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.
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. 
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.
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” 
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am not assuming anything. I was simply summarizing what the newspaper report said.
Fair point, I apologise.
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
Never mind.
This article identifies Babbit as XO
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.
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.
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.
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.
But doesn’t this just mean they get cushy desk jobs rather than being thrown out of the Navy?