# Navy to file criminal charges..



## aa3jy

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...ship-collisions-including-negligent-homicide/


----------



## denverd0n

Wow. Pretty serious response.


----------



## Yorksailor

In our three interactions with the US Navy all in international waters and far from any enemy they refused to use the VHF to negotiate passing or switch on their AIS. We thought that they chose to ignore COLREGS and just 'throw their weight around' but now it appears that they might not have known the rules of the road.

I doubt the charged officers were maliciously incompetent they were just caught up in a culture that had chosen to minimize seamanship.

Phil


----------



## SanderO

"maliciously incompetent"... that's a weird turn of phrase here.

If anything it is dereliction of duty or disregard for human life and the consequence associated with this jobs on board... negligent homicide works for me.

It seems to me that as we are not in a state of war, navy ships need to conduct themselves like any other vessel of the size and follow the rules and use competent well trained / qualified crew and command structure. As there were multiple accidents of not dissimilar nature it seems to indicate that there was a systemic problem with the navy... and if this is the case the higher ups at the Pentagon need to be held accountable as well.


----------



## aa3jy

SanderO said:


> As there were multiple accidents of not dissimilar nature it seems to indicate that there was a systemic problem with the navy... and if this is the case the higher ups at the Pentagon need to be held accountable as well.


As stated: "Navy Adm. John M. Richardson, the chief of naval operations, has promised that the service will get back to basics and emphasize the fundamentals of good seamanship"

Most likely will go all the way back to re-evaluating leadership training at the Academy..


----------



## Don L

sounds like a witch hunt


----------



## RegisteredUser

Maybe so, but it looks like 'the basics' had been seen as...not necessary...in recent times.

When I was in (not Navy), you did it right....or later wished you had.
There was no BS room...or touchy feelings involved or tolerated.


----------



## SloopJonB

Doesn't seem that long ago that the Navy was regarded as setting the standard for seamanship.


----------



## Yorksailor

SanderO said:


> "maliciously incompetent"... that's a weird turn of phrase here


Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


----------



## RegisteredUser

This originates from the top.
So sad....the weakness


----------



## krisscross

They train these sailors mostly how to wage war. Their marine skills have been neglected. The big brass thinks that spending obscene billions on naval technology will make up for lack of basic seamanship. What an idiocy.


----------



## hellosailor

It is a dog and pony show. Someone has to be the public target of blame, but naval investigations have already formally said the problem is not any one person--but the entire USN is at fault, for forcing ships to go to sea when they are undermanned, undertrained, and certifiably NOT READY FOR SEA DUTY.

The top brass will blame Congress, saying there's not enough budget for ships and training and crew. But they'll still order the ships they have to go out. And the captains of those ships? Gee, sir, admiral sir, my ship isn't ready so I'm going to refuse your order? That's a career-ender no matter how nicely you say it.

So it all runs downhill and in this case, lands on a batch of people who never should have been in charge of what they were in charge of. But the Peter Principle applies in or out of uniform.

You can argue that the brass, like the captains, like Congress, everyone is stuck in the middle because "everyone" wants things but doesn't want to pay for them. This reaction is (sadly) just to mollify public opinion, because the USN knows the real problem, and it has no way to correct it.

Expect more collisions, nothing has really changed.


----------



## paulinnanaimo

Sounds really complicated. But even assuming an out of repair ship and an inexperienced short staffed crew, how tough is it to post a sailor where he can see ahead and yell 'LOOK OUT'?


----------



## hellosailor

"how tough is it to post"
Ever supervised a crew that was working triple shift for a couple of weeks straight?
Once people go from 8-hour shifts to 12-hour shifts, the accident and error rate DOUBLES. Put your crew on 80-hour weeks, and you've just doubled the accident rate. Put them on watch, and they'll daydream and get distracted, at best. Do it in a fog and require that watch to use a radio because the bridge is 150' away with closed hatches...uh, yeah, incredible how easily radios get mis-set.
With properly trained, rested crew and the right equipment? Real easy to get it right. When you read the naval board of investigations recounting how many excess hours are being forced, how untrained crew are being used because there are no trained crew...
Yeah, it is real easy to hit the broadside of a barn.

Tonight's homework, rent and view The Caine Mutiny. (Where the problem is the captain, not just the crew, but that hardly matters.) Extra points if you can find the strawberry ice cream before they give that answer.


----------



## aa3jy

hellosailor said:


> Tonight's homework, rent and view The Caine Mutiny. (Where the problem is the captain, not just the crew, but that hardly matters.) Extra points if you can find the strawberry ice cream before they give that answer.


In particular pay attention to Lt. Greenwald, the assigned attorney comments to the involved three officers after the trial is over...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/padresteve.com/2010/01/23/the-caine-mutiny-a-lesson-in-leadership/amp/


----------



## RegisteredUser

Where is MacArthur...?


----------



## hellosailor

Something that probably goes unspoken, is that if the USN did not file charges, those persons who did not file charges could probably be brought up on charges on malfeasance for failing to do so. (If any families, heirs, etc. filed those charges against them.) Sometimes, proper procedure has to be filed even when it is only a CYA process unrelated to the larger issues.


----------



## aa3jy

hellosailor said:


> Something that probably goes unspoken, is that if the USN did not file charges, those persons who did not file charges could probably be brought up on charges on malfeasance for failing to do so. (If any families, heirs, etc. filed those charges against them.) Sometimes, proper procedure has to be filed even when it is only a CYA process unrelated to the larger issues.


In other words...

'**** rolls down hill'

"In military parlance it means anything crappy coming from the top of the chain of command will hit everyone down to the bottom. This includes dumbass decision making, disciplinary actions, or simply a superior taking his frustrations out on subordinates.
Privates, I'm knee deep in your ass right now because the 1st Sgt was knee-deep in my ass this morning, and **** rolls down hill!

2
**** rolls down hill
when you have to deal with a problem that someone above you (your boss, parents, teachers, etc) caused.

don't forget....you can throw **** up hill cause it will roll right back down, but heavier.
I gotta do your job cause you ****** up?

Man, **** keeps rolling down hill at this crappy job."


----------



## SloopJonB

What happens on a naval vessel is and always has been the Captains responsibility.


----------



## curtis742

The captain should be held responsible and charged with damaging US government property as well as negligent homicide. Ignorance is n excuse for the law... Neither is stupidity but the captain should still be held accountable for his actions and the damage and injury caused by those actions. Accidentally run your boat into a Navy ship and see what happens especially running dark with you AIS switched off.


----------



## curtis742

The captain should be held responsible and charged with damaging US government property as well as negligent homicide. Ignorance is n excuse for the law... Neither is stupidity but the captain should still be held accountable for his actions and the damage and injury caused by those actions. Accidentally run your boat into a Navy ship and see what happens especially running dark with you AIS switched off.


----------



## SeaStar58

The problem is that on a Pacific Fleet level it appears that training and accountability has been waning due to reliance on electronics. The Admirals in charge of Pacific Fleet Operations themselves have been called onto the carpet since more than one of the newest most advanced guided missile cruisers in the world have been involved with the Fitz and McCain both getting t-boned in clear conditions with good visibility and the Admirals are ultimately responsible for systemic problems with the fleets personnel and training.

I was very concerned when the first incident occurred since my crew was responsible for much of the core chart data that went into the Nav Consoles, that should have placed them within 1/2 meter of their lane, fearing it was an issue with charting putting them way out of the lane on the seaways however that was not the case, it was mostly just a dis-join in communications between the watch on deck and those on the bridge not following the rules of piloting. 

Some of the info reveled from Naval resources appears to indicate many crewmen on the bridge/control room were distracted with personal devices too. 

Embarrassing also that the captain of the Fitz instead of being called from his ready bunk at 2 AM by the night watch and CO in charge of the bridge, when the encroachment was first noticed and the banter began between the deck watch and the bridge, was left to find out by having a container ship rip through the bulkhead of his bunk leaving him injured and clinging for his life to the hole in the side of the hull in his night clothes with the crewmen in the bunks beneath him trapped/dying in a flooded compartment.

The Criminal Investigation will allow them to more quickly get to Root Cause so they can fix what is broken in training, assessing qualifications of crew and procedure. There was a good reason why the Secretary of the Navy felt it necessary back in the day to contract Chapman to write the book on Practical Seamanship and Navigation and make it required reading. Perhaps its time for an update and having all bridge, control room and watch personnel read it again with the occasional spot quiz afterwards to ensure their competency.

Meanwhile the US Pacific Fleet is down by something like 1/3 of their missile response capabilities.


----------



## aa3jy

https://abcnews.go.com/US/commandin...ain-collision-pleads-guilty/story?id=55433227


----------



## outbound

The repetitive failure of many people in all walks of life to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions or inaction is undermining society. I have respect for the decision of the two officers choosing to plead and the statement made. 
The worst punishment is they will live with the knowledge that their failures lead to the death of their sailors.
Any nonsense about sh-t rolling down hill,regardless of its truth, doesn’t shift the captains responsibility to train his crew or be at the bridge when appropriate.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

I drew some weird, reversed, parallel with the Cain Mutiny. Lets not confuse the two McCain and Caine...


----------



## SeaStar58

Make you wonder why some elderly retired sailors over the past few weeks/months have been called back to hold two and three week training courses on seamanship and such. 

They had to scour nursing homes 30 or so years ago to get engineers who could design long lasting engines back into the auto industry to pass on that skill to the youngun's and turn things around from the string of failed attempts that were occurring back then, is the Navy having to do similar today to turn around issues with seamanship?


----------



## Don L

SeaStar58 said:


> Make you wonder why some elderly retired sailors over the past few weeks/months have been called back to hold two and three week training courses on seamanship and such.
> 
> They had to scour nursing homes 30 or so years ago to get engineers who could design long lasting engines back into the auto industry to pass on that skill to the youngun's and turn things around from the string of failed attempts that were occurring back then, is the Navy having to do similar today to turn around issues with seamanship?


sounds like a myth


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

No the US Navy did not dig old farts out of nursing homes.... They ordered the US Navy ships to TURN ON the bloody AIS!


----------



## SeaStar58

Don0190 said:


> sounds like a myth


I know one of the elderly gents whom I saw almost daily until he was called to give the lessons so no myth this gent was not in a nursing home though. You don't have to make stuff up with so much reality like this out there.

Don't know all the intrinsic details but he's been gone to train sailors in the Navy for a number of weeks now. We'll see if what if any details he can speak to when he gets back however I don't expect anything more than what I have already commented on. It's nice though that they respect/value the knowledge and wisdom of these older sailors. Hopefully he can pass on some of that to the younger generation.

On the auto industry Chrysler Engines designed by those old timers in the mid to late 1980's are still the foundation for a number of new engines today despite Mercede's attempts to replace them with their own Dr. Zeiter designs and Fords failed attempt to develop a new push rod V6 in the 1990's was a disaster which is history. My youngest brother got stuck with the new design Ford push rod V6 which had to be recalled and replaced with a totally new engine that had an updated design with a beefed up valve train. None of the patches they tried on the original engines solved the recurring failures. I believe the engine was offered in the Explorers.


----------



## capta

You all seem to think this a recent development in Naval operations. Well, let me tell you it's not!
When I grew up on the bay, it wasn't all that infrequent a destroyer hit a bridge, or some other Naval vessel went aground. Not too many years back, a US Navy ship ran aground on a reef in a national park in the Philippines for no apparent reason. Using google I could probably come up with innumerable others.
It seems when you run around on a vessel with a big gun or two, you kinda expect other, less well armed vessels to keep clear. It is clearly a failure of the whole system, a system that advances incompetent officers and doesn't train the lesser ratings well enough in the operation of the vessels when not engaged in military operations.
Not to say this holds true for only the US Navy, for it doesn't. But since the introduction of mechanically driven vessels to the fleets of the world's military, I believe seamanship has taken a back seat to military preparedness.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

> *CNO: U.S. Navy Ships Told to Turn AIS Transmitting 'ON' in High-Traffic Areas*


CNO: U.S. Navy Ships Told to Turn AIS Transmitting 'ON' in High-Traffic Areas ? gCaptain


----------



## SeaStar58

capta said:


> You all seem to think this a recent development in Naval operations. Well, let me tell you it's not!
> When I grew up on the bay, it wasn't all that infrequent a destroyer hit a bridge, or some other Naval vessel went aground. Not too many years back, a US Navy ship ran aground on a reef in a national park in the Philippines for no apparent reason. Using google I could probably come up with innumerable others.
> It seems when you run around on a vessel with a big gun or two, you kinda expect other, less well armed vessels to keep clear. It is clearly a failure of the whole system, a system that advances incompetent officers and doesn't train the lesser ratings well enough in the operation of the vessels when not engaged in military operations.
> Not to say this holds true for only the US Navy, for it doesn't. But since the introduction of mechanically driven vessels to the fleets of the world's military, I believe seamanship has taken a back seat to military preparedness.


Indeed not a recent issue which is why the Secretary of the Navy asked Chapman to write a handbook and help prepare a training program for sailors who piloted vessels which was first published in 1917.

I worked on detailed computer charting systems to help with this and rectified tons of chart data to make them more accurately follow the curvature of the earth and seamless which many folks now take for granted. We originally published these on laser disks and stored them in Juke Boxes on the early systems before solid state media and compressed hard drives capable of storing terabytes of data became available. Sadly though as folks get dependent on tech to do their jobs actually looking at reality has taken a back seat to the tech making it so many can't understand when what they are looking at indicates they have to take action even if what they can seen does not have an exact ID number on the Computer/NAV Consoles Screen.

As some mentioned yes turn on AIS however also teach navigation and seamanship sans the technology. Most of these incidents such as the Fitz and McCain happened in good visibility where both ships clearly saw each other in plenty of time for the Navy vessel to take action and the Navy ships were indeed maneuverable enough to have avoided the collisions if the appropriate action had been taken but sadly did nothing until it was too late. Those Guided Missile Cruisers are not by any means slugs at the helm when an experienced and alert crew is on the bridge. The lack of experience and the failure to be alert is really whats at the root of the problem. On one ship the bridge crew even argued with those giving the alerts from the watch stations on deck advising about the cargo ship which is very sad indeed.

Anyways the trainer got back and though it was an intense course the results were positive is all we can say. He's glad to be back now.


----------



## jkleins

I just came through the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel area early in the morning and there was a Navy sub out at the pilot station picking up a pilot. He was going about 5 knots according to my AIS of the pilot boat but the sub had no AIS. I was crossing and should have crossed well in front of him when the surrounding patrol boats started announcing his arrival and for everyone to stand clear 500 yds. I called the sub and asked if he had me on the AIS and was I going to clear his exclusion zone and we negotiated that he would pass behind. He had no running lights that I could see just a white light on one of the tower masts and you could not see the length even as it started getting light due to the bow and part of the stern being almost submerged.
If this area is not considered a high traffic area I can't figure out what would be. He needed the AIS on for maybe an hour or so to clear the zone and was announcing his arrival on the VHS anyway so it wasn't like it was a secret. It would have allowed people to keep a good CPA so as not to encroach on his security zone and it would have allowed people to see his speed changes etc,
We have gotten so used to managing passings and crossings with the AIS with all the other ships that traverse the area that it just seems crazy for these guys not to have it on.
I did see some down in Florida with "Warship 44" and names like that but around Norfolk several were silent running.

Jim


----------



## MarkofSeaLife

jkleins said:


> If this area is not considered a high traffic area I can't figure out what would be. He needed the AIS on for maybe an hour or so to clear the zone and was announcing his arrival on the VHS anyway so it wasn't like it was a secret. It would have allowed people to keep a good CPA so as not to encroach on his security zone and it would have allowed people to see his speed changes etc,
> We have gotten so used to managing passings and crossings with the AIS with all the other ships that traverse the area that it just seems crazy for these guys not to have it on.


Agree with you totally.


----------



## zedboy

Somewhere in all the discussion of the McCain incident I saw something about how the crew "thought the helm wasn't answering" and I thought to myself, "how hard is it to helm a warship?"

A little more research shed some light on exactly what happened at least in that incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_S._McCain_(DDG-56)#Report

and

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/uss-mccain-collision-ultimately-caused-by-ui-confusion/

So basically, the possible combination of control setups was too complicated, and they ended up accidentally entering a state they weren't aware of - causing the boat to respond in ways they didn't expect. At the speeds everyone was going, the 3 minutes it took to sort things out was just too long.

If they woulda had two nice big shiny throttle levers and a wheel in the middle, they woulda been just fine.


----------



## zedboy

More really interesting reading here, with details on Fitzgerald: http://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf

Check out p.24 of the report. Sounds like they were navigating through a lot of traffic at high speed, tired, and just got sloppy.


----------



## hellosailor

Sounds like the documented a royal....ah, what IS the naval word for "clusterf***" ?
It occurs to me that I've never heard a sailor using quite the same term.


----------



## aa3jy

hellosailor;2051506394what IS the naval word for "clusterf***" ?.[/QUOTE said:


> If you where/are military you should know...


----------



## SeaStar58

zedboy said:


> More really interesting reading here, with details on Fitzgerald: http://s3.amazonaws.com/CHINFO/USS+Fitzgerald+and+USS+John+S+McCain+Collision+Reports.pdf
> 
> Check out p.24 of the report. Sounds like they were navigating through a lot of traffic at high speed, tired, and just got sloppy.


Sad though that the Junior Officer repeatedly and correctly raised concern about the impending collision from the watch on deck and was ignored by the bridge crew.

At least one person was doing his job. It probably would have been a breach of protocol for him to bypass chain of command and go directly to the CO's stateroom to wake him however I would have made a beeline there or sent a messenger to fetch him and let the chips fall as they may. After the collision all their careers are basically over anyways so what would a black mark for violating chain of command matter?


----------



## Arcb

zedboy said:


> If they woulda had two nice big shiny throttle levers and a wheel in the middle, they woulda been just fine.


I don't know of any modern ships set up like this. Most that I have encountered have at least 4 selections. Wheel, Joy Stick, Autopilot and Emergency steering. Some have many more including bridge wing controls, aft facing controls, dynamic positioning controls and remote controls.

On commercial vessels, the quarter master/wheelsman is often a fairly senior and respected crew person because of the skill/responsibility. I'm not sure about the Navy though, having never been in the Navy.


----------



## hpeer

People won’t say **** if they have a mouthful. Mid 70’s USCG air crew. We have a 10 hour search and land late in San Juan. Secure plane and get a couple of taxis to run is to the hotel. These yokels start street racing. One or two pilots in our cab said nothing. Finally I tell the guy”I don’t fly 10 hours to have you kill me, Knock It Off!

He did, and no one said a word to me about what I said. 

Ya think the pilots would have spoken up. 

But I don’t always play well with others.


----------



## JimMcGee

Here's what it sounds like from the posts and articles I've read so far. 

Crews were fatigued, potentially distracted by "personal technology" (cell phones?), overly reliant on the ship's technology and under trained in seamanship and emergency procedures. 

That's pretty much the definition of a systemic problem so it seems fair that the Admirals should be held responsible. 

As for the captains, let me ask a couple of questions of those of you who've served because I was never in the Navy and don't know. 

Faced with an undermanned crew and junior officers lacking in seamanship training, wouldn't it be the captain's responsibility to drill the crew and junior officers in emergency procedures and the basics of seamanship such as piloting, watch standing and reading the water & weather conditions?

Given that any Captain would have years of experience before getting a command and would be aware that errors go up with fatigue; wouldn't it make sense to keep the bridge crew and lookouts be kept on eight hour shifts, even if meant less down time between shifts?

Why was one of the ships proceeding at a "high rate of speed" and "weaving" through ship traffic with a fatigued and inexperienced crew. Wouldn't it have made more sense to proceed at a speed that was prudent for conditions both internal and external to the ship?


At least from what I've read I don't see this as a witch hunt but rather a recognition that blame at multiple levels led to the preventable deaths of sailors and the crippling of two ships. It seems there should be serious repercussions.


----------



## SeaStar58

If I understood correctly he was a Lieutenant Commander serving as Captain of the vessel but had not been promoted to Captain and yes he had drilled them on their prior watch. The Fitz incident happened just at the change of shifts too which they initially implied is what caused the incident when it first happened due to confusion as the new shift took over. Perhaps the shift coming off the bridge was hoping that they would be able to hand off dealing with the traffic on the next shift but we never discussed that scenario back then. This is kinda old news and I have to think back to discussions had several months or so ago with those serving in that part of the world and closer to it all.

Bright calm and clear with a good moon and miles of visibility so no weather to watch here and yes personal tech be it tablets, cell phones, was at play. More likely for some it was personal boredom from not being fully engaged in their bridge and navigating duties rather than actual fatigue.

Yes good that they are looking at fixing rather than just blaming. It must have been very frustrating for the watch standers on deck who were calling it correctly and being ignored.


----------



## Don L

OnaNavy ship at sea it is an 80% probability that the crew is “fatigued”. If they were in a Port of Call yesterday, it’s 100%.

That is just based on my 11 years on service in the Navy.


----------



## hpeer

Sorry, I don’t buy fatigue or distracted. 

They, the leadership, don’t know what they are doing and have no respect for the environment they are operating in. 

For both recent accidents and the earlier one; doing 20 knots and ignoring sea lanes in high traffic areas is, or should be, criminal. The Captain should not have allowed such a course with a less than highly trained and proficient crew.

These events, for they are NOT “accidents” show a systematic disregard of common sense and of the Navy’s own operating and training procedures. In each incident there are a number of failures that start with poor planning and recognition of the crews degraded state. There are equipment failures or more likely operator failures due to poor training and/or staffing. 

I’m hot on the fact they did not use AIS. if they were worried about it revealing their location they could have used it in “Receive Only” mode. This occurred in all three incidents. I find this indefensible. 

Given the three incidents in relatively short order, and the common issues between the incidents suspect these types of issues are service wide and the attitudes that perpetrated them are likely deeply ingrained in the leadership. 

———————————-

Elsewhere I’ve seen similar systemic failures. In one case I did some performance analysis on an organizations practices against a parallel industries best practices. We did numerous performance audits and found uniform absymal performance. These findings were presented to management teams. In every instance the data was, at best, given lip service. Very little improvement came from the exercise. The whole program, although well intentioned and well executed, was undermined because the top leadership that ordered it was arrogant and hated by line officials. At one juncture that “We know what you are saying is true but we will fight it and make management fail” or words to that effect. Frankly, I was stunned. I’ve been involved with other culture change efforts that have failed.

All of this is to say that once a poor cultural mindset has infected an organization it is damned difficult to make substantive changes. It can be done but only if effected properly by upper management and the program is consistent over many years. I’m not hopeful that the Navy has adequately taken delivery of the mess they are in. 

2¢.


----------

