The U.S. Navy does it again, this time in the Malacca Straits - Ships Nostalgia
03:46

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

The U.S. Navy does it again, this time in the Malacca Straits

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 21st August 2017, 05:30
Klaatu83 Klaatu83 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
My location
Posts: 4,117
The U.S. Navy does it again, this time in the Malacca Straits

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.861ef26aa27b


Another U.S. Navy warship, USS John McCain, has been involved in a collision at sea. This time it was in the Malacca Straits, and with a tanker called Alnic MC.

I do not know for certain but, based upon the evidence that I have seen on line, I believe that USS John McCain was not using AIS. The evidence I base that on is this web site (below), which shows all the ships in the vicinity of the stricken Alnic MC, the positions of which are based upon AIS information. Since USS John McCain is not listed on the web site, I take that to be an indication USS John McCain was not using AIS. I also believe it is probable that none of the other U.S. Navy warships use AIS, either. I do not know if not using AIS was a contributing factor to the two collisions that U.S. warships have had in the past two months, but it certainly could be. However, I do know for sure that, if a merchant ship got into a collision, and she was found not to have been using AIS, then that fact would certainly count against her in the ensuing enquiry.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ame:ALNIC%20MC
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21st August 2017, 05:52
Samsette's Avatar
Samsette Samsette is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,980
Ten sailors are missing and five injured. Ten families left to grieve and countless others must be wondering what the heck is happening, to be causing these "accidents."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 21st August 2017, 06:37
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,535
Vessels were east of Straits of Singapore.

The merchant vessel is ALNIC MC - IMO 9396725 and is a chemical/product tanker vessel. Last port Taiwan. ALNIC MC is underway.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 21st August 2017, 06:57
Thunder Down Under Thunder Down Under is offline  
Member
Organisation: Maritime Enthusiast
Department: Medical
Active: 1970 - 2010
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 55
The Yanks are having a bad run.

Another collision in the Malacca Straits. 10 unaccounted for. (latest)

Collision in the Sea of Japan 7 lost.

Black Hawk(e) down in the ocean off Hawaii 3? lost.

Osprey down in the ocean off Queensland 4? lost.

A lousy month.

TDU
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 21st August 2017, 11:16
A.D.FROST's Avatar
A.D.FROST A.D.FROST is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,139
Anther one for the"STEVE WONDER" school of navigation
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 21st August 2017, 11:19
Geoff Gower Geoff Gower is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1954 - 1962
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
My location
Posts: 556
Human Look-outs

Surely ships these days do not rely on electrical equipment for safe navigation at sea. It has worked for centuries so why not now ?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 21st August 2017, 11:55
Lurch's Avatar
Lurch Lurch is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1973 - Present
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 173
From todays LL:

A US warship en route to the Port of Singapore collided with a Liberia-flagged oil tanker on Monday morning with 10 sailors reported missing and five injured.

Four of the injured were transported via a Singapore Armed Forces helicopter to a local hospital to be treated for non-life threatening injuries while the fifth did not need further medical treatment.

The incident between the guided-missile destroyer USS John S McCain and 2008-built 50,695 dwt combined chemical and oil tanker Alnic MC occurred around 0624 hrs Japan Standard Time as the warship headed for a routine port call at Singapore, according to a statement from the US Navy's 7th Fleet.

Reports from the US Navy and Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore said the warship had suffered substantial damage to the hull on the port side which caused flooding in nearby compartments comprised of crew berthing, machinery, and communications facilities.

Subsequent damage control measures from the crew stopped the flooding of further areas.

The warship had requested tug assistance.

Alnic MC saw damage to its Fore Peak Tank 7-metres above the waterline, while no crew members were hurt in the collision.

Search and rescue operations were undertaken in co-operation with Singapore authorities with tugs, Republic of Singapore Navy fearless-class patrol vessels RSS Gallant, RSS Resilience RSN helicopters and Police Coast Guard ship Basking Shark dispatched to the vicinity of the incident to provide support.

On the US side, another warship, USS America has also deployed search and rescue aircraft and helicopters to the location of the incident.

"The incident will be investigated," the US Navy said. The destroyer has since berthed at Changi Naval Base after making its way to Singapore under its own power.

According to data from Lloyd's List Intelligence, the oil tanker is registered to Energetic Tank Incorporated with the ultimate owner being Greece-based Stealth Maritime Corporation.

LLI's vessel tracking data showed Alnic MC was making its way from Pyeongtaek in South Korea, stopping by Mai-Liao in Taiwan on its way to Singapore. It has since berthed at the port awaiting damage assessment, the port authorities said.

"There is no report of oil pollution and traffic in the Singapore Strait is unaffected. MPA is investigating the incident."

Lloyd's List has reached out to Stealth Maritime for comment.

In June, a Philippine-flagged boxship collided with another vessel the USS Fitzgerald off Japan killing seven US naval personnel and injuring three out of a crew of 300.

The subsequent investigation revealed that the collision was avoidable and both ships demonstrated poor seamanship leading up to the incident.

US Navy officials said in a statement that the commanding officer, executive officer and command master chief of the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald had been relieved of their duties, and other crew members were also held accountable, following an investigation into the incident.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 21st August 2017, 13:15
Bootsmann Bootsmann is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,379
Despite the overall tragedy is it not a bit like this?

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 21st August 2017, 13:44
borderreiver borderreiver is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1960 - 2010
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,753
Would like to see the black box data. feel the war ship was over taking on the tanker starboard side . The war ship then changed course across the bow of the tanker. slowed down and caught the bow of the tanker. There is no news saying which side of the tanker hit the warship or head on. There has been a few collisions in this area caused like this.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 21st August 2017, 14:01
Orbitaman's Avatar
Orbitaman Orbitaman is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1977 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
My location
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klaatu83 View Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.861ef26aa27b


Another U.S. Navy warship, USS John McCain, has been involved in a collision at sea. This time it was in the Malacca Straits, and with a tanker called Alnic MC.

I do not know for certain but, based upon the evidence that I have seen on line, I believe that USS John McCain was not using AIS. The evidence I base that on is this web site (below), which shows all the ships in the vicinity of the stricken Alnic MC, the positions of which are based upon AIS information. Since USS John McCain is not listed on the web site, I take that to be an indication USS John McCain was not using AIS. I also believe it is probable that none of the other U.S. Navy warships use AIS, either. I do not know if not using AIS was a contributing factor to the two collisions that U.S. warships have had in the past two months, but it certainly could be. However, I do know for sure that, if a merchant ship got into a collision, and she was found not to have been using AIS, then that fact would certainly count against her in the ensuing enquiry.

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ame:ALNIC%20MC
AIS - Legally required to be fitted to Merchant Ships*, no legal requirement to be fitted to warships.

We need to realise that AIS is not a collision avoidance gizmo, only an aid to identify other vessels in the vicinity of the vessel using it. However, when you look at the list of vessels exempted from having AIS fitted, the use of AIS, especially in the vicinity of large ports and more so with large numbers of leisure and fishing boats is significantly decreased to the point where it is of no use to anyone.
The data transmitted by AIS is either inputted manually or is drawn from other equipment and unless the vessel is on a sustained steady course and/or speed is subject to rapid change leading to, in essence, 'dud' information, which is precisely why AIS shouldn't be used for collision avoidance.
Let's face it - if the Navigator is spending his time interrogating the AIS, he's not using his best aid to collision avoidance (his eyes) for what they are best designed.

*There appears to be nowhere in the AIS regulations that actually states clearly that it has to be switched on!
__________________
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher...or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 21st August 2017, 14:04
Orbitaman's Avatar
Orbitaman Orbitaman is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1977 - Present
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
My location
Posts: 1,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by borderreiver View Post
Would like to see the black box data. feel the war ship was over taking on the tanker starboard side . The war ship then changed course across the bow of the tanker. slowed down and caught the bow of the tanker. There is no news saying which side of the tanker hit the warship or head on. There has been a few collisions in this area caused like this.
There are photos in the media showing a nice bulbous bow sized dent in the port quarter of the warship at near to perpendicular to the warships fore and aft axis.
__________________
He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher...or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21st August 2017, 14:14
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,535
Captain on the bridge this time?

Photos show that the hole in about 2/3 down the port side of the McCAIN. The hole looks like hit the ship at right angles. The bulb penetrated at the waterline. The Product Tanker was partly laden... only 15,000 tonnes cargo of fuel oil.

The vessel were in the traffic scheme at the time. I have not seen any track. Assuming they were both heading Singapore and both heading west, either the tanker went to starboard into the side of the McCain OR the McCain went to port across the bow of the tank vessel.

Re about keeping a good lookout. These USN class destroyers do not show the correct lights of vessel of that size. Two side light and only ONE steaming light. That does not help anyone at all.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 21st August 2017, 14:21
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,535
Responding to a shouted question from a reporter about the incident on Sunday, President Donald Trump said: "That's too bad."


"That's too bad." !!!!!! Heavens, if he starts WW3 he will say, "Well the other side started it."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 21st August 2017, 14:21
Lurch's Avatar
Lurch Lurch is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1973 - Present
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 173
USS_John_McCain_1503289943.jpg

Also see how faint the nav lights are

Looks very much the ill judged crossing by the USN:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hant-ship.html

Last edited by Lurch; 21st August 2017 at 15:18..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21st August 2017, 15:24
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Attachment 171001

Also see how faint the nav lights are

Looks very much the ill judged crossing by the USN:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hant-ship.html
That is the interpretation that best fits the information that we have, so far.

I think that in practice, in a location such as this one, coming up to a TSS, busy busy, a "paint" on the ARPA that does not come with an AIS label might perhaps be disregarded by the OOW, or perhaps it might have a marker put on it until it "ought to be visual" and then there might be an assumption that it was nothing. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly that these warships return quite small radar echoes. I am just speculating of course.

Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 21st August 2017 at 15:28..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 21st August 2017, 15:33
Roger Harrison Roger Harrison is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 121
Used to look out of the Bridge Windows in my day !
What has AIS got to do with navigation - whether it be deep sea or coastal.
My pet rant - I get fed up watching these Documentaries about Cruise Liners etc. and on all of them - it's noticeable that everyones playing around with the Radar/Chart etc. etc. Monitors - and very little attention seems to be given to what's visual from the Bridge Windows.
Shipowners suckered into buying all this fancy gear - and then it becomes the norm - and indeed legislated.
How did we ever get ships from A to B in the 50s & in my case into all these hick ports around the world especially the Caribbean.
Sorry guys - rant over.
Roger Harrison
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 21st August 2017, 15:41
Lurch's Avatar
Lurch Lurch is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1973 - Present
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett View Post
That is the interpretation that best fits the information that we have, so far.

I think that in practice, in a location such as this one, coming up to a TSS, busy busy, a "paint" on the ARPA that does not come with an AIS label might perhaps be disregarded by the OOW, or perhaps it might have a marker put on it until it "ought to be visual" and then there might be an assumption that it was nothing. I am assuming, perhaps wrongly that these warships return quite small radar echoes. I am just speculating of course.
Again at 0524 seven hour ahead of the UK she was in complete darkness, similar to the Fitzgerald:

At 20 August 2017 22:24...
The sun is at azimuth 076, altitude -24.
The moon is at azimuth 074, altitude -13.

21 August 2017
00:00 Sun Rise azimuth 078
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21st August 2017, 15:55
Klaatu83 Klaatu83 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
My location
Posts: 4,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitaman View Post
AIS - Legally required to be fitted to Merchant Ships*, no legal requirement to be fitted to warships.

We need to realise that AIS is not a collision avoidance gizmo, only an aid to identify other vessels in the vicinity of the vessel using it. However, when you look at the list of vessels exempted from having AIS fitted, the use of AIS, especially in the vicinity of large ports and more so with large numbers of leisure and fishing boats is significantly decreased to the point where it is of no use to anyone.
The data transmitted by AIS is either inputted manually or is drawn from other equipment and unless the vessel is on a sustained steady course and/or speed is subject to rapid change leading to, in essence, 'dud' information, which is precisely why AIS shouldn't be used for collision avoidance.
Let's face it - if the Navigator is spending his time interrogating the AIS, he's not using his best aid to collision avoidance (his eyes) for what they are best designed.

*There appears to be nowhere in the AIS regulations that actually states clearly that it has to be switched on!
According to Rule 7, "Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine if risk of collision exists." I agree with you that AIS is not a substitute for other tools which the mariner has at his disposal, such as the use of radar or keeping a proper visual watch. However, AIS is one of a number of tools that the mariner has at his disposal to determine if risk of collision exists. If a collision does occur, and Ship A is using AIS and Ship B is not, then one would think that omission would count against Ship B at the ensuing inquiry.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:02
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,535
The trace seems to show ALNIC MC making about 9.5 to 10 knots.

At 24 minute past the hour shows the ALNIC the collision. Immediately her heading changes to port and speed rapidly decreases to zero.

We can't see the McCain, but if she was in front of the ALNIC and her portside flank was wide open.

There seems to be another ship overtaking the ALNIC, TEAM OSLO 13,226 dwt Chemical Tanker. Was clear by the time ALNIC had in collision with McCain. Possibly McCAIN was overtaking ALNIC and went to port to clear her and get past the TEAM OSLO... and was too close. Possible?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:11
woodend's Avatar
woodend woodend is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1955 - Present
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,087
Is this another case of 'loss of situational awareness' as they put it in the case of the 'FITZ' or did a tragic mechanical failure take place? I am afraid I need some more information before forming an opinion. Any chance anyone has seen a track and position?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:25
King Ratt's Avatar
King Ratt King Ratt is offline  
King Ratt
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 1,894
Has Mark One Eyeball become a thing of the past?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:33
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,535
Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hant-ship.html

I think we can discount the mechanical failure. The McCain was able to sail into Singapore.

If you have a failure then the first thing... especially in Straits of Singapore, put your NUC lights... and every other light you have on to work other ships.

Is there any ready why the USN cannot give their ships a fictitious name an IMO number just to use during the night hours? No one cares what the ship looks like, just what the heck his telling what he is doing. During the day, who cares, you can see the ship anyway. Get close enough you can probably read the name badge on the OOD's shirt!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:42
tom roberts tom roberts is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,899
Whoever is to blame for these disasters please remember seamen have died and our thoughts and prayers should be them ,it sickened me when our late lady prime minister told us all to rejoice at the sinking of the Belgrano,but no mention of the young sailors who lost their lives ,how can you rejoice in that.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:48
WilliamH WilliamH is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 751
No doubt there will be an inquiry, and the experts will go round and round trying to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion, which is that the officers on one or both of the vessels are incompetent. By incompetent, I mean " Unable to do the job they are being paid to do"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 21st August 2017, 16:53
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,535
The first thing that WILL happen is that the C.O. will get the sack... if not already!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Merchant Navy War Time Service Douglas Paterson Fishing Vessels 3 2nd September 2010 07:32
Fathers time in merchant navy ww2 pez Maritime Family History Research 3 16th June 2009 22:38
My time in the Merchant Navy dcutlan Say Hello 7 31st October 2007 22:06



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.