USS FITZGERALD/ACX CRYSTAL collision (merged threads) - Page 12 - Ships Nostalgia
01:30

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

USS FITZGERALD/ACX CRYSTAL collision (merged threads)

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #276  
Old 11th February 2019, 12:25
Stephen J. Card's Avatar
Stephen J. Card Stephen J. Card is online now  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,302
For 'Admirals' = 'Accountants' ?

Part of the problem is that new officers are specialists in their field, communications, weapons, warfare etc. None of them are specialist 'navigators'. You have fliers that become commanding officers on aircraft carriers. I don't think RN works this way. If I remember from the 60s, if you joined the RN you became a Seaman Officer, then specialist in weapons, radar etc.

There were some 20 officers on the FITZGERALD, none of them were 'navigators'. The 'navigator' was a Chief Petty Officer and I don't believe he was on board. The simple answer, if I can call it simple, the USN should have three full time watchkeepers on each ship. Must be navigator specialists. The OOW (Navigator) is in charge of navigation. Simple. The rest of the officers can be Assistant OOW and get on with their other jobs.

Imagine a cruise ship. You have a Cruise Director, Music Director, Purser, Ch Steward, Beverage Manager. OK, you need more bodies so they come to the bridge and give them experience to be OOW. I'm sure with some training either of these cruise ship 'specialists' could take the bridge at sea. Would it work? Probably would, but you would end up like our friends on the FITZGERALD.

In the end if you want a safe ship you had better have seaman officers with navigation specialists on the bridge. Seems to work on merchant ships.

Stephen

Last edited by Stephen J. Card; 11th February 2019 at 12:28..
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 11th February 2019, 20:35
Pat Kennedy's Avatar
Pat Kennedy Pat Kennedy is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,879
[QUOTE=sternchallis;2968107.

The British Navy may be small, but it is well trained and professional. Apart from the HMS Nottingham incident some years back I have not heard of any similar incidents.
.[/QUOTE]


You seem to forgotten the HMS Ambush incident off Gibralter in 2016

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...bmarines-ship/

Then there were these;
HMS Grafton ran aground in Sept 2000, just south of Oslo but was hauled off by tugs and was able to sail home under her own steam.

Norwegian waters also proved treacherous for HMS Campbeltown which damaged her propellors, costing 300,000 to repair when she hit a sandbank off Tromso in 2001, due to navigational errors.

The most recent serious incident suffered by the surface fleet was the near loss of HMS Endurance off the coast of Chile in December 2008. An incorrect maintenance procedure resulted in a hull valve being opened causing a severe flood and loss of propulsion. Extremely fortunate she was not in the Antarctic or far from help at the time, she was able to quickly anchor in shallow waters and receive assistance from the Chilean navy.

In November 2002, while conducting Perisher training, HMS Trafalgar, traveling at 50m depth at speed of 14 knots hit rocks off the Isle of Skye. Three sailors were injured and repair cost 5 Million. Charts in the control room had been obscured leading to the accident.

HMS Superb ran into rocks around 80 miles south of Suez in May 2008. Her bow and sonar were badly damaged and she was forced to surface, limped home and was eventually scrapped. The CO was found guilty of not supervising the navigational plot adequately.

HMS Astute ran aground off the Isle of Skye on 22 October 2010 while on sea trials. She was stranded until high tide with her rudder embedded in the seabed. The tug sent to assist later managed to ram one of the foreplanes of the otherwise undamaged boat. The causes of the grounding were lack of planning, navigation failures and procedures for a new class of boat still being developed.

Quite a catalogue of errors by our highly professional navy, wouldn't you agree?
__________________
"Life is a waste of time, and time is a waste of life. Get wasted all the time, and you'll have the time of your life!"
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 12th February 2019, 10:09
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
You must give some allowance for the fact that the RN must practice at the margins and the MN must not. Their raison d'etre is to sink the competition for which they get high praise. When we do it, even by accident, it is considered very bad form.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 12th February 2019, 10:47
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
#278

MN must not?

You could have fooled me!

Most commercial ship-operators must practice at ever-narrower margins in order to stay in business.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 12th February 2019, 12:42
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
I was thinking navigational margins rather than financial, Barrie. Differential GPS, of course, does tempt the young and foolish to shave a little more sea off a voyage than Mrs. Varley would have allowed for her little boy. Whether the differential has yet been applied to the penalty in a court of law is more in your court than mine.
Reply With Quote
  #281  
Old 12th February 2019, 13:22
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
Thank you, David.

I was thinking rather more of the ships of increasingly greater size which it is proposed should be put into spaces which remain unchanged.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 12th February 2019, 15:29
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
That's a pilot for you, Barrie! My take is that if a VLCC can transit the Channel then not much else should have a problem if adequately run. I had not thought of trying to berth her in Ramsgate. I don't think Grey funnel line has anything approaching that target aspect.

Might an unsatisfactory Brexit not alleviate that - If we assume larger vessels will have longer voyages and therefore longer delivery times these might be direct to large ports of entry where the customs formalities may be processed in a less frenetic fashion than ro-ro ports where the short sea traders are more likely to be and require matching clearance vehicle by vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 12th February 2019, 16:11
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
Thank you, David.

To your first point I plead guilty as charged.

And I agree that if a VLCC can navigate somewhere safely, then for anything else it should be a piece of cake.

Repeated thanks,

B
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 20th February 2019, 10:17
sternchallis sternchallis is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1973 - 1983
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen J. Card View Post
For 'Admirals' = 'Accountants' ?

Part of the problem is that new officers are specialists in their field, communications, weapons, warfare etc. None of them are specialist 'navigators'. You have fliers that become commanding officers on aircraft carriers. I don't think RN works this way. If I remember from the 60s, if you joined the RN you became a Seaman Officer, then specialist in weapons, radar etc.

There were some 20 officers on the FITZGERALD, none of them were 'navigators'. The 'navigator' was a Chief Petty Officer and I don't believe he was on board. The simple answer, if I can call it simple, the USN should have three full time watchkeepers on each ship. Must be navigator specialists. The OOW (Navigator) is in charge of navigation. Simple. The rest of the officers can be Assistant OOW and get on with their other jobs.

Stephen
I have just read an article about a new Bridge Simulator at Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth that can be configued for most types of Naval ships, sea states, ports etc, for training RN Navigation cadets and Navigation Officers.
No doubt the Trainers can throw all sorts of scenarios into a panic situation such that actions become automatic. Train Hard , Fight Easy.
Not quite the same with USN , think it must be Train Easy then Fight Blue on Blue.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 13th August 2019, 19:10
sternchallis sternchallis is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1973 - 1983
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 542
McCann & Fitzgerald collisions

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450

Looks like Touch Screen Controls were partially to blame for these collisions and the US Navy are going to try to fit Wheels and Telegraphs.

Imagine somebody on the Bridge shouts Hard a Port or Full Astern in a panic situation and there you are with this computer screen , " Is it Ctlr B for backwards, or pick from a multi layer drop down menu, then the screen freezes. And you have to get out of the pacman screen first.
You cannot beat analogue manumatic and a mark one eyeball.

With all these 'dirty diesels' if the greens have their way we will be going back to windjammers, but you cannot make them out of wood, think of the Brazilian Rain Forests.
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 13th August 2019, 20:09
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
This is the balm of Gilead, music to the ears and commonsense writ large.

I struggle to understand how an electronic screen can ever be more helpful than the mark one eyeball - subject, of course, to the proviso that the mark one eyeball can actually see.

Nobody can deny the conveniences created by the electronics, but, hell's teeth, there are limits.

As a young Third Mate I have a vivid recollection of Captain Jack Berry of British & Continental Steamship Company's mv Egret, telling me, " The quickest way to get me on the bridge is for you to ring that telegraph. Use it."

Last edited by Barrie Youde; 13th August 2019 at 20:21..
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 13th August 2019, 20:46
loco loco is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1976 - 2017
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 103
Another take on the decision to change the bridge controls;

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/tech...cid=spartandhp

Martyn
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 13th August 2019, 21:43
Julian Calvin Julian Calvin is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1967 - 1982
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 456
All they need do now remove the engines and fit masts/sails and the waterways would be much safer
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 13th August 2019, 22:06
sternchallis sternchallis is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1973 - 1983
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian Calvin View Post
All they need do now remove the engines and fit masts/sails and the waterways would be much safer
Yes, but you would need to find some iron men to sail them, they have enough trouble finding wooden men now that know what they are doing.

In a recent email from an old colluege, it showed a young Mother running to her husband saying that baby has just started to speak as he had sent her a voicemail.
In another case a Mother tells her children that dinner was ready, they should go and wash their thumbs.
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 14th August 2019, 03:42
kewl dude's Avatar
kewl dude kewl dude is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Other Merchant Fleets
Department: Engineering
Active: 1960 - 1976
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,518
https://news.usni.org/2019/08/09/nav...creen-controls

Greg Hayden
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 14th August 2019, 10:54
sternchallis sternchallis is offline
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1973 - 1983
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by kewl dude View Post
You will notice reading the quote that the USN desk jockeys sort of passed the blame to the shipyard for fitting these digital bridges as if they had no input on the design.
Do not the USN come up with a spec for a vessel , put it out to tender, review the proposals and follow the design and approve drawings before they even cut a piece of steel?

I was working at a shipyard in Tampa that converted 2 Matson container ships into craneships to add to their equivalent of the RFA . It was very similar to a commercial contract.
Later they got the contract to finish outfitting some TAO's , well the paperwork and copies of drawings that had to be sent daily to a myriad of alaphabet soup departments in Washington was enough to sink the ships. All these departments would have civilian contractors or subcontractors below them with everybody rubber stamping the previous persons rubber stamp . So the person at the lowest point actually doing the work decided it.
I once sat in a meeting of this mixed tribe of contractors and naval types and couldn't understand half of what they were talking about as every 3rd word was an acronym. As I had rewritten some technical manuals for the crane ships they gave me all the manuals for the TAO's to mind . I did get to
re-write a commercial manual for a small transfer pump into the format of the Navy system, it was a case of cut and paste (with scissors and glue stick ) and plagiarising, then the secretary typed it up . Nobody knew what they were looking at and it was the format they recognised, so got passed or was it past.
Needless to say the shipyard went bust trying to complete these two ships and was the 2nd one to as Bath Iron Works went bust constructing them previously. So with 3 shipyards being involved I just wonder how many teething troubles they had.

Last edited by sternchallis; 14th August 2019 at 11:00..
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 14th August 2019, 12:09
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
It is a truth universally acknowledged that many things are possible and that not all possible things are proper.
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 14th August 2019, 12:46
YM-Mundrabilla's Avatar
YM-Mundrabilla YM-Mundrabilla is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,848
US Navy and Boeing both now 'in the same boat'!!!! Too smart by half.
To many clever dicks and geeks and too few who 'have 'been there and done that', perhaps.
It's the way of the world these days. Instead of designing and specifying equipment one just says 'I would like a widget' and Joe the Goose cobbles together what he perceives to be a widget and if it's cheap enough we buy it. At least that's the way of so many things here in Oz anyway.
KISS = keep it simple, stupid.
Barry sums it up beautifully (above).
.

Last edited by YM-Mundrabilla; 14th August 2019 at 12:53..
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 14th August 2019, 12:58
callpor callpor is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1962 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
My location
Posts: 763
Quote:
Originally Posted by YM-Mundrabilla View Post
US Navy and Boeing both now 'in the same boat'!!!! Too smart by half.
To many clever dicks and geeks and too few who 'have 'been there and done that', perhaps.
It's the way of the world these days. Instead of designing and specifying equipment one just says 'I would like a widget' and Joe the Goose cobbles together what he perceives to be a widget and if it's cheap enough we buy it. At least that's the way of so many things here in Oz anyway.
KISS = keep it simple, stupid.
Barry sums it up beautifully (above).
.
You got it in one! ....but will it make anyone wake up to the problem?
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 14th August 2019, 13:03
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
The specification is king however by the time the working spec is produced the contract spec., based on an outline from which little detail can be determined, has already been set in concrete - with real extras or real deletions each being warded an extra cost (just a lower extra cost when it is otherwise to the yard's benefit. I exaggerate I know). If the detail is important to the end user the place for that detail is in the Outline. It is the outline upon which the yards bid and therefore it is where their pencils are sharper. Extra's will be at the market rate and credits will be in full they never are once the contract is signed.

As for the GUI MM interface I have some sympathy with both camps. When criticising a cargo handling simulator that was entirely computer based (whereas ours was included a full CCR console mock up that was driven by the computer) it was pointed out that cargo handling was already controlled from the GUI and keyboard. That was then not very true (we were in competition) but it is now. How will the candidate who has been brought up on GUI and mouse interact with a console and 'proper' knobs and switches?

The processor (often without the redundancy inherent with, say an Autronica KM series discrete system or even Sunderland Forge, do it yourself alarm system), the simple VDU and then the full monty (GUI, Mice rollerballs etc.) were all introduced because it was cheaper (not to the owner who might well have thought he was buying into to tomorrow's better world) but to the builder. Innovation stopped there (for instance when graphics were introduced we had screen showing 'systems' but when a parameter was common to several 'systems', for instance Sea water temperature/pressure, that might be on a different seawater system screen). I am sure we have moved on and better after several years of the developers having input from knowledgeable users (do they?).

A console and mimic provided all the parameters and annunciators in one large 'package'. The information was there if not always immediately dragged to then operator attention.

The computer would have allowed us to present an alarm along with all the parameters implicated in a precise 'focus' on the event. We did not, perhaps we do now. Even more into the proceduralised age why is there not a screen available/inescapable presenting the operational procedures/CE's instructions also linked to the annunciation?
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 14th August 2019, 13:20
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
You are all being too hard on technology. It is not the technology but the inadequate application of it We cannot do DP with DPOs a combinator controls. WE cannot control a super low speed engine without electronic governors (so I am told). We do confuse sophistication with complication.

We have motor controls now which 'usually' will not automatically start the standby if the running pump has been deliberately stopped. We have emergency generators that will start and connect automatically (simply achieved) but which will revert to MSB supply when that supply is restored. Both these introduce a level of complication that is usually now requires a processor based solution. I would say both are undesirable, "Oops I pressed the wrong button". A generator runs up and shuts down without the necessity of being locally inspected? What if the main supply has been lost for some as yet recurring problem and its restoration is temporary. There must be many such examples where new 'failure' modes have been introduced both unfamiliar to the established operator and unnecessary.

Barrie's 292 sums it up very well but how about:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate

(My own, I hope I do not plagiarise, is "simple can be sophisticated". I remember the exercises in Boolean algebra we started with were to bring the logical circuit to it's minimum number of operating gates - The NEBB Startomat did not get this spot on. If a tacho running signal was 'seen' and the engine was not running it acted as if it had received a start signal - I spent a lot of time before finding the tacho circuit earth that was causing one of the generators on Norvegia Team to start itself up!)

Last edited by Varley; 14th August 2019 at 14:30..
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 14th August 2019, 13:23
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,765
My own 292 might have been written by Jane Austen, 200 years ago!
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 14th August 2019, 13:31
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
And devoutly to be wished!
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 14th August 2019, 16:08
OilJiver OilJiver is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1973 - 2009
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varley View Post
You are all being too hard on technology. It is not the technology but the inadequate application of it...
Entirely agreed (Well second bit anyway). Even someone like me, who prefers being at the trailing edge of technology, can recognise benefits of some of the up to the minute applications, and the efficiency improvements they can bring.

But as you say, inadequacy of application, particularly wrt resilience appears a major shortfall in many sectors, not just our own. Reliability one thing, but surely cyber security of much greater concern. Whether in shipping, aviation, other transport, national infrastructure etc.

And sure we need digital technology to deliver improved efficiency, particularly in generation & distribution of power supplies. But we all know the lights go out now and then usually due to a fault, but sometimes due to a bit of finger trouble.

Surely most worrying today, is that fingers can be on the controls from a very long way away. (And those fingers unauthorised fingers).
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 14th August 2019, 17:27
Varley's Avatar
Varley Varley is offline   SN Supporter
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Active: 1971 - 2011
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,402
I won't say I trail however I am in the guard's van ready to apply the brakes. I certainly view connection of the ship with less regulated 'stations' ashore with equal concern. Remote control must mean an office as rigidly controlled as on the bridge and engine room of its ships, perhaps that will steer towards a hybrid or full autonomous solution.

The "don't do unless necessary" rule can be applied partially. Only allow communication between systems where that is necessary, do not have essential systems sharing a common bus with anything they need not be and extend that to communications.

Whether malice or error all electronic data whether received from a local source or a remote one may cause an undesirable system response. That even applies to the written word - Don Sixto on Conoco Europe was fond of recalling that there had been a galley fire and the office (London Brits) had asked for a report on the health of the staff (All Spanish). The ship resorted to the dictionary, "staff" being unrecognised, and translated this to lengths of wood as in stave. Clearly the staves above the galley deckhead were burned to a crisp and this is what was reported back.

Erroneous but not malicious GPS data controlling an AIS shore station caused Sperry's Visionmaster displays to crash when accepting AIS data, a systems failure which testing and FMEA had not discovered (an impossible date, leap year associated if I remember fully). Updating ECDIS on a Korean build LNG Newbuild caused the vessel to abruptly change course - incorrect procedure or perhaps an as yet undeveloped procedure).

I remain skeptical that these big solutions have corresponding big problems they are to solve. What is certain is that the do bring problems of their own. On the LNG vessel (mentioned above) on trials I was given a tutorial on Kongsberg's IAS and a long chat with their consultant. One of my bugbears with the way this sort of kit is applied to merchant ships is that, unlike the nuclear or public transport industries, it is applied without the same quality control - especially documentation. To me this is vital for a vessel expected to last 15 years as I contend that one may be faced with renewing any single failure prone silicon system at around 10 years. The silicon will be cheap enough but the engineering involved to marry the new to the ten year old will not be especially if the documentation of each and every one of its interfaces is not accurately detailed and recorded. I have opined here that the cost at this juncture might well mark the end of the economic life of the asset (not so much fatigue life as silicon-fatigue life). The consultant grinned and agreed "At ten years old this will not only be expensive to support, it will be fabulously expensive to support" - no prospect of him being out of work then!
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
USS Zumwalt - Just Hit The Water - merged threads rickles23 News and Views from the Shipping World 23 22nd December 2013 22:43
Stena Feronia collision - merged threads BillH News and Views from the Shipping World 21 31st May 2012 16:51
Collision in S.F. Bay - Merged Threads SeaStoryWriter News and Views from the Shipping World 73 14th August 2009 07:51



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.