Oh well, I so wanted to believe..
THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS MISSOURI
No it wasn't. The Missouri is a Battleship.
USS Montana in the add
I agree Rich, I would also quite like it to be true lol
ScottChegg - MemberOnly initially. After that they are the same age as all other cars....
No, large SUVs are more likely to be new than small cars- reason being, small cars have been popular for decades, and old ones stay in circulation because they're cheap. large SUVs are a relatively new trend as a mainstream choice.
There's growing speculation now that the collision occurred before the u-turn.
There is a kink in the AIS data that could be the ship getting knocked off course and then returning to the original heading.
The hypothesis is that the cargo ship was on autopilot with no one on lookout. Bang, then 20 minutes later they get it together enough to turn round and see what they hit.
There's growing speculation now that the collision occurred before the u-turn.There is a kink in the AIS data that could be the ship getting knocked off course and then returning to the original heading.
The hypothesis is that the cargo ship was on autopilot with no one on lookout. Bang, then 20 minutes later they get it together enough to turn round and see what they hit.
That certainly makes sense on the face of it.
Still, it's no excuse for the destroyer to not move out of the way.
Whoever was in charge is in deep deep poop.
a Honda Jazz did this to a warship? wow.
...20 minutes later they get it together enough to turn round and see what they hit.
It will have probably taken something like that long to slow it down enough (from ~17kn = ~ 20mph) to execute a tight turn.
It would almost certainly be steered by autopilot, but there should also be a lookout, & possibly radar alarms too.
There must be fail-safes though when on auto-pilot?
One would expect the fail safe is when on autopilot, there is still a crew on the bridge, on watch.
One would expect the fail safe is when on autopilot, there is still a crew [s]on the bridge[/s] in the bar, on [s]watch[/s] the piss.
There must be fail-safes though when on auto-pilot?
Think of it like cruise control on a car (but with steering). It still needs someone to be looking out of the window and being ready to take over when there is anything in the way.
AIS transmissions from each ship are mandatory (sort of) and broadcast the location, speed and direction of the ship at regular intervals. The AIS receiver on a ship uses these to generate 'closest point approach' information and sound alarms if it appears [ETA: from AIS data] that another vessel is likely to get within a minimum approach distance. Good practice would be to use such alarms. Whether a US warship transmits AIS data, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't always (it allows the ship to be tracked).
Radar range alarms are another possibility, but in a busy shipping area may not be used. The AIS and radar information are often integrated.
AFAIK (amateur interest), these just alert the human in charge, rather than triggering any automatic action.
rather than triggering any automatic action.
I'm hoping this would be bringing the decks guns to lock on target and taking out the obstacle....
a Honda Jazz did this to a warship? wow.
Just as well it wasn't the Volvo or the ship would be on the bottom.
It will have probably taken something like that long to slow it down enough (from ~17kn = ~ 20mph) to execute a tight turn.
The AIS data suggests the deceleration didn't happen for some time and didn't take long before the turn. The damage to the cargo ship was relatively minor but would have made an almighty noise, so they were probably waking up and wondering "what the F was that" for a while before deciding to turn around.
One would expect the fail safe is when on autopilot, there is still a crew on the bridge, on watch.
Well it's meant to be... Unless Erika had arrived in the cake and so they were all busy?
AIS data suggests the deceleration didn't happen for some time
There's the communication loop - call the captain, tell him what happened, wait for him to understand, then take action. It would probably take a while to get the staff to the engine room to prepare for a change of speed (I don't know if there would be engineers on duty, or just on call). You don't slow down an 8 cylinder 29,000 HP engine by taking your foot off the throttle 🙂
All supposition, but it doesn't seem *too* unreasonable to me.
This is the best opportunity I'm going to get of sharing this transcript of a radio conversation between a USN ship & the Canadian authorities off Newfoundland in Oct 1995
I was seeing whether that had been mentioned. Still makes me chuckle, whether it's actually factual or not.
AFAIK (amateur interest), these just alert the human in charge, rather than triggering any automatic action.
Another 'urban legend' tale (as is, i was definitely told this but of course it's not really true) and on a different subject; at my old company the VP of Manufacturing was telling me about a piece of chemical plant that he'd visited that was so modern and failsafe it was staffed by one man and an alsatian. 'The man just watches the computer displays and monitors the alarms, and decides on any adjustments needed based on what he sees'
'And what does the dog do?'
'Stops the man from touching any of the controls'
They're at it again.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/21/us-destroyer-uss-john-s-mccain-damaged-after-collision-with-oil-tanker ]USN Warship crash[/url]
A redacted version of the initial after action report in the USS Fitzgerald incident can be found here for those interested:
[url= http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/USS%20Fitzgerald/Supplemental%20Inquiry%20USS%20Fitzgerald.pdf ]http://www.secnav.navy.mil/foia/readingroom/HotTopics/USS%20Fitzgerald/Supplemental%20Inquiry%20USS%20Fitzgerald.pdf[/url]
Seems the bloke in overall charge of the US Pacific Fleet has been removed and his second in command put in control. What I hadn't realised is that there's been [b]four[/b] incidents involving US warships so the competence of the OC Pacific Fleet has to be seriously in question.
Or someo naughty foreigners have been playing around with GPS spoofing transmitters?
Were they also playing around with radar spoofing transmitters? Or alternatively deploying ships invisible to the eye?
Or someo naughty foreigners have been playing around with GPS spoofing transmitters?
[img] 
[/img]
Seems the bloke in overall charge of the US Pacific Fleet has been removed and his second in command put in control. What I hadn't realised is that there's been four incidents involving US warships so the competence of the OC Pacific Fleet has to be seriously in question.
There's been a blog post on an official US Navy site doing the rounds - written by a serving Naval Officer that makes it seem like their protocols on the Bridge aren't up to scratch....
makes it seem like their protocols on the Bridge aren't up to scratch.
Does it mention the "look out the window to see if there's anything in the way" bit.
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing, as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.
DOH!
More than one person is getting sacked over this...
If only they had installed a Halfords dash cam ..
I reckon the navy ship was a banger and they are just looking for an insurance result ..
Once *could"* be seen as accident or one-off failure.
Twice (and more) looks like incompetence and lack of standards.
Or perhaps:
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”? Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
Once looks like incompetence and lack of standards.
Although both ships nearly always carry some blame in a collision, the warship was hit on her port side, which generally means they are less to blame for the accident.
Although how the warship couldn't of used her speed, acceleration and manoeuvrability to get out of the way seems very odd.
Although how the warship couldn't of used her speed, acceleration and manoeuvrability to get out of the way seems very odd.
Not to mention the ginormous radar that it has. FFS, if they can't spot an oil tanker coming, what chance do they have against an anti-ship missile?
“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action”
? Ian Fleming, Goldfinger
or perhaps
To lose one (warship) may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness- Lady Bracknell
I thought they had said the latest one (US John Cane) was caused by steering failure.Although how the warship couldn't of used her speed, acceleration and manoeuvrability to get out of the way seems very odd.
Not buying it, unless they were already too close all they had to do was radio the tanker and ask them not to crash into them
I bet the other boat drivers are all claiming for whiplash. Strikes me a classic crash for cash scam.
I bet the other boat drivers are all claiming for whiplash.
Just read this article, and its very enlightening, clarifies a lot of the issues involved, and some of those have been discussed at length on here:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/08/with-the-uss-mccain-collision-even-navy-tech-cant-overcome-human-shortcomings/2/
Pretty grim reading.
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/us-navy-crashes-japan-cause-mccain/
https://features.propublica.org/navy-accidents/uss-fitzgerald-destroyer-crash-crystal/
Thanks for posting those, hols. Just read the Fitzgerald one. Outstanding piece of reporting, and, as you say, grim reading.
Wow.
Nothing to add.
Really interesting thanks. Amazing that their standards have sunk so low. I’m glad they don’t run an airline!
1.6 Billion on a ship but the cost of 2 human lookouts is a step too far?!
