Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

USS John S. McCain vs Alnic MC

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

USS John S. McCain vs Alnic MC

Old 21st Aug 2017, 13:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by sitigeltfel View Post
Maybe you didn't quite get the inference in what he/she said?
No I didn't. And I don't think he was inferring what you allude to either.

Stating that Uncle Sam's boats have had too many collisions recently seems to me to be a statement of fact. Do you disagree? I am sure the US DoD and USN don't.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 13:23
  #22 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,689
Recc, a little like a military aircraft mixing with civil traffic and no SIF.

Satisfied HEMMS?
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 13:24
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,083
The tanker probably had a couple of guys half asleep on the bridge - you'd imagine the destroyer had a 3D picture of everything that was moving on sea or sky for 100 nm with a full watch so they should have been aware of exactly where the tanker was and which way it was going. On the other hand if the destroyer was stopped there wouldn't be much they could do 'cept fire off flares etc if the tanker just kept on coming

RECC's post shows the tanker was on a steady course in the correct lane heading SW until they went hard port, stopped and then eventually heading north (presumably post-collision) - suggests they suddently saw the destroyer crossing in front of them and went hard over & probably put the brakes on) - unfortunately they didn't make it but were traveling relatively slowly when they hit
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 13:55
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Scotland
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
suggests they suddently saw the destroyer crossing in front of them and went hard over & probably put the brakes on) - unfortunately they didn't make it but were traveling relatively slowly when they hit
It looks like it, but given the time-scales, I suspect a lot of the deceleration was "assisted". It is also clear that there is another ship close on their starboard quarter when this is happening, which may explain the turn to port rather than starboard, which would not have been what the McCain expected them to do.

Pontius: I guess that there are times and places where you expect to see vessels without AIS. On an august Saturday in the Solent, for example, you are probably going to keep a very good lookout by eye. 5am in a TSS in the Strait of Singapore....? Not an excuse, of course, but perhaps an explanation.
Recc is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 14:39
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by HEMS driver View Post
I see that the SLFs on here, in addition to being experts on all things aviation, are also maritime experts.
Pontius is a Maritime authority - he's been on 20 cruises.

S-D
salad-dodger is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 14:52
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bexhill-on-Sea
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Lowley SLF here.

The one blast pass on the Stbd/right side is for narrow channels ie rivers etc, not Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS).

With regard to the half a sleep merchant ship watch keepers, dont be too quick to point fingers, the USN don't have good track record so far.

If both ships had been compling with the ColRegs the collision would not have happened. Assuming no mechanical failures.
merch is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 14:52
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Rule 10 is as deeply ingrained in mariners as Rule 5 is for British aviators.

It covers Traffic Separation schemes such as this one thus:
A vessel using a traffic separation scheme shall:

(i) proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane;

(ii) so far as practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone;

(iii) normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or leaving from either side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable.

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.


The damage on the Port side of the war canoe clearly indicates that the Arleigh berk wasn't complying with international law in this case.

I hope that the guilty berks go to jail for a meaningful number of decades for these crimes.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 15:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Scotland
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Cazalet33 View Post
The damage on the Port side of the war canoe clearly indicates that the Arleigh berk wasn't complying with international law in this case.
The damage is entirely consistent with a 90 degree crossing (as mandated in rule 10). Rule 10 is equally clear (in part a) that all of the usual sailing and steering rules apply when you are using a TSS.
Recc is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 15:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 258
Originally Posted by Cazalet33 View Post
Rule 10 is as deeply ingrained in mariners as Rule 5 is for British aviators.

It covers Traffic Separation schemes such as this one thus:

A vessel using a traffic separation scheme shall:

(i) proceed in the appropriate traffic lane in the general direction of traffic flow for that lane;

(ii) so far as practicable keep clear of a traffic separation line or separation zone;

(iii) normally join or leave a traffic lane at the termination of the lane, but when joining or leaving from either side shall do so at as small an angle to the general direction of traffic flow as practicable.

(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.


The damage on the Port side of the war canoe clearly indicates that the Arleigh berk wasn't complying with international law in this case.

I hope that the guilty berks go to jail for a meaningful number of decades for these crimes.
How can you say "The damage on the Port side of the war canoe clearly indicates that the Arleigh berk wasn't complying with international law in this case"?

From your own quote of the law...
(c) A vessel shall, so far as practicable, avoid crossing traffic lanes but if obliged to do so shall cross on a heading as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow.
It looks to me as if the McCain was crossing the lane from north-west to south-east at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow and got broadsided on its port side by the Alnic, who was proceeding normally south-westerly down the traffic lane at about 9.5 knots at the time of the collision.

Unlike others here, I am no expert in these matters, but surely the crossing traffic should have manoeuvred to avoid the traffic proceeding normally along the traffic lane???
MFC_Fly is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 15:34
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Now I know my sailing yacht was in no way a large vessel....but as I operated in both open and confined waters with vessels of all kinds....some of which were HUGE....and as the McCain compared to a VLCC is rather small....I see this in a different light than most do so far.

I learned over time....BiG has the Right of Way over SMALL...damn the rules.

I also learned SLOW gives way to FAST as Fast done by Fools is dangerous to themselves and others.

I also learned passing astern (for the Airplane Pilots here that means...behind the other vessel) is the best course of action. You might get moved about by the wake....but you will never get run over by another vessel.

We shall have to wait to read the Report of Investigation before we learn what happened...but it does look like that area earns its reputation for being one very busy sea lane.
SASless is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 15:38
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Scotland
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by MFC_Fly View Post
...I am no expert in these matters, but surely the crossing traffic should have manoeuvred to avoid the traffic proceeding normally along the traffic lane???
A TSS is not like a road where ships have lanes that they can occupy. All it is is a method of separating traffic moving in opposite directions in regions where traffic density is high. The purpose of this is to reduce the number of close-quarter situations that develop.

However, once a close quarters situation does develop, all the normal rules for collision avoidance apply.
Recc is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 15:46
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 258
Originally Posted by Recc View Post
A TSS is not like a road where ships have lanes that they can occupy.
Strange, as even the IMO refer to the TSS as traffic lanes...
  • traffic separation scheme: a routeing measure aimed at the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and by the establishment of traffic lanes
  • traffic lane: an areas within defined limits in which one-way traffic is established.
MFC_Fly is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 16:01
  #33 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 16,689
Originally Posted by salad-dodger View Post
Pontius is a Maritime authority - he's been on 20 cruises.

S-D
21.

And rather more relevant experience than that.
Pontius Navigator is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 16:03
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
surely the crossing traffic should have manoeuvred to avoid the traffic proceeding normally along the traffic lane?
Yes. Exactly that. Clearly the smaller nimbler vessel put itself under the forefoot of the much larger and probably slower (she was doing about ten knots) very unwisely and in so doing showed appallingly bad seamanship.


once a close quarters situation does develop, all the normal rules for collision avoidance apply.
The AIS data clearly shows that the tanker had been steaming at a constant speed and course, properly aligned with the TSS before she actually entered it. The data appears to show that at the last moment she backed violently to Port, presumably to lessen the impact with the berk in the Arleigh.

If the berk was trying to cross the TSS, he made a bloody poor approach. His own publicity machine actually says that she was bound for Singapore for a port call, so the TSS crossing manoeuvre, if that's what it was, needs a lot of explaining.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 16:37
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
Heathrow Harry, this is the very last place in the world you might expect to find the bridge watch asleep. No matter what the time, one would expect the master to be on the bridge as well.
Considering the number of recent incidents USN vessels have been involved in, the top brass might well be wondering if it's not time for a rethink of how their ships interact with commercial ones. Am I right in thinking "running dark" might have been a factor in at least two collisions?
broadreach is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 16:45
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Scotland
Age: 39
Posts: 13
Originally Posted by Cazalet33 View Post
If the berk was trying to cross the TSS, he made a bloody poor approach. His own publicity machine actually says that she was bound for Singapore for a port call, so the TSS crossing manoeuvre, if that's what it was, needs a lot of explaining.

Completely agree on all those points. It is good manners to plan a crossing such that you won't get in anybody's way and for some classes of vessel it is the law. However all of that applies to a time before there is a risk of a collision. Once there is, the rules are quite clear about the required actions on both sides.
Recc is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 16:53
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,615
Am I right in thinking "running dark" might have been a factor in at least two collisions?

Are you right?

A lot of factors would go into deciding that....like....were any of the ships "running dark" to begin with.

Do you have any information whatsoever that makes that a valid assumption on your part?
SASless is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 17:08
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
were any of the ships "running dark" to begin with.
It does seem incredible that any yahoo would be so crazy as to run without lights in the busy shipping lane approaching Yokohama/Tokyo, but that's exactly what one bunch of berks decided to do, with fatal consequences.

It does seem incredible that a similar bunch of yahoos would try to cross a Johore Straights TSS, one of the busiest shipping lanes on the planet, without either AIS or navigation lights.

The berks on the other Arleigh were reckless enough to do what they did. Is it conceivable that the berks on this Arleigh did something as reckless? We have very clear evidence that they weren't transmitting on AIS and we all know why the sides of the ship are designed to slope they way they do. Jeremy Clarkson might say that there was a slope of the bridge of the Alric MC too, but that's another matter.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 17:20
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Permanent Newbie
Posts: 49
Military Vessel close to floating bomb and rather than avoiding gets hit by it.

One has couple of hundred million $$$s of radar and well paid and trained sailors the other has sailors on minimum wage.
racedo is online now  
Old 21st Aug 2017, 17:28
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
SASless
What I meant by "running dark" was simply that the naval ship was mixing in with commercial traffic, but not being shown in the system commercial traffic is now obliged to participate in, i.e. AIS. Despite not showing on AIS, the McCain would of course have appeared as a target on the Alnic's radar. What sort of target and whether credible, since it wasn't on AIS, is one of the questions.
broadreach is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.