the slight turn to port had occurred while the Crystal was overtaking, causing a collision course, the damage would be glancing, yet this was a near-t-bone. The only way the “Crystal overtaking” possibility could account for the damage is if while the Crystal was overtaking the Fitzgerald turned hard enough to starboard, at just the wrong moment, as to cross the bow of the Crystal. and if the Fitzgerald did that then the Crystal was not at fault. While, as you say, the Crystal is the give way vessel while overtaking, the Fitzgerald still has to comply with the overriding rule that you can’t turn to starboard while there is a vessel to your starboard. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/82 "2017-06-19T04:23:38Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > I think that timing is incorrect. I’ve been investigating maritime incidents for owners and insurers for 27 years. At this point post incident, the timing, and every other detail being reported, is incorrect. Always 😉 > [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > If a merchant ship is running early they will not circle like a plane. At the time of the collision it looks like the container ship was traveling around 13 knots. That is either a 1/2 ahead bell or a full ahead bell. If the container ship was early it would slow down. Either a slow or dead slow bell. Or keep coming an anchor just outside the dock area. Going in circles burns fuel and in a restricted water area can be dangerous. Repeated for emphasis. Certainly correct IME. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > One thing to note about low speed diesel ships with fixed pitch props, IOW the overwhelming majority of container ships, tankers and bulkers in existence and including ACX Crystal, is they have traditionally had a pretty high minimum engine speed relative to full speed, no real ‘dead slow’ bell. Not quite. Typically, the problem is fuel viscosity. If the vessel runs too slow for too long it doesn’t run hot enough for HFO. But for maneuovering, the vessel can go to MDO and work at dead slow speeds. However, this is not relevant for present purposes. A master won’t use MDO except when strictly necessary (too expensive) and wouldn’t do it just for the sake of wasting time. They would just go as slow as possible on HFO, which is far less than the reported 13 knots. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/83 "2017-06-19T09:09:24Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I’ve been investigating maritime incidents for owners and insurers for 27 years. Only on the Dope… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/84 "2017-06-19T12:33:23Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > … > ETA: 😕 Distance by “bells?” (In **LSLGuy** , above.) Not me. That was **Snnipe 70E**. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/85 "2017-06-19T12:41:21Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > … > > I wonder why the freighter earlier did a couple of [Klink Dipsydoodles](https://youtu.be/RoVW_uTlK68?t=21m10s)? [Here’s it’s track on AIS.](http://maritimebulletin.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/aistrack.jpg) > … As mentioned here and shown in **Muffin** ’s second link, the Crystal’s path has two major anomalies in addition to ordinary course changes. Per **Fubaya** and **Princhester** just above, it’s appearing like the first, larger, looping maneuver ( **Muffin** ’s red circled area) was the collision and immediate aftermath. Would any of our shipping experts care to speculate on that second tightly looped kink to the northeast of Oshima Island? AIS data glitch? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/86 "2017-06-19T13:35:25Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > As mentioned here and shown in **Muffin** ’s second link, the Crystal’s path has two major anomalies in addition to ordinary course changes. Per **Fubaya** and **Princhester** just above, it’s appearing like the first, larger, looping maneuver ( **Muffin** ’s red circled area) was the collision and immediate aftermath. > > Would any of our shipping experts care to speculate on that second tightly looped kink to the northeast of Oshima Island? AIS data glitch? Doubt it’s a glitch. Vessels at sea tend to get very good GPS accuracy and for every record shown on a summarised AIS track as shown on [marinetraffic.com](http://marinetraffic.com), there are dozens more, actually transmitted. So v. unlikely for a glitched reading to cause the track anomaly. I would guess the Crystal collided, then turned and came back to render aid given that Fitzgerald was damaged badly enough it could have been sinking. Then after a while (presumably after Fitzgerald confirmed things were under control) the Crystal headed for Tokyo. However, unless there is a pressing emergency need to do so, a Harbour Master won’t usually let a damaged vessel into port without some degree of consideration because of the risk it will sink/explode/cause damage/block a channel/drop oil etc Similarly, a wharf operator will be reluctant to let a vessel come alongside their wharf if it’s going to cause issues and get in the way because the vessel is not relevantly operational. My educated WAG is that the Crystal dropped anchor or at least stopped at the location of the kink while the master, owners and authorities got their heads around what to do next. Note that the kink is at a location seemingly out of the main routes to the South West and South of Tokyo, somewhat tucked in behind Oshima. I’d say that’s probably a good spot to drop the pick while everyone takes stock. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/87 "2017-06-19T14:23:56Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > … > > My educated WAG … 🙂 Nice distinction. But, in other posts: 😕“SWAG?” ---
**Author:** ![Fubaya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@Fubaya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fubaya)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/88 "2017-06-19T14:47:56Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > My educated WAG is that the Crystal dropped anchor or at least stopped at the location of the kink while the master, owners and authorities got their heads around what to do next. Note that the kink is at a location seemingly out of the main routes to the South West and South of Tokyo, somewhat tucked in behind Oshima. I’d say that’s probably a good spot to drop the pick while everyone takes stock. They might have even flown or boated some experts out to assess the damage. Would they need to empty the font ballast tanks to inspect the inner hull? Seems like that would be a big concern not only for safety but also for where to have repairs done. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/89 "2017-06-19T15:01:24Z")
So, having rapidly scaned the thread, I haven’t see addressed the Fitzgerald’s Standing Night Orders. On every Naval Vessel I’ve sailed, the Night Orders include provisions for monitoring closely approaching vessels, and notifying the skipper in cases of notably close approaches, _even if he was a sleep_. In every case where I can recall specific numbers, those two CPA thresholds were five nautical miles and one nautical mile. IOW, when the ACX Crystal came within five miles of the Fitz, they should have been establishing a track on her, and inside one mile, they should have been racking the skipper out. At some distance less than one mile, variable upon determiniation of the OOD, there should have been a collision alarm sounded. That the skipper was gravely injured in his own stateroom tells me that the collision alarm had not sounded - A collision alarm would’ve had him racing to the dridge, whatever his state of dress. He might have still be injured, but it wouldn’t have been inside his cabin. That suggests to me that the Bridge and CIC watchstanders were unaware of the extent of their peril. It’s debatable whether or not a timely collision alarm would’ve saved the seven in berthing - I dunno. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/90 "2017-06-19T15:17:39Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Not quite. Typically, the problem is fuel viscosity. If the vessel runs too slow for too long it doesn’t run hot enough for HFO. But for maneuovering, the vessel can go to MDO and work at dead slow speeds. However, this is not relevant for present purposes. A master won’t use MDO except when strictly necessary (too expensive) and wouldn’t do it just for the sake of wasting time. They would just go as slow as possible on HFO, which is far less than the reported 13 knots. Nope. You can see it in the ‘project guide’ for the MAN-B&W K80MC-C type engine ACX Chrystal has here, pg 6.11.01 [http://mec.novomor.com/bw.files/bwarhive/k80mcc.pdf](http://mec.novomor.com/bw.files/bwarhive/k80mcc.pdf) But this is a well known characteristic of low speeds back before camshaft-less electronic control, relatively high minimum speed. The issue isn’t HFO/MDO changeover, it’s fuel injection pressure when generated by a mechanical camshaft rather than separate constant pressure injection pumps on electronically controlled engines. It’s a separate issue from HFO/MDO changeover, which not all low speeds even have to do. The heat for the fuel system doesn’t necessary come directly from the engine. You can design that system so external heat alone is adequate to get the design (fuel delivery) viscosity, even with almost all the fuel circulating back to the booster pump, not being sent by the injection pumps into the cylinders, ‘dock to dock on HFO’, then just flush the system with MDO. Although, not all ships do that even if so fitted. And merchant ships now also burn in MDO in a growing number of coastal air quality zones. It’s even possible IMO will ban HFO eventually. But anyway low speed diesel fixed pitch prop ships with camshafts, ie most merchant ships, have a relatively high minimum speed compared to the creeping ability of a CP prop, electric drive and/or steam turbine ship. I made clear it is significantly lower than 13kts, more like 6 for a ship like this. But it was in response to discussion of ‘dead slow’: low speed diesel ships with fixed pitch props don’t really have dead slow by old time steamship standards. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/91 "2017-06-19T15:39:58Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > … > That the skipper was gravely injured in his own stateroom tells me that the collision alarm had not sounded - A collision alarm would’ve had him racing to the dridge, whatever his state of dress. He might have still be injured, but it wouldn’t have been inside his cabin. That suggests to me that the Bridge and CIC watchstanders were unaware of the extent of their peril. > … Good logic and pretty damning if it turns out to be accurate. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/92 "2017-06-19T18:01:54Z")
I’ve seen many comments (on other sites) saying the captain should have been on the bridge while navigating through such a crowded part of the ocean. Is that a valid criticism? ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/93 "2017-06-19T18:02:45Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Between fubaya’s pic and this pic [http://maritimebulletin.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/aistrack.jpg](http://maritimebulletin.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/aistrack.jpg) linked on the previous page we see two different course double-reversals. > > I believe that Fubaya’s is the second one as seen on the other link. Whichever double-reversal was immediately involved in the collision, there’s another one that needs explaining as well. > > I wonder if the merchant ship was running early and was told by the harbormaster (or whoever) to stand by offshore for a bit to delay his arrival for awhile. IOW, do the ship equivalent of an aerial holding pattern: drive in circles to burn time without covering net distance. > > I can imagine a number of ways for the merchantman to decide to reverse course for holding pattern purposes without fully clearing the area they’re turning into. Oops; that’s mistake #1. Which would sure be a surprise for anyone else nearby. Oops; mistake #2. > > Maneuvering in tight quarters looking only at AIS it would be easy to create a risk to somebody running without AIS. OTOH, running without AIS in crowded waters is creating a risk for everyone around you. I don’t know if I missed this and it was covered. I read on another page where someone speculated that the ship was on auto, changed course either at the time of collision or right before, traveled a bit then someone put it back on auto. The u-turn was the nag system coming back to hit the nav point. > [@TonySinclair](#): > > I was in the army, not the navy, but I thought this was common knowledge. I admit I’ve read it in Tom Clancy books, but I’ve also read it in, for example, the biography of Chester Nimitz, who was indeed court-martialed for running his ship onto a mudbank, with no damage. > > Googling around, I found this [more recent (2002) example](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1404113/Commander-who-ran-aground-revealed-to-be-ships-saviour.html) from the English navy. A captain who ran his ship aground was astonished that he was NOT court martialed. A quote: > > I am very, very certain that evidence of criminal wrongdoing is not required for a court martial. In many cases, running aground is just bad luck or inaccurate charts, but they still hold a court martial to determine whether incompetence played a part. > > If it needs to be said, a court martial is not a punishment; it’s simply a trial held by the military. It has acquired a connotation of being a punishment in itself, but it is common for a court martial to result in complete exoneration. A court martial is a criminal trial. A conviction in a court martial is the same as being convicted in federal court. You are a convicted felon. They are not courts of inquiry. There are catch all charges like “conduct unbecoming” but it is still a criminal charge. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/94 "2017-06-19T18:02:50Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > So, having rapidly scaned the thread, I haven’t see addressed the Fitzgerald’s Standing Night Orders. > > \ > > It’s debatable whether or not a timely collision alarm would’ve saved the seven in berthing - I dunno. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt. Very good observation. Thank you for sharing. ---
**Author:** ![Buttercup\_Smith](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buttercup_smith/32/473_2.png) [@Buttercup\_Smith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buttercup_Smith)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/95 "2017-06-19T20:07:38Z")
Is this an accident or intentional? ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/96 "2017-06-19T20:51:55Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > At some distance less than one mile, variable upon determiniation of the OOD, there should have been a collision alarm sounded. > … > It’s debatable whether or not a timely collision alarm would’ve saved the seven in berthing - I dunno. It certainly wouldn’t have hurt. Assuming they were paying attention and would have chosen to sound an alarm, at what distance/time would an alarm likely have been sounded? I would SWAG that 30-60 seconds would be enough time to get everyone awakened and moved somewhere safer (e.g. port side above the water line, rather than sleeping quarters below the waterline on the starboard side) in anticipation of an impending collision. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/97 "2017-06-19T21:41:24Z")
> [@Buttercup\_Smith](#): > > Is this an accident or intentional? The US Navy should be asking themselves - and the officers and crew standing watch - “What if it were intentional?” ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/98 "2017-06-19T23:04:33Z")
> **[Mapping the ACX Crystal's collision with the USS Fitzgerald using publicly...](https://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html)** > > News blog about current military history, interesting events, and movements of military assets globally. Army, Navy, Air Force; not the party line. Basedon the freighter’s AIS, here’s a page [by Steffan Watkins](http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html) with a zoomable time/distance/speed map animation, a zoomable static plot with time/speed/distance, and a couple of time/speed/position/course tables. I found it really helpful in conveying what the freighter was doing. The author’s conjecture is that the freighter was on auto-pilot while the crew sleeped, T-boned the destroyer and was knocked off course, regained course and speed once the destroyer was shaken off, then about half an hour when the someone on its crew woke up and realized there had been in a collision it was taken off auto-pilot and turned around to return to the scene. That still does not give enough information to account for what the destroyer had been doing or not doing. ---
**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:** [June 19, 2017, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/99 "2017-06-19T23:34:51Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html](http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html) > > Basedon the freighter’s AIS, here’s a page [by Steffan Watkins](http://www.vesselofinterest.com/2017/06/mapping-acx-crystals-collision-with-uss.html) with a zoomable time/distance/speed map animation, a zoomable static plot with time/speed/distance, and a couple of time/speed/position/course tables. I found it really helpful in conveying what the freighter was doing. > > The author’s conjecture is that the freighter was on auto-pilot while the crew sleeped, T-boned the destroyer and was knocked off course, regained course and speed once the destroyer was shaken off, then about half an hour when the someone on its crew woke up and realized there had been in a collision it was taken off auto-pilot and turned around to return to the scene. > > That still does not give enough information to account for what the destroyer had been doing or not doing. Are ships allowed to use autopilot in crowded shipping lanes? That may be a major factor. That still doesn’t explain how the USS Fitzgerald failed to see a huge cargo ship coming straight at them. It’s a bit like driving a VW beetle and not observing a Mac Truck. 😃 CNN reports that the collision occurred an hour earlier. Raising the same questions as the other link. > **[Delay in reporting of deadly US destroyer collision raises questions | CNN...](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/19/politics/uss-fitzgerald-crash-timing/index.html)** > > Nearly an hour passed before the crew of a container ship reported its collision with a US destroyer, according to the Japanese coast guard, raising questions. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/100 "2017-06-20T00:13:20Z")
> [@Fubaya](#): > > Would they need to empty the front ballast tanks to inspect the inner hull? The damage to the Crystal was in the area of the forepeak tank. This is in regular use because it is one of the best tanks to use to adjust trim. The first step would have been to sound all ballast tanks in the area to check for rising levels. If there were no signs of rising levels, an internal inspection could probably wait. > [@Tranquilis](#): > > On every Naval Vessel I’ve sailed, the Night Orders include provisions for monitoring closely approaching vessels, and notifying the skipper in cases of notably close approaches, _even if he was a sleep_. In every case where I can recall specific numbers, those two CPA thresholds were five nautical miles and one nautical mile. IOW, when the ACX Crystal came within five miles of the Fitz, they should have been establishing a track on her, and inside one mile, they should have been racking the skipper out. > > At some distance less than one mile, variable upon determiniation of the OOD, there should have been a collision alarm sounded. In those waters, the Fitzgerald would never have been less than 5nm from another vessel, and would have been within 1nm every other minute. Go look at the AIS image. It’s like a crowded cocktail party out there. > [@Muffin](#): > > The author’s conjecture is that the freighter was on auto-pilot while the crew sleeped, T-boned the destroyer and was knocked off course, regained course and speed once the destroyer was shaken off, then about half an hour when the someone on its crew woke up and realized there had been in a collision it was taken off auto-pilot and turned around to return to the scene. > > That still does not give enough information to account for what the destroyer had been doing or not doing. That guy is a clueless armchair idiot who wouldn’t know the blunt end from the pointy end, pontificating from ignorance. He’ll be explaining how his lack of data on the location of the Crystal in the next few weeks shows there’s clearly something hush hush going on (probably renaming the vessel the Mary Celeste). The idea that the bridge on the Crystal was unmanned in those crowded waters is so unlikely that it can be all but dismissed out of hand. The idea that both watchkeepers were asleep is almost as unlikely. But the idea that they hit the Fitzgerald and didn’t notice? Is to frickin laugh. Ship’s officers wake up with a change in the vessel’s motion or engine note. Hit a frickin’ destroyer, halve speed and turn hard to starboard? There wasn’t a person asleep on the Crystal within seconds. The entire complement of officers was on the bridge within 30-60 seconds of the collision. This cluesless nincompoop would have you believe the ship’s complement slept through the equivalent of a minor car crash and just rolled over and kept sleeping. All the rest of his analysis shows the same degree of “insight”. It seems the Crystal was slowed to about 11.2 kt by the collision. That means it was not stopped by the collision and to render assistance it had to head away, then turn around back. Captain Clueless is too clueless to realise that the slight increase in speed after that is probably because the master ordered a standard speed which probably wouldn’t have been 11.2 kt. Then the vessel turns to the NE. This is because it was on autopilot. Or because it was _heading towards a frickin’ island_ and the master of the Crystal sensibly turned back on to a safe course. It takes the Crystal about 36 minutes to turn around. Bear in mind that sounding the tanks and checking that the Crystal is in a safe condition herself to go back and help the “Fitzgerald” would take all of that 36 minutes even at a run. But no, this is because those damn Crystal fools are all sleeping. Jeebus. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=6)