# 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:** 6
**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 20, 2017, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/101 "2017-06-20T00:41:08Z")
Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. ---
**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 20, 2017, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/102 "2017-06-20T01:18:40Z")
I thought it unlikely anybody would use autopilot in such crowded waters. We’ll have to be patient and wait several months for the investigation’s findings. ---
**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:** [June 20, 2017, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/103 "2017-06-20T04:31:15Z")
> [@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. The author is way off on any knowledge. If the container ship hit the destroyer perpendicular the damage would have been much worse. The bow of the container ship would have cut in to the beam of the destroyer much deeper, probably between 1/3 to 1/2 way through the destroyer. And the bow of the container ship would have damage on both sides, plus the bulbous bow would have been crushed. I would not bother reading anything this author writes unless you like fiction. ---
**Author:** ![ssgenius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2017, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/104 "2017-06-20T23:10:50Z")
Two things strike me from this collision 1. The similarities with the 1917 Halifax explosion where 2 ships struck each other in a glancing blow. (Although one of them was loaded with munitions and it caused a bit of an explosion)😃 2. How few crew members were on this container ship and likely I suspect there were only 1 or 2 awake at that time. ---
**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:** [June 21, 2017, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/105 "2017-06-21T00:35:53Z")
> [@ssgenius](#): > > Two things strike me from this collision > > 1. The similarities with the 1917 Halifax explosion where 2 ships struck each other in a glancing blow. (Although one of them was loaded with munitions and it caused a bit of an explosion)😃 > > 2. How few crew members were on this container ship and likely I suspect there were only 1 or 2 awake at that time. Minimum I would say 2. Officer of the watch, 12-4 probably a 3rd mate and a lookout, there may have also been a helmsman on the watch also. But in crowded waters I would also expect the Captain or the 1st mate to be there also. ---
**Author:** ![ssgenius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@ssgenius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ssgenius)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/106 "2017-06-21T00:42:48Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Minimum I would say 2. Officer of the watch, 12-4 probably a 3rd mate and a lookout, there may have also been a helmsman on the watch also. But in crowded waters I would also expect the Captain or the 1st mate to be there also. That just floors me. A 28000 ton ship being run with 2 people at night. \*Yes, I know that they can wake up others) but that just amazes me ---
**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:** [June 21, 2017, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/107 "2017-06-21T01:30:01Z")
> [@ssgenius](#): > > That just floors me. A 28000 ton ship being run with 2 people at night. \*Yes, I know that they can wake up others) but that just amazes me And what would you have them do? ---
**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 21, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/108 "2017-06-21T01:36:26Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#): > > 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. Well, I can only speak to my own specific experiences here, but on the submarines I sailed, we could be in Battlestations in well under four minutes. _Well_ before that, everyone would be out of their bunks and moving - FAST. Those asleep would be finishing getting dressed at their stations. On the Sub Tender, our standard was seven minutes\* - Which we routinely beat by a healthy margin. An alarm with even a minute to spare would’ve had folks up and thinking, at the very minimum. I can’t help but think that the seven killed were physically injured, as well as disoriented. Even a spare 30 seconds to wake up, and the disorientation would’ve been a minimal factor - and they’d have been out of their bunks. That can be all the difference in the world. \*Fleet minimum standards give more time than that - I had ambitioous skippers. ---
**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 21, 2017, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/109 "2017-06-21T01:41:50Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > 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. If so, the skipper shouldn’t have been in his bunk, and a Tracking Party should’ve been on the bridge. At the VERY least, the bridge should’ve been highly alert with all the activity to keep them on their toes. Now, if they were overwhelmed with activity - Which yes, can and does happen - AND they didn’t have a tracking party aiding in keeping things straight, then it could be a case of information overload. _IF_ so, that falls on the OOD for not recognizing the peril of overload, the Nav for having failed to predict the overload AND for failing to train his watchstanders better, the XO, whom is ultimiately reponsible for the training and discipline of the crew as a whole, and the CO, because, well, he’s the CO. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/110 "2017-06-21T02:46:13Z")
> [@ssgenius](#): > > That just floors me. A 28000 ton ship being run with 2 people at night. \*Yes, I know that they can wake up others) but that just amazes me In the end it’s a floating long steel box with an engine, rudder and prop at one end. Unless things are navigationally challenging, when a merchant ship is at sea at night there’s not much to do. Just keep a lookout and maintain a course, both of which can be done with two eyeballs and two hands. Though they have four of each. The engine just runs without engineers needing to watch it all the time (same as your car, basically). ---
**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:** [June 21, 2017, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/111 "2017-06-21T11:40:23Z")
> [@Buttercup\_Smith](#): > > Is this an accident or intentional? It’s a commercial ship at sea encountering a warship. For this incident to have been intentional, a nigh-on impossible series of events would have to be true: [ul][li]Someone on the merchant vessel had to know the warship’s course in advance,[/li][li]The master of the merchant ship disregarded his obligation to get his ship to port to unload cargo,[/li][\*]The merchant ship’s master or officer on watch planned to be able to not only criss-cross a congested sea lane at leisure, but also planned on meeting up with the warship with split-second precion at sea, something only possible in _007_ movies.[/ul] ---
**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 21, 2017, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/112 "2017-06-21T13:39:13Z")
Some clarity coming out about how the seven perished: A senior NCO, Fire Control Tech (Guns) First Class Leo Rehm was the senior sailor to die - Apparently, based on the NCO’s grapevine, he died getting the space evacuated, with the scuttlebutt stating that he managed to get 20 sailors out of the berthing space, before succumbing himself. If completely factual, the acts on one sailor prevented the cost fomr being much higher. Potentially, the loss could’ve been 26, had he not gone into the flooding space. No higher valor. > **[Elyria sailor killed in USS Fitzgerald collision](https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-lorain/elyria-sailor-was-one-of-seven-killed-in-uss-fitzgerald-collision-off-japan)** > > One of the seven sailorswho died when their destroyer collided with a container ship off Japan on Saturday was from Elyria. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/113 "2017-06-21T13:40:24Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > And what would you have them do? Watching safety videos, of course! ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/114 "2017-06-21T14:41:50Z")
[quote=“Monty, post:111, topic:789149”] It’s a commercial ship at sea encountering a warship. For this incident to have been intentional, a nigh-on impossible series of events would have to be true: [ul][li]Someone on the merchant vessel had to know the warship’s course in advance,[/li][li]The master of the merchant ship disregarded his obligation to get his ship to port to unload cargo,[/li][li]The merchant ship’s master or officer on watch planned to be able to not only criss-cross a congested sea lane at leisure, but also planned on meeting up with the warship with split-second precion at sea, something only possible in _007_ movies.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] You describe pre-meditation, not intent. Intent can be as simple as “I’m bored, let’s give that other ship a scare”, and then miscalculating. ---
**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 21, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/115 "2017-06-21T15:59:44Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Minimum I would say 2. Officer of the watch, 12-4 probably a 3rd mate and a lookout, there may have also been a helmsman on the watch also. But in crowded waters I would also expect the Captain or the 1st mate to be there also. I agree two is very possible, one of the mates as OOW (the common merchant term v OOD in the Navy), an Able Bodied Seaman at the helm. The absolute minimum would be one, on a ship fitted for one man bridge operation, actually seen on smaller ships but not common on big ships even with the specifically certified equipment required and this ship’s crew size implies it’s not the case. The likely max would be three. Plus the master, who doesn’t stand a watch, would go to the bridge in stretches of water of particular concern, might or might not have, and as with USN CO could be an issue for that person why they didn’t if not. That’s not counting the engine room watch of zero to two. According to press reports ACX Crystal had 20 aboard, termed ‘the crew’ though it’s possible that included riding technicians the crew doesn’t consider ‘the crew’. But 20 is a pretty likely crew. A minimum for a big ship (depending jurisdiction) might be around 13. Master, and three mates; Chief and 2 other engineers among licensed; 4 unlicensed deck, one unlicensed engine and a cook. This would mean an unmanned engine room part of the day and a 24/7 two man bridge watch. If 20, it might include adding an engineer and 3-4 more unlicensed engine to have a 24/7 2 man ER watch (though ship’s machinery doesn’t literally need that to run) plus more engine dept day worker(s) (like electrician or reefer container machinery specialist). Or, it might be fewer ER additions and instead beefing up the deck dept with enough unlicensed for 2 per watch. And probably a messman. So the normal bridge watch might include another unlicensed deck besides OOW and an AB at the helm. ---
**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 21, 2017, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/116 "2017-06-21T16:07:43Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > You describe pre-meditation, not intent. Intent can be as simple as “I’m bored, let’s give that other ship a scare”, and then miscalculating. Extraordinarily implausible. I’d sooner believe the 007 plot than this one. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/117 "2017-06-21T16:17:05Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > I agree two is very possible, one of the mates as OOW (the common merchant term v OOD in the Navy), an Able Bodied Seaman at the helm. The absolute minimum would be one, on a ship fitted for one man bridge operation, actually seen on smaller ships but not common on big ships even with the specifically certified equipment required and this ship’s crew size implies it’s not the case. The likely max would be three. Plus the master, who doesn’t stand a watch, would go to the bridge in stretches of water of particular concern, might or might not have, and as with USN CO could be an issue for that person why they didn’t if not. That’s not counting the engine room watch of zero to two. > > According to press reports ACX Crystal had 20 aboard, termed ‘the crew’ though it’s possible that included riding technicians the crew doesn’t consider ‘the crew’. But 20 is a pretty likely crew. > > A minimum for a big ship (depending jurisdiction) might be around 13. Master, and three mates; Chief and 2 other engineers among licensed; 4 unlicensed deck, one unlicensed engine and a cook. This would mean an unmanned engine room part of the day and a 24/7 two man bridge watch. > > If 20, it might include adding an engineer and 3-4 more unlicensed engine to have a 24/7 2 man ER watch (though ship’s machinery doesn’t literally need that to run) plus more engine dept day worker(s) (like electrician or reefer container machinery specialist). Or, it might be fewer ER additions and instead beefing up the deck dept with enough unlicensed for 2 per watch. And probably a messman. > > So the normal bridge watch might include another unlicensed deck besides OOW and an AB at the helm. You are forgetting the cargo officer and quite possibly two technicians if they had refrigerated boxes on deck. They need frequent checks - at least daily, which involves climbing around them. There would certainly have been a cook and quite possibly a steward for the Officer’s mess. ---
**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 21, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/118 "2017-06-21T16:33:41Z")
OK, update from Navy Times: Per the Rules of the Road, in a converging course situation, most cases, the vessel to starboard (Right) is the “Stand On” vessel, and the one to Port (Left) is the “Give Way” vessel - this is to reduce the chances of a high-seas “hallway dance” leading to collision. HOWEVER - Per Navy Times, it appears that the ACX Crystal was the _overtaking_ vessel, which changes things - The overtaking vessel is the “Give Way” vessel. That means, if expert observer consensus is correct, that the responsibilty to avoid the collision lay with the ACX Crystal. Noting the discussion of watches and crew size on commercial vessels up-thread, an inexperienced or under-trained\* watch crew on the Crystal seems plausible, and they’d have very few other crew about to support them and catch mistakes. That still fails to explain what was going on on the Fitzgerald’s bridge - EVen when you are the Stand-On vessel, you’re NOT required to take the hit - you’re just required to hold a predictable steady course until _in extremis_, whereupon you’re free to maneuver as seen fit to avoid the collision. _Extremis_ is in the eyes of the OOD. \*Being licesnsed does not mean you’re particuarly skilled, just that you’ve met minimum requirements; Skill grows with aptitude and experience. Nor does being licensed save you from the effects of fatigue, nor prevent honest errors in judgement. Witness the results of the Exxon Valdez’s watchstanders, for a concrete example. > **[Big questions in US warship's collision with container ship in Japan](https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/06/20/big-questions-in-us-warship-s-collision-with-container-ship-in-japan/)** > > Days after a fatal collision between a U.S. Navy destroyer and a merchant container ship, little information has emerged to explain how it could have happened. As the families of seven American sailors mourn their losses, here's a look at what we... ---
**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 21, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/119 "2017-06-21T16:35:25Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > You are forgetting the cargo officer and quite possibly two technicians if they had refrigerated boxes on deck. They need frequent checks - at least daily, which involves climbing around them. There would certainly have been a cook and quite possibly a steward for the Officer’s mess. AFAIK (pretty directly) a container ship wouldn’t necessarily have a separate cargo officer, as opposed to it being the chief mate’s job. But yes part of the difference between 13 (minimum safe navigation as per rules, depending where) and 20 (not unusual) would probably be an electrician/reefer machinery person or two as I did actually mention. You just can’t tell glancing at 20 v 13 whether the beef up of engine dept is enough for a 2 man ER watch, or more of it is in unlicensed deck to possibly have 3 man bridge watch. I did mention a messman as a likely addition in going 13\>20, plus a cook to begin with in the minimum of around 13. Although those are rough minimum for big ships. There are oceangoing vessels now without cooks. Might not seem too alluring, prepared foods and regular crew taking turns cooking, but it’s seen sometimes on smaller ships and the tug parts of effectively big ship Articulated Tug Barges. ---
**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 21, 2017, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/120 "2017-06-21T16:51:36Z")
BTW, in the geometry of this collision, the proper order on the Fitzgerald, to avoid collision, would’ve most likely have been “All back emergency” possibly followed by a rudder order hard to port (depending on time and distance available). Ships have _considerable_ momentum with their mass, and are designed to move forward though the water with ease. Stopping one is HARD. A simple “back emergency” bell would’ve prevented the Fitzgerald from being struck - and potentially (depending on when ordered) caused the Fitzgerald to be _the one striking._ The ACX Crystal is 220 meters long - And ALL of it would have to had passed in front of the Fitzgerald before the Fitz entered their track to avoid collision by just an engine order. If too late to back and pass astern, a left rudder might, along with the reduced speeds a backing bell brings, have allowed the Fitz to come alongside the Crystal, parallel. Maybe. Too late a rudder order, or at too high a speed, you might instead have found the Fitz being struck astern instead. I’ve seen this kind of dance at close range - entering San Diego harbor, the USS Tarawa cut us off in a blatent abuse of the Rules of the Road. As the senior vessel (Warships are senior to Auxiliaries), and being the vessel to the Starboard, they jumped the harbor entry queue with less than a ships-length between up - Now, two big vessels, that’s lots of space, right? At ten knots, that’s a LOT less space than you’d like. When 22,000 tons of vessel starts to shudder and bounce because of the backing bell applied, you KNOW there’s trouble, even BEFORE the collision alarm! Our CPA was less than a cable. Someone on the Tarawa was shitting bricks, I’m certain. Likewise, I _know_ our bridge crew damn near pissed themselves - And then were righteously furious. Reports from people I trust state that our skipper’s bridge-to-bridge communications were icy enough to burn. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=7)