# 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:** 9
**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 26, 2017, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/161 "2017-06-26T15:16:23Z")
> [@Terminus\_Est](#): > > According to this latest report on Reuters, the destroyer ignored warning signals nor did it take any evasive action before it collided with the container ship. > > [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-exclusive-idUSKBN19H13C](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-exclusive-idUSKBN19H13C) Something wrong with this report. Unless things have changed ships do not signal with flashing lights. I believe they still use the ships horn. The international danger signal is 5 long blast of the ships horn. ---
**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 26, 2017, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/162 "2017-06-26T17:14:47Z")
Flashing lights may have been use. Ships whistle is the primary signal. I don’t see a oh shit!, we’re about to collide signal. 😉 [https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=Rule34](https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=Rule34) > [@](#): > > Any vessel may supplement the whistle signals prescribed in paragraph (a) of this Rule by light signals, repeated as appropriate, while the maneuver is being carried out: > > (i) these signals shall have the following significance: > > one flash to mean “I am altering my course to starboard”;two flashes to mean “I am altering my course to port”;three flashes to mean “I am operating astern propulsion”. > > (ii)   the duration of each flash ---
**Author:** ![Didactylos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a183cd/32.png) [@Didactylos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Didactylos)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/163 "2017-06-27T11:32:35Z")
> [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Something wrong with this report. Unless things have changed ships do not signal with flashing lights. I believe they still use the ships horn. At night using light to get attention of an unreactive ship heading your way is not unusual I believe. I have sailed together with a couple of people who were involved in a collision at night, much smaller vessels of course. They were the stand-on ship, a 44ft/18 BRT one-masted sailing ship under engine-power, and was approached by a small motorboat from port. They used the horn, called him on the VHF and when the other boat kept coming, used a powerful spotlight (range about 100-200m) to illuminate alternatively the other ship and their own mast. Also did some evasive action, but too late, ultimately the boats crashed into each other. It turned out the driver of the other boat was dead drunk. Later a court case put all the blame for the crash on him, deservedly. > [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > The international danger signal is 5 long blast of the ships horn. It doesn’t have to be direct danger. The official regulations state it should be used when, as they say, “the intentions of an approaching vessel is unclear”. On my course on COLREG we learned this mnemonic: 5 blasts = 5 letters in the word “idiot” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/164 "2017-06-27T13:03:32Z")
One question that has occurred to me when reading about such collisions (and particularly when I read about the _Andrea Doria_/_Stockholm_ collision): I don’t recall direct communication between the two ships being mentioned, instead the people on watch guessed about the other ship’s course/intentions and guessed wrong, in the way of people colliding in a corridor dance. Is it really out of the question in such encounters to call the other ship on VHF and ask about the other party’s intentions and/or state one’s own? The manoevres leading to collision play out in minutes not seconds, don’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/165 "2017-06-27T13:07:28Z")
> [@Tranquilis](#): > > Oh, it’s entirely believable. Read upthread about merchant manning levels. Then consider - you’ve got two people on the bridge. One runs down to the galley to get a snack - it’s just a couple minutes, right? Then the other has an urgent need to visit the head… No one on the bridge. Oh no it’s not. There are snacks and drinks and coffee etc on the bridge. Being found off the bridge during your watch is a sacking offence, no questions, do not pass go, do not collect $200. The idea of going down (usually) about 3 or 4 decks to the galley while OOW or lookout would be regarded as outrageous by any merchant officer. I regularly have to ask (for the sake of completeness) the question “did you leave the bridge at any time” and officers are offended by the very asking of the question. The answer is invariably “Of course not” and a glare that implies I might have asked them if they molested their children. There is a head on the bridge, by the way. > [@Tranquilis](#): > > The analyst may be a complete tool, but the AIS information is fairly damning. No, it really isn’t. Why do you say so? I’ve already explained why not. The guy who wrote that article is such a prat that he doesn’t realise that the obvious explanation for the Crystal going back onto it’s original course is that it was a safe thing to do. The collision put it on a course _towards a nearby island_ admittedly some distance off. You don’t know what other shallow water or other ships were near. It’s all too easy to get distracted by something like this and one of the talents of a good ship’s master is good situational awareness, and the ability to not get flustered. This is a large ship in restricted waters with high traffic. Going back onto a course that the master of the Crystal already knew to be OK was a sensible choice. Continuing on the course that the ship happened to have been bumped onto by the collision would have been very careless unless the master had considered the course very carefully, and he wouldn’t have had time for that. > [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Placing a radio call would not be the first order of business. This. On pretty much every incident I’ve ever been involved in that gets media or political attention, there will be a complaint that the ship didn’t report an incident sooner. 30 minutes is actually pretty quick - absent indications a vessel is actually sinking. Shiny bum bureaucrats always feel that letting them know should be the first order of the day, but ship’s masters often feel that checking that they aren’t sinking and that no one is injured and so on is actually more important. I’m not offering a strong opinion one way or the other on appropriate priorities, but the fact is that reporting instantly would be the exception rather than the rule IME. > [@Snnipe\_70E](#): > > Something wrong with this report. Unless things have changed ships do not signal with flashing lights. I believe they still use the ships horn. The international danger signal is 5 long blast of the ships horn. It’s considered a good emergency step to try flashing the other vessel’s bridge with the searchlight if they are showing signs of failing to recognise your presence. Indeed in one case I was involved in a decade or so ago, my client’s ship was admonished afterward for _not_ trying this step. > [@Terminus\_Est](#): > > According to this latest report on Reuters, the destroyer ignored warning signals nor did it take any evasive action before it collided with the container ship. > > [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-exclusive-idUSKBN19H13C](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-navy-asia-exclusive-idUSKBN19H13C) > > > [@](#): > > > > In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship’s captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald “suddenly” steamed on to a course to cross its path. > > > > The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula’s report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters. You are assuming that the destroyer’s reported sudden turn to starboard wasn’t taking evasive action. I wouldn’t mind betting that is exactly what the destroyer thought it was doing. As predicted up thread. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/166 "2017-06-27T13:11:29Z")
> [@Mops](#): > > Is it really out of the question in such encounters to call the other ship on VHF and ask about the other party’s intentions and/or state one’s own? The manoevres leading to collision play out in minutes not seconds, don’t they? An issue can be that - when there are more than two ships around - you don’t know who you are talking to. There have been instances of communications where a ship has made the wrong assumption about who they are talking to, and consequently manoeuvred into a collision. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2017, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/167 "2017-06-28T01:54:58Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > You are assuming that the destroyer’s reported sudden turn to starboard wasn’t taking evasive action. I wouldn’t mind betting that is exactly what the destroyer thought it was doing. As predicted up thread. I am not assuming anything. I was simply summarizing what the newspaper report said. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2017, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/168 "2017-06-28T03:38:45Z")
Fair point, I apologise. ---
**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:** [June 28, 2017, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/169 "2017-06-28T09:24:30Z")
How frequent are evasive maneuvers required by ships? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? When I drove a motorcycle in Japan I would go years between scares but it seems almost daily here in Taiwan. There are lots of accidents here. Are ships generally safer or more dangerous? ---
**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:** [July 14, 2017, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/170 "2017-07-14T08:07:18Z")
No surprise here. I guess a medical reason is some consolation. Dry dock photos of damage below water line. Navy hasn’t decided yet if the ship can sail home for major repairs. That’s a big patch they are fabricating now. > **[New Dry Dock Photos Show the Scope of Hidden USS Fitzgerald Damage](https://news.usni.org/2017/07/12/new-dry-dock-photos-show-extent-hidden-uss-fitzgerald-damage)** > > A new series of photos released on Wednesday by U.S. 7th fleet now show the hidden damage suffered by USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) from its June 17 collision. [https://www.stripes.com/injured-fitzgerald-commander-temporarily-relieved-of-duties-1.477482#.WWh6riNOlnE](https://www.stripes.com/injured-fitzgerald-commander-temporarily-relieved-of-duties-1.477482#.WWh6riNOlnE) > [@](#): > > Cmdr. Bryce Benson was briefly hospitalized in the June 17 collision between the Yokosuka-based destroyer and a Philippine-flagged cargo ship that killed seven Fitzgerald sailors about 64 miles southwest of the naval base. Two other sailors were also injured. > This is a temporary relief due to medical reasons,” 7th Fleet Spokesman Clay Doss said in an email to Stars and Stripes. ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2017, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/171 "2017-07-14T11:07:13Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > As discussed upthread already. If this is correct information then I would still tend towards thinking there was substantial fault on the part of the Fitzgerald. > > If the Crystal was overtaking then the two vessels were heading in the same direction converging at an angle of 22.5° or less. That’s the definition of overtaking as opposed to crossing. Well, you can’t just be the one to give way while crossing, get right in front of the approaching ship, and then turn to put the other ship into the “overtake” position. In practical terms, You shouldnt expect to get right of way by actions you take ,when you are already up close. But it might also be because Crystal might have believed it was crossing, and Fitzgerald believing Crystal is overtaking. Who is adjudicating 25 degrees and who is adjudicating “up close” and who is adjudicating “linability to manouvre”. They are only guessing… Seems the likely cause is that Crystal was treating this like a multilane freeway and just driving through as long as their rader didnt show any ship stopped dead in front… It ignored any radar indications, they’ll just turn off before collision. Cruise boats and ships often come up close to Crystal to have a look … so they get used to just ignoring lesser ships manovering off to the angles. But Fitzgerald treated it like it was daytime and any other ship would easily see it and avoid collisions ? ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/172 "2017-07-22T20:12:37Z")
> [@](#): > > American defense officials said Friday that initial findings indicate that the destroyer USS Fitzgerald was likely at fault in her collision with the container ship ACX Crystal on June 17. > > Defense officials told CNN and Reuters that the early results of the investigation show that the Fitzgerald was at fault, and that a loss of situational awareness was a primary factor in the collision. “There was not a lot that went right leading up to the crash. There were a string of errors, but they did a lot after the collision to save lives and the ship,” an official with knowledge of the inquiry told Reuters. He added that the investigators have already collected radar data from the time of the incident and testimony from the crew, and that it was unlikely that the initial conclusions would change. > > Two defense officials speaking with CNN confirmed this account. “They did nothing until the last second,” one official said. “A slew of things went wrong.” Another Navy official said the crash “will wind up being our fault.” > **[Report: USS Fitzgerald Was Likely At Fault in Collision](https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/report-uss-fitzgerald-was-at-fault-in-collision)** > > American defense officials said Friday that initial findings indicate that?the destroyer?USS Fitzgerald was likely at fault in her collision with the ---
**Author:** ![Fir\_na\_tine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Fir\_na\_tine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fir_na_tine)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/173 "2017-08-17T23:46:16Z")
[Preliminary verdict is in](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/08/17/top-two-officers-and-other-sailors-aboard-the-uss-fitzgerald-to-be-disciplined-following-deadly-collision-at-sea/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_navy-crash-630pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ab94d68f57e0) ---
**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 18, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/174 "2017-08-18T00:30:25Z")
It’s hard to fully understand the punishments without knowing details of what happened. Which officers were on the bridge? The captain was off duty and snoozing in his bunk. But he’s getting punished just the same. I know people posted earlier that they expected the ship’s leaders to be punished. Regardless of who was on duty. Would Babbit be the XO? The Navy’s flooded compartments training saved a lot of lives. I’ve seen footage of the training on documentaries. They flood the training area with fire hoses. The crewman learn how to stay calm and save their ship in these situations. > **[Navy to relieve USS Fitzgerald leadership for mistakes that led to fatal...](https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/navy-relieve-uss-fitzgerald-leadership-mistakes-led-deadly/story?id=49283582)** > > Seven sailors lost their lives in June in the collision with a container ship. > [@](#): > > The Navy announced Thursday that the commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet intended to relieve Cmdr. Bryce Benson, Cmdr. Sean Babbitt, and Master Chief Petty Officer Brice Baldwin for loss of trust and confidence in their ability to lead in those positions. > > They are among a dozen of the ship’s crew who will face administrative action for their role in the collision. The investigation into what caused the crash continues, but it has so far determined that there was “plenty of evidence to determine that serious mistakes were made” by members of the crew, said Admiral William Moran, vice chief of staff of the Navy. ---
**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 18, 2017, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/175 "2017-08-18T00:37:35Z")
Never mind. This article identifies Babbit as XO > **[Navy Fires Commander, XO from USS Fitzgerald for Fatal Collision](https://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/08/17/navy-fires-3-leaders-uss-fitzgerald-wake-deadly-collision.html)** > > The commander of the destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the executive officer face non-judicial punishment over the deadly collision. ---
**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:** [August 18, 2017, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/176 "2017-08-18T01:12:17Z")
The fact they’re cashiering the CO, XO, \*and \*the senior enlisted man makes it clear the Pentagon thinks the whole ship was a clown car of lax operations permitted, perhaps even encouraged, by the 3 men in charge. Whether that was the actual situation on that ship, or just the Pentagon brass’s impression of the situation is still a mystery to the rest of us. And may remain so. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/177 "2017-08-18T01:22:27Z")
I wonder if we will see any published report giving the details. If the collision was in Australian waters there would be a public report but I don’t know about Japan. I suppose the Japanese will investigate from the Crystal’s perspective but IME the navy won’t co-operate because they consider everything to be a defence secret. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/178 "2017-08-18T01:27:27Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > The fact they’re cashiering the CO, XO, \*and \*the senior enlisted man makes it clear the Pentagon thinks the whole ship was a clown car of lax operations permitted, perhaps even encouraged, by the 3 men in charge. My understanding is that the commanding officer of a naval vessel cops it in the neck pretty much regardless. When the UK ship the “Nottingham” went aground off Norfolk Island a decade or so ago, the _only_ thing that saved the commander from dismissal was that he had just landed on the vessel by helicopter and was walking toward the bridge, so had not officially resumed command. He was still reprimanded for going ashore without leaving a proper plan in place, which was very likely a tenuous charge that was nonetheless pressed because he has to be found guilty of _something_. ---
**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:** [August 18, 2017, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/179 "2017-08-18T01:48:03Z")
Agree that in the USN the CO is 99.9% always sacrificed. The fact they went beyond that and canned not only CO but also the XO and even the senior enlisted guy is probably not unprecedented but is pretty rare. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2017, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149/180 "2017-08-18T01:56:42Z")
> [@](#): > > The Navy announced Thursday that the commander of the Navy’s 7th Fleet intended to relieve Cmdr. Bryce Benson, Cmdr. Sean Babbitt, and Master Chief Petty Officer Brice Baldwin for loss of trust and confidence in their ability to lead in those positions. But doesn’t this just mean they get cushy desk jobs rather than being thrown out of the Navy? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/navy-destroyer-fitzgerald-collides-with-merchant-ship/789149.md?page=10)