[Closed] US Warship crash

[img] [/img]

If he hasn't got a dashcam it'll go 50:50 and he'll lose his no claims...

On the right, in the right. Damage to the starboard side doesn't look good for the warship

On the port side of the bow for the cargo ship too. Trying to cut across?

[img] [/img]

On the port side of the bow for the cargo ship too

I think the shape above the waterline of the warship played quite a part in how it 'marked' the cargo ship.

Being hit amidships on the starboard side is never going to go well for the officer of the watch.

Terrorism?

Oops...

One's a relatively slow vessel that'll take several ships length to stop or turn, the other one twice as fast and designed to do the same on a (comparative) dime.

I suspect a trip to hospital is the least of the Commander's worries.

How did this manage to happen?

It appears to be crewed by children.
[img] [/img]

Too many variables to say for sure. Rule 15 would have the warship as the give way vsl. I'd imagine the cargo ship has altered to stbd as the warship has not taken sufficient action (R17). Hence damage to the cargo ships port bow. If it is the case the cargo ship will take some blame for not taking sufficient action when it became clear the warship was not altering.

However, the warship may have been NUC, RAM etc which would throw R15 out of the window. We simply don't know!

The cargo ships U turn is very odd.

Cancelled trousers order.

Cancelled trousers order.

😆

How did this manage to happen?

Left hand down a bit....

[img] [/img]

Apparently that destroyer had a $21mill refit a couple of months ago. Maybe there's a manufacturer crash replacement scheme or... no, probably not.

It's surprising so many sailors were injured/killed - surely it's easy enough to see it coming and get out of the way?

First in with the "That'll T cut out" or "I've MOT'd worse" gags??
😆

It's surprising so many sailors were injured/killed - surely it's easy enough to see it coming and get out of the way?

0230 local time. It might well be the missing were in internal spaces that have been crushed. They are not big on portholes and sun decks on warships! I have a horrible feeling the missing might be found 'inside' the folded wreckage.

Wiki states the current skipper has only had the job a month and a few days. Will not have built up much of a no claims bonus.

Drac - Moderator

The cargo ships U turn is very odd.

Cancelled trousers order.

Hacked account? Or is it time to go and look at the Trousergate thread again for an update?

Was the cargo ship a lighthouse?

EDIT - Wasn't aware there might be fatalities.

Keep coming, you're alright...
.
.
keep coming....
.
.
.
you're alright, keep coming....
.
.
.
.
Keep coming......
.
.
.
.
CRUNCH.
.
.
.
Ok, stop.

😉

29,000 tonnes at nearly 30kph, that's gonna leave a dent in anything!

Sadly crew are missing, which has to be the focus, but, how did a 222 metre 30000 tonne tanker get that close to a destroyer?

It's not like the Destroyer will have advanced radar on it........oh hang on, wait a minute....

So to wipe out the worlds most powerful Navy, you sneak up on them at night with your 30000 tonne container ship and ram them. Bet the Chinese are factoring that into their Pacific War Plan.

Destroyer may well be borked completely as the wave breaker of the container ship will have smashed the hull to pieces under the water line. That and the US Navy's bizarre habit of decommissioning perfectly good working ships (according to the Navy Blogger I follow (Navy-Matters)).

Nothing beats looking out the window.

Container would have been transmitting AIS signal, navy ship wouldn't so they probably didn't even know it was there.

navy ship wouldn't so they probably didn't even know it was there.

Apart from a bloody massive unidentified blob on their radar.

Container ships looks like it was the right of way vessel but they must surely have had the capacity to both see what was about to happen.

I see a Court Martial for the Navy warship commander / officer of the watch. Those big container ships don't do "swerving". Agreed with RoW comments above.

Thoughts with the missing and their loved ones

For the ignorant, how is right of way and so on determined on water/in boats etc.?

quick summary - unless there are special considerations (vessel with restricted ability to manoeuvre, under sail and a bunch more) when two vessels are approaching one another the one that has the other on their Starboard(right) hand side (i.e. you look out over your bow and the other boat is to the right of your bow) has the responsibility to alter course. The other should maintain a constant course unless there is an emergency situation and the first vessel does not alter course or cannot do so sufficiently in the time/distance available.

This is why I volunteered for submarine service, diving now! Diving now!

it appears to be crewed by children

That's a woman.

[img] [/img]

Hope everyone will be OK

Google Colregs. Quite simple at first sight but when you really dig into them it's a real minefield. From experience an awful lot tend to have a serious missunderstanding of them too. Ironically I've been called up twice by US warships claiming to have RoW despite clearly being the give way vessel. Once you ask where in the Colregs a warship was any special privelage they soon follow them correctly.

Strongly suspect this isn't a straight forward crossing though having had a quick look at the ais tracking. But without more precise info it's impossible to tell what really happened. Especially if you get into the realm of overtaking Vs crossing, stand on vsl maintaining course & speed Vs taking action due to the give way vsl not doing so etc...

Thanks. Bit like driving in France in the olden days then!

sharkbait - Member

The cargo ships U turn is very odd.

Well I did place a massive aliexpress order at about that time...

Have i been watching too many movies when i find my self thinking:

Container ship making unexplanied maneuvers late at night + naval vessel on intercepting course late at night + missing persons = probably a trafficking intercept misjudged, missing naval personnel probably on deck ordering stop or in a launch (ir whatever they're called) off the side ready to board the vessel? Only thing which doesn't stack with that for me is us warship and Japanese waters but both governments cooperate significantly in defence/security matters.

First impression has to be that the warship should have turned away to port if they were on converging courses, which the damage seems to indicate.
Officers of the watch would appear to be negligent, the warships more so, big container ships allegedly have a less than stellar record when it comes to efficient crew.

Container ship making unexplanied maneuvers late at night + naval vessel on intercepting course late at night + missing persons = probably a trafficking intercept misjudged, missing naval personnel probably on deck ordering stop or in a launch (ir whatever they're called) off the side ready to board the vessel?

it would be good to see the track of the warship overlaid on this...[img] [/img]

For balance, HMS Southampton after a minor bump with an oil tanker in '88:

[img] [/img]

scotroutes - Member

it would be good to see the track of the warship overlaid on this...

Running away like a benny hill sketch. "The warshop was all over the place, I had to swerve several times before I hit him

Surely a warship has enough radar and protection to mean that the entire crew could be asleep blindfolded and the place would light up like a fairground as soon as anything came within a couple of miles.

I'd assumed that they would be able to detect incoming missiles heading for them at silly speeds.. Let alone a container craft going about 20 mph. Obviously I overestimate the defensive capabilities of military ships!

Hence the suggestion that they knew fine well where the tanker was and something else was going on.

On the facts available, seems more like a massive blunder after yet to be explained U-turn manoeuvre. If there was any serious shit going down (attempted intercept and ramming), then the tanker would have been intercepted by other naval boats before it's nearby destination in Tokyo harbour (maybe it was, but not yet reported).

Guys,
As said above, the missing are probably not missing but were rather trapped and or crushed as their sleeping quarters flooded and they were either unable or incapacitated in their ability to escape their possibly water filled compartment.
I would say the same respect would be called for here as for the Grenfell fire, so please try to lose the tongue in cheek comments
( trying to inform not preach-just asking not to make a funny online that would seem out of place)

Reports are of Search and Rescue in the sea at the moment, sound like they are currently focus on at least some possible overboards TBH. Although, ultimately you might be right that they are all lost onboard.

Terrible news re the missing crew so sad. Very strange for an incident like this to happen, all officers of the watch would be well versed in collision regs, and even basic yachts radar will go crazy with a vessel getting close let alone a military vessel with multiple systems monitoring what's going on.

Thoughts with the families of those missing and injured and the crew.

That's the boating equivalent of a Boeing Dreamliner colliding mid air with a USAF AWACS... Bizarre in the extreme considering the tech capabilities.

The cargo ships U turn was twenty minutes before the collision. That's a long time for the OOW on the warship to take appropriate action.

Advanced radar? Well maybe, but the aegis system may not have been running so as to provide a comprehensive surface picture, being primarily an air search sensor. The OOW obviously wasnt doing their job, basically a very well qualified lookout.

The ColRegs are written in such a way that if you have a crunch, both ships are to blame, regardless of who should have given way. Basically, if you're the ship that has right of way, you have to make best efforts to avoid a collision as soon as it become apparent that the other ship is not manoeuvring in accordance with the rules.

All said, this is a very busy piece of water, and the tracks of the other ships n the area may be a factor also. I've certainly had to make a few departures from the rules myself when other vessels have been ignorant of their responsibilities. Making a departure from the rules is, ironically, one of the rules... 🙄

I would say the same respect would be called for here as for the Grenfell fire, so please try to lose the tongue in cheek comments

The victims in the Grenfell fire were helpless civilians who died because their homes were turned into a firetrap to save some money. The warship was crewed by highly trained professional sailors operating some of the most advanced technology on the planet. Yes, sad for the families of the dead, but FFS, if the US Navy can't steer a ship around a 30 000 tonne cargo ship, they deserve some ridicule.

So off-duty seamen sleeping between shifts are to blame for their ship colliding with another? That's a pretty ducked up view, hols2.

So off-duty seamen sleeping between shifts are to blame for their ship colliding with another?

No, whoever was on duty is to blame. Whoever trained them and put them on duty deserve some ridicule.

The victims in the Grenfell fire were helpless civilians who died because their homes were turned into a firetrap to save some money. The warship was crewed by highly trained professional sailors operating some of the most advanced technology on the planet. Yes, sad for the families of the dead, but FFS, if the US Navy can't steer a ship around a 30 000 tonne cargo ship, they deserve some ridicule.

So which victims of accidental death is it ok to mock hols2; can you provide a list because I do tend to lose track?

Is it just military personnel or is it anyone whose job has an element of risk - police officers, fire service, paramedic?

What about those that voluntarily take part in dangerous hobbies - climbers, sky divers, rugby players, skiers?

Finally what about those that cycle (some without helmets!) through dangerous city centres and on country lanes without cycle paths; surely they're equally deserving of your mockery if they're accidentally killed by the actions of others?

Some epic whataboutery, bravo stw!

I don't think Hols2 is mocking any victims of accidental death, and to suggest he is, is misrepresenting what he is saying. He's merely pointing out that the US Navy deaths are in all likelihood due to a catastrophic cock up, and like all cock ups in history, will be subject to a certain amount of ridicule. Such is life.

So which victims of accidental death is it ok to mock hols2; can you provide a list because I do tend to lose track?

The rules are that we should mock people who are so incompetent or stupid that they put lives in danger. For example, the operators of a naval ship loaded with advanced sensors who still manage to crash into a 30 000 tonne tanker deserve to be mocked, as does the youth I saw last week riding his bike no-hands on the wrong side of the road towards oncoming traffic. I'm sure the U.S. Navy will agree that crashing the ship was not an act of heroism, but of stupidity and court-martial those responsible. If I'm wrong and they get medals for distinguished service, I'll stand corrected.

He's merely pointing out that the US Navy deaths are in all likelihood due to a catastrophic cock up, and like all cock ups in history, will be subject to a certain amount of ridicule. Such is life.

What a catastrophic cock up like putting (in all probability) flammable cladding on a heavily populated tower block equipped with inadequate fire detection, fire escape and fire fighting equipment?

So is it ok to make jokes about how poor Kensington council (or who ever's found to be responsible) is at fire safety regulation? Because I don't think it is, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy before all the facts are known.

I don't know what caused these 7 deaths (although it's unlikely to be a "massive cock up" but more a series of small errors and failures - human error, Nav radar failure, steering gear breakdown; all happen regularly at sea but usually without consequence) but piss taking based on the ill informed assumptions on this thread is very poor form imo.

In 26 years at sea I've lost one shipmate and more colleagues to collisions, groundings and fires - the sea is still a dangerous environment; I don't think they or the ships, Navies or shipping lines they served in deserve ridicule particularly when you don't have a clue what happened.

I do know that being woken by a huge shuddering crash and finding you're trapped with waters flooding your mess deck is not a particularly pleasant death.

I do know that being woken by a huge shuddering crash and finding you're trapped with waters flooding your mess deck is not a particularly pleasant death.

[url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071018080340/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/03/14/japan.sub.03/index.html ]Exactly[/url]

Seems to me that you are best served by staying out of any waters where the US Navy operates, given their habit of crashing into things.

[url= http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=72009 ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-submarine-and-cruiser-collide-off-florida/ ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120321044622/http://militarytimes.com/news/2009/10/navy_hartford_lessons_102809w/ ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/08/japan.us.ship/index.html ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_091505_Perry,00.html ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whos-to-blame-for-sub-accident/ ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.jp/2009/11/hartford.html ]US Navy crash[/url]

[url= http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=4861 ]US Navy crash[/url]

I'll say it again.

I don't think Hols2 is mocking any victims of accidental death, and to suggest he is, is misrepresenting what he is saying.

Tragic death is tragic death. Stupidity is stupidity. The former should not stand in the way of suspecting and/or calling out the latter.

Tragic death is tragic death. Stupidity is stupidity. The former should not stand in the way of suspecting and/or calling out the latter.

The crew of this ship are not a homogenous single entity however. If it turns out it is stupidity (incompetence, negligence, call it what you will) that caused the collision it is highly likely that those that lost their life are not those responsible.

edit - the reason I don't by the 'conspiracy' theories about what was going on is because the captain was injured. Captains cabin would typically be in the part of the vessel that was crunched. If there was an operation ongoing he would have been on the bridge without question.

Lot of talk of advanced radar equipment etc. The ARPA systems will always have a lag between the action of the target vessel to producing accurate data. Hence the importance of looking out the window! This over relliance on radar is often the cause of collisions. If it was caused by a sudden alteration by either party, the oow should have spotted that we'll before any electronic systems, no matter how advanced. I suspect this may be a factor.

Far too many unknowns at this stage eg steering gear failure as has already been mentioned. Also there is only so much that can be deduced from that ais track. Either way both parties will be to blame, to what extent will come out at a later date. As was stated earlier, the colregs are written in such a way that you'll always get blamed if you have a bump. Rules 2 & 17 make sure of that.

BBC reporting the missing crew have been found in flooded internal spaces...

]Seems to me that you are best served by staying out of any waters where the US Navy operates, given their habit of crashing into things.

The US Navy is the biggest in the world by some margin and operates world wide. Collisions, groundings and fires happen at sea every day somewhere in the world, some will be as a result of human error, some mechanical failure, some adverse weather conditions; most will be a combination of all 3.

It's very difficult to speculate, even with the aid of Google, what was the exact cause in this case particularly as you clearly know FA about how ships in general,and warships in particular, operate. So how about leaving off the mockery until you know "stupidity" was the cause?

There will be a Court Martial at which all the facts come out; additionally given the ship's company dealt with major flooding, including within an engine room at night, and successfully kept the ship afloat I'd be surprised if there weren't some individual acts of heroism which received bravery awards.

you clearly know FA about how ships in general,and warships in particular, operate

I'm fairly sure that crashing into other ships is discouraged. If I'm wrong about that, apologies.

hols2
The victims in the Grenfell fire were helpless civilians who died because their homes were turned into a firetrap to save some money.

Do you really think it's that simple? Seriously?

Let me ask you a question, what car do you and your family drive Hols2?

If it isn't a brand new, 5 star NCAP, Volvo XC90 (the safest car ever tested) then you are, in Daily Mail Headlines: "Risking the lives of your helpless family in order to save some money". But somehow i suspect you'd not agree with that statement eh?

Life is complex, despite what the Daily Mail and other seem to think. Big Events are the end result of a long and complexly interrelated series of smaller decisions, and although after a big event it's easy, with HINDSIGHT, to say, "Ah, who ever did that, they were an idiot" but in reality, at the time when it mattered, that factor was not considered, or not emphasized enough, or simply misunderstood, and hence we get to where we got, often resulting in the deaths of "Innocent People" or whatever the DM like to call such people.

This Warship accident is the same. Remember we are talking about big, heavy, slow to maneuver ships here, even the "little" warship was a multi-thousand tonne vessel. It's not like driving your car around Tescos car park, where you can just press a pedal a stop completely in 1 foot!

I can think of a lot of factors that can result in a collision course being set, which then made it impossible to avoid the collision in the time available. (darkness, radar issues, (lots of human factors, like confusion and misunderstood commands or responses).

And i agree, being trapped in a damaged and flooding compartment, probably in the dark sounds like the stuff of nightmares to me.

So in both cases, before you "Call it" perhaps we should find out what ACTUALLY happened first eh??

what car do you and your family drive Hols2?

I drive a Honda Jazz. It does about 10 km most weeks, I take my daughter to visit her grandparents and then stop off at the supermarket. The rest of the time I ride a bike or use public transport. Being in a busy city, it rarely exceeds 50 km/h. It's a very impressive small city car, I have no qualms about its safety. Driving a Volvo, Merc, etc would make no significant difference to my odds of dying in a car accident. However, living in a high-rise with inflammable decorative panels would make a huge difference to my odds of dying in a fire. Hence, I am happy driving a Honda but I would not be happy living in a firetrap.

So you have compromised on safety in order to save money.

This ^^ is real life. It's not Black and White, it's not Political Party Vs Political party, it's a compromise as is EVERYTHING we do.

You said:

"Driving a Volvo, Merc, etc would make no significant difference to my odds of dying in a car accident".

Actually it would. Statistics show that, and i quote:

" The lowest 2015 death rate by vehicle type is for very large SUVs: 13 deaths per million registered vehicles. The highest is for mini cars: 64 deaths per million registered vehicles."

(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) 2015)

So, swapping your Jazz for an XC90 will, on average, reduce you chances of dying in a crash by 4.9 times. if you consider nearly 5 times less likely to die as "not significant" then fair enough, as like i said, everything is a compromise.

Now today, when you haven't had a crash, the extra cost of an XC90, which would be significant compared to your Jazz, doesn't look to be a good investment.

But tomorrow, and i seriously hope this never happens, should you be involved in an accident, even one that was not your fault in any way, and you or your family were injured, you might view the decision to drive a small car in a somewhat different light.

I'm not calling your stupid here, or saying you've made a bad choice, just using this as a way to highlight the difficulty in making a sensible compromise in order to protect against events that have a low probability of happening (or might never happen). Because we cannot ever know when they might happen, measures to mitigate there effects can genuinely seem un-necessary.

BTW, this is good video on the subject of Small vs Big cars:

It's not the full picture of course, but it shows the broad physics behind it all.

Please stop calling it a "tanker".

It wasn't a "tanker".

It was a container ship.

Why do people always say "tanker" when any cargo ship is in the news?

Do those figures take into account the demographics of the drivers? An SUV is more likely to be driven by a mum on the school run whereas mini cars is going to include hot-hatches driven by your local boy racer.

hols2 might not be able to afford to buy or afford to insure/run a Volvo XC90 so any NCAP results are essentially irrelevant to him

hols2 might not be able to afford to buy or afford to insure/run a Volvo XC90 so any NCAP results are essentially irrelevant to him

I think you may have missed the point

maxtorque - Member

So, swapping your Jazz for an XC90 will, on average, reduce you chances of dying in a crash by 4.9 times. if you consider nearly 5 times less likely to die as "not significant" then fair enough, as like i said, everything is a compromise.

As with many statistics, you can create different headlines depending on which direction you approach the answer from. 5 times more likely to die sounds dramatic. 999936:1 vs 999986:1 doesn't. Living away from the equator massively reduces your chance of being hit by a falling satellite...

Of course, that's completely ignoring all other factors. Small cars are more likely to be owned by young drivers. Large SUVs are more likely to be new. And ignoring the number of miles travelled makes your numbers completely meaningless. But don't worry about any of that.

So, swapping your Jazz for an XC90 will, on average, reduce you chances of dying in a crash by 4.9 times

I drive about 10 km per week at fairly low speed in a busy city. There is very little chance of dying in a car crash. 4.9 times a very small number is still a very small number, so driving a Volvo would make very little difference to my chances of dying in a car crash versus dying some other way.

I ride a bike 100 km per week or more. I'm much more likely to die or be injured in a bike crash than in any other kind of accident. I'm much better off spending money on bikes than on a Volvo. I'm also much better off spending Volvo money on all sorts of other things. Not owning a Volvo isn't a matter of compromising safety to save money, it's allocating the resources that I have in a sensible way.

Cladding a high-rise residential building in flammable panels to save a negligible amount of money isn't sensible allocation of resources, it's criminally negligent.

Sorry North, but i was merely trying to illustrate the point, that with 'rare' events, what seems obvious and important with hindsight after the event can be rather less clear cut before hand.

(and we can argue all day about the real, perceived or any other kind of safety benefits of certain cars all day long, but we both know, that it would be a lot better to be in an XC90 and get hit by a Jazz than the other way around) If you're driving through some lights at get hit in the drivers door by an XC (that jumped the lights) at lets say just 15mph then you are not going to be walking away. Reverse that situation, and be in an XC90, and get hit by a jazz square in the drivers door at the same speed and the outcome will be very different, simply physics and common sense tells us that)

The problem with your

'Jazz=inflammible cladding [i]whereas[/i] Volvo=fireproof cladding'

analogy is that whilst your point of life being full of compromise stands, they are at completely opposite ends of the scale, economically speaking. A better analogy would be 'would you spend the extra £100 for the additional passenger protection available as an option when you buy your new Jazz for £10000?' to give a more realistic approximation of the comparative risk/reward ratio. And THAT is why people feel angry. It [i]feels[/i] (granted we don't know the facts) that small cost savings have massively increased risk, with the majority of the money going to make a Kensington eyesore just a little bit prettier.

Edit; beaten to the punch by those more eloquent than me. 😆

. There is very little chance of dying in a car crash.

You mean like the same "very little chance of dying in a residential fire"??

(in the UK, in 2010, 808 car occupants died as a result of collisions with other cars, just 237 people died as a result of all cases of exposure to smoke or fire. Which makes driving your car in practical terms, about the most dangerous thing you do (assuming you don't smoke)

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/oct/28/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010 ]mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2010[/url]

As i said, it's all Statistics and Probability, but they are boring and irrelevant to most people.

You feel 'safe' in your car because normally you aren't having a crash (regression to the norm is the actual term for this effect), and because you haven't had a serious crash, you will find that most people car safety is quite low down on their list, despite being the no1 'accidental' killer...

I agree with your point on costs V8ninety, but my point was more about the relative importance of things after certain events have occurred, rather than trying to decide on the cost vs safety compromise.

In fact, your point about an extra £100 for more safety has already proven to be ignored in general, as back in the day, passenger airbags were an extra cost option (about in fact £100) and the take up was very low indeed (<3% iirc from the stats i saw on the Mk1 focus). ie, because we are not planning on having an accident, people don't think it's worth the extra outlay.

However ask someone who's been the passenger in a crash and i suspect that subsequently, there opinion will have changed!

(and that is my point, when i comes to rare or abnormal events, you cannot apply HINDSIGHT in order to directly criticise the decisions that lead up to event that you NOW know to have occurred)

Which makes driving your car in practical terms, about the most dangerous thing you do

In my case, riding my bike is the most dangerous thing I do by a long way. It might be different for the average person, but my decisions are made for me, not the average person.

hols2 It might be different for the average person, but my decisions are made for me, not the average person

Which is the luxury, as an [b] individual [/b], you have.

Consider however, the man or woman responsible for deciding on Fire Safety standards. They cannot consider individuals, if they did that, their job would be impossible (because they would have to reduce fire deaths to zero in that case).
They have to make a compromise, and included in that compromise, amongst lots of other factors like practicality etc, will be cost.

Don't misunderstand me:

If investigations prove that pure profitability was the cause of mis-specified cladding to be installed that is proven to have significantly altered the severity of the fire, and that cladding was installed against regulations in place to prevent it, then i FULLY support the individuals responsible for that decision to be called to account.

However, it's unlikely to be that clear cut, and today, we simply don't know the [b]facts[/b] to be able to make an appropriate decision. We actually owe it to those who lost their lives to make the best, most appropriate decision and follow up actions, rather than getting pulled along into poor decision making by a chain of anger in the immediate aftermath........

Is this still about ships (not quite) passing in the night? Just seems to be an STW froth-fest now

Got to confess, as an early contributor I'm relatively bemused by what I have returned to.