Author US Navy Japanese container ship collision  (Read 1672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2017, 01:37:23 AM »
Latest news is that Fire Controlman 1st Class Gary Leo Rehm Jr successfully saved a number of sailors lives before returning
to a flooding compartment which subsequently had the water tight hatch closed.   Very brave man.........

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-sailor-sacrificed-himself-save-20-lives-the-uss-fitzgerald-2017-6


He deserves the Medal of Honor for "gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty"
or the Navy Cross, extraordinary heroism"

but since those require the acts of valour to have occurred during times of war, a posthumously awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the militaries highest possible decoration for non-combat," exceptionally distinguished performance of duty contributing to the national security or defense of the United States."

Perhaps the Navy and Marine Corps Medal , the highest non-combat decoration awarded for heroism. "For heroic performance to rise to this level it must be clearly established that the act involved very specific life-threatening risk to the awardee."

RIP

peace
Hog

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2017, 08:43:46 PM »
A little more info on the one hour discrepancy:

Quote
Investigators now think Crystal was transiting to Tokyo on autopilot with an inattentive or asleep crew when the merchant vessel struck a glancing blow on the destroyer’s starboard side at about 1:30 AM local time on Friday. When the crew of Crystal realized they had hit something, the ship performed a U-turn in the shipping lane and sped back to the initial site of the collision at 18 knots, discovered Fitzgerald, and radioed a distress call to authorities at about 2:30 AM. U.S. Navy officials initially said the collision occurred at around the time of the distress call at 2:30 AM.


Also here is a pix of the Skipper's cabin.   He is lucky to be alive



Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #33 on: June 22, 2017, 08:53:16 PM »
FYI - Sweeney's take on this starts at about the 2 minute mark. Certainly nothing earth shaking

http://zfirelight.blogspot.com/2017/06/06-20-17-science-universe-communicating.html

Although Noory suggested that if all else failed the destroyer should have launched an anti-ship missile at the Container Ship! 

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #34 on: June 22, 2017, 08:58:44 PM »
It is also felt that 5 of the killed sailors were either trapped or incapacitated and that two more died trying to get them out as the water tight
door was closed on the effected compartment(s).

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/uss-fitzgerald-investigation-update/index.html

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #35 on: June 22, 2017, 09:03:07 PM »
FYI - Sweeney's take on this starts at about the 2 minute mark. Certainly nothing earth shaking

http://zfirelight.blogspot.com/2017/06/06-20-17-science-universe-communicating.html

Although Noory suggested that if all else failed the destroyer should have launched an anti-ship missile at the Container Ship!
Yeah. Ahoy! I did catch Capt.Sweeney's bit and he had no real new thing to say but I also, like the Capt, was a bit taken aback about Norry's idea that the Naval vessel should shoot a missile at the container ship!

Though I do think in certain waters or if not radio, or other, contact is made we should be more aggressive with pirates, terrorists, etc. Controversial, especially for non-military vessels but certain warranted for military ships in some areas, etc. But Norry's cavalier, almost off-hand, comment about using missiles was alarming. And he was in the Navy, as he frequently tells us.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #36 on: June 22, 2017, 09:05:47 PM »
Yeah. Ahoy! I did catch Capt.Sweeney's bit and he had no real new thing to say but I also, like the Capt, was a bit taken aback about Norry's idea that the Naval vessel should shoot a missile at the container ship!

Though I do think in certain waters or if not radio, or other, contact is made we should be more aggressive with pirates, terrorists, etc. Controversial, especially for non-military vessels but certain warranted for military ships in some areas, etc. But Norry's cavalier, almost off-hand, comment about using missiles was alarming. And he was in the Navy, as he frequently tells us.

9 Years!   What an Old Salt, eh? 

Harpoon away!!!!!!!!


Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #37 on: June 22, 2017, 09:17:55 PM »
It is also felt that 5 of the killed sailors were either trapped or incapacitated and that two more died trying to get them out as the water tight door was closed on the effected compartment(s).




RIP.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2017, 12:32:54 PM »
http://news.trust.org/item/20170626101937-6xsul
Very strange. Even most modern cars and trucks in the normal consumer market have a basic warning system that alerts you if you are moving out of your lane, tailgating, etc. And, according, to the Japanese reports the ACX Crystal even used visible floodlights to warn at last minute. But then the odd bit about "took an hour" for them to report the collision and "confusion?" "investigations will examine witness testimony and electronic data to determine how a naval destroyer fitted with sophisticated radar could be struck by a vessel more than three times its size."
So, conspiracy theories or just theories:
1) testing out some electronic warfare system by another country or hackers?
2) total lack of discipline by whoever was on deck USS Fitzgerald (maybe some "fraternization" or something?)
3) IT problem or bugs in the USS Fitzgerald's radar and alert systems?
One notes that this is an initial report and only by the Japanese. Many others are in the works.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2017, 07:17:25 PM »
9 Years!   What an Old Salt, eh? 

Harpoon away!!!!!!!!



Noory was a Reserve Public Affairs Officer and not a Line Officer.   As such he would have done drill weekends once a month and two weeks of active duty for training each year probably in Washington, D.C.  I doubt if he ever set foot on the bridge of a ship.  That said, his comment about launching a missile at a ship as a means of avoiding a collision at sea is unbelievably stupid even for him.  I cringe every time he talks about having served in the Navy. 

Has anyone seen a detailed timeline of both ship's tracks that included their maneuvers before and after the collision?   

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2017, 10:14:47 PM »
"US Navy Japanese container ship collision"
I'm not sure if this is a typo in the title but I think that was not Japanese container ship but Philippines.

"US destroyer failed to respond to warnings before fatal collision – cargo ship captain"
Published time: 26 Jun, 2017 11:56

https://www.rt.com/usa/394098-uss-fitzgerald-collision-warnings/

*A US warship struck by a Philippines container ship in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take action before the collision took place, according to a report from the cargo ship’s captain.
The Philippines ship ACX Crystal signaled to the USS Fitzgerald with flashing lights after the US warship “suddenly” changed course to one crossing the container ship’s path, Captain Ronald Advincula’s report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation states, according to Reuters.

The container ship steered to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later, according to the report.
The US Navy has declined to comment on the report, and Reuters was unable to independently verify the captain’s account.
Seven US sailors were killed in the crash, which tore a gash below the Fitzgerald’s waterline.
The incident represents the largest loss of life on a US Navy vessel since 2000, when the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen’s Aden harbor.*
../more info in the link/




Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2017, 11:13:34 PM »
"US Navy Japanese container ship collision"
I'm not sure if this is a typo in the title but I think that was not Japanese container ship but Philippines.


It wasn't though, I think,- as I point out ownership, leases, subleasing, flagging (port of registry,) chartering, etc can be VERY complicated. Last I heard NYKLine Dainichi-Invest Corporation (Mitsubishi) owned ACX Crystal, flagged out of the Philippians. I could be wrong- it can get VERY convoluted.

Most of the cruise ships etc that you might go on you think are "American" or etc but really registered elsewhere. And worse with container ships, tankers, etc. Often many levels of ownership if "off-shore" companies (no pun intended,) and varying measures of liability, working standards, and what not. Questionable places, at best, like Panama, Liberia, Philippians, etc are best places to "flag" vessels and even get labor (cheap, less paperwork, less standards, etc) but ownership usually in other countries, banking countries, divided ownership behind shell-companies, etc. And THEN you get into charters and what-not. Very complicated. By design.  ;) Or just by history because of the first economies of scale, trade, empires, and commerce were from the sea. Also some of the first multinational "laws" and treaties, labor or working rights, and what not. False flags, also.  ;)
One key thing to look for if we are going to a big war is shipping because much of our logistics is outsourced, by necessity often, to these companies and also much legal wrangling about liability etc for private ships in danger areas or privately owned ships to be leased and also because modern countries rely on supply lines totally with almost no inventory and any potential disruption is noticed in markets and governments (and in investors, owners, insurers, and underwriters.)

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2017, 11:28:04 PM »
It wasn't though, I think,- as I point out ownership, leases, subleasing, flagging (port of registry,) chartering, etc can be VERY complicated. Last I heard NYKLine Dainichi-Invest Corporation (Mitsubishi) owned ACX Crystal, flagged out of the Philippians. I could be wrong- it can get VERY convoluted.

Most of the cruise ships etc that you might go on you think are "American" or etc but really registered elsewhere. And worse with container ships, tankers, etc. Often many levels of ownership if "off-shore" companies (no pun intended,) and varying measures of liability, working standards, and what not. Questionable places, at best, like Panama, Liberia, Philippians, etc are best places to "flag" vessels and even get labor (cheap, less paperwork, less standards, etc) but ownership usually in other countries, banking countries, divided ownership behind shell-companies, etc. And THEN you get into charters and what-not. Very complicated. By design.  ;) Or just by history because of the first economies of scale, trade, empires, and commerce were from the sea. Also some of the first multinational "laws" and treaties, labor or working rights, and what not. False flags, also.  ;)
One key thing to look for if we are going to a big war is shipping because much of our logistics is outsourced, by necessity often, to these companies and also much legal wrangling about liability etc for private ships in danger areas or privately owned ships to be leased and also because modern countries rely on supply lines totally with almost no inventory and any potential disruption is noticed in markets and governments (and in investors, owners, insurers, and underwriters.)

..that adds extra twist to this tragic and embarrassing story if is indeed Japanese

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2017, 09:09:42 AM »
"US Navy Japanese container ship collision"
I'm not sure if this is a typo in the title but I think that was not Japanese container ship but Philippines.

"US destroyer failed to respond to warnings before fatal collision – cargo ship captain"
Published time: 26 Jun, 2017 11:56

https://www.rt.com/usa/394098-uss-fitzgerald-collision-warnings/

*A US warship struck by a Philippines container ship in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take action before the collision took place, according to a report from the cargo ship’s captain.
The Philippines ship ACX Crystal signaled to the USS Fitzgerald with flashing lights after the US warship “suddenly” changed course to one crossing the container ship’s path, Captain Ronald Advincula’s report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation states, according to Reuters.

The container ship steered to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later, according to the report.
The US Navy has declined to comment on the report, and Reuters was unable to independently verify the captain’s account.
Seven US sailors were killed in the crash, which tore a gash below the Fitzgerald’s waterline.
The incident represents the largest loss of life on a US Navy vessel since 2000, when the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen’s Aden harbor.*
../more info in the link/

Nothing can be concluded without seeing the actual track of the Fitzgerald in relation to the Crystal.  It's all speculation until then. 

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #44 on: July 01, 2017, 02:11:07 AM »
I'm still confused...  Are navy ships built to SOLAS regulations in regards to watertight doors?  I ask because I have read that one or two sailors died when the doors closed on them and they were trying to rescue others.

SOLAS demands that the watertight doors be operable locally, and that even in a power outage they have the reserve to be closed, opened and closed (three cycles at a minimum.)  Yes, doors can be closed from the bridge in an emergency, but they can still be "overridden" by somebody escaping (they would then automatically close again behind the person.)  While I cannot find the exact regulation, I found a summary of this section... SOLAS regulation II-1/13.8.1 (15.8.1)1
Does the "doors closed" mode permit doors to be opened locally and automatically re-close the doors upon release of the local control mechanism?

To me, this either means that the navy has went a step further and decided that due to increased risk (or simply because "they can") that they disallow local operation of a watertight door when in emergency mode, or possibly that the damage was severe enough and flooding fast enough that the sailors were not able to open the doors (or that adjacent compartments were already flooded.)

Either way, it is sad...

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #45 on: July 01, 2017, 06:30:34 AM »
I'm still confused...  Are navy ships built to SOLAS regulations in regards to watertight doors?  I ask because I have read that one or two sailors died when the doors closed on them and they were trying to rescue others.

SOLAS demands that the watertight doors be operable locally, and that even in a power outage they have the reserve to be closed, opened and closed (three cycles at a minimum.)  Yes, doors can be closed from the bridge in an emergency, but they can still be "overridden" by somebody escaping (they would then automatically close again behind the person.)  While I cannot find the exact regulation, I found a summary of this section... SOLAS regulation II-1/13.8.1 (15.8.1)1
Does the "doors closed" mode permit doors to be opened locally and automatically re-close the doors upon release of the local control mechanism?

To me, this either means that the navy has went a step further and decided that due to increased risk (or simply because "they can") that they disallow local operation of a watertight door when in emergency mode, or possibly that the damage was severe enough and flooding fast enough that the sailors were not able to open the doors (or that adjacent compartments were already flooded.)

Either way, it is sad...

After watertight doors, hatches and scuttles are closed and dogged down due to flooding they are not opened until the flooding is secured.  It is the job of the damage control party or whoever remains in the sealed off compartment to deal with the causualty.  Circumstances differ depending on the rate of flooding but in general once you are in a sealed compartment you are in it for the duration.  You can see where if a water tight door were to be opened into a flooded compartment the adjacent compartment would also be flooded because beyond a certain point reclosing the door against sea pressure would be impossible.

Attached article is a good primer on Navy shipboard compartmentation.  As far as I know the Navy does not widely employ automatically closing or remotely closing doors. 

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2017, 05:28:54 AM »
After watertight doors, hatches and scuttles are closed and dogged down due to flooding they are not opened until the flooding is secured.  It is the job of the damage control party or whoever remains in the sealed off compartment to deal with the causualty.  Circumstances differ depending on the rate of flooding but in general once you are in a sealed compartment you are in it for the duration.  You can see where if a water tight door were to be opened into a flooded compartment the adjacent compartment would also be flooded because beyond a certain point reclosing the door against sea pressure would be impossible.

Attached article is a good primer on Navy shipboard compartmentation.  As far as I know the Navy does not widely employ automatically closing or remotely closing doors.
I missed the attached article...

I find it to be very strange if they do not at least follow the same protocols as a cruise liner or cargo vessel given their role in war. 

SOLAS Regulation 13.5.1 requires power-operated watertight doors to be capable of being closed simultaneously from the navigation bridge in no more than 60 seconds with the ship in the upright position.  Whenever a door is closed remotely by power, there is to be an audible, distinct alarm at the door, sounding for at least five but no more than 10 seconds before the door begins to move and until the door is completely closed. As mentioned above, doors cannot be remotely opened from the bridge, but the "doors closed" mode will still allow a door to be opened locally, for the safety of an escaping person. However, the door will then automatically start to close upon release of the local control lever.

To me, that makes it quite clear that even in a flooded compartment, somebody (at least on a cruise ship or cargo ship) can open the door and save themselves.  If you look at the picture below, flooding in one compartment should not prevent the door from sliding closed.


The caption under the picture reads "The lower handle is for normal operations, the upper handle for emergency manual opening."

There are four kinds of doors on commercial vessels... And I have to imagine that the navy uses the same designations... There are some that remain open to allow free passage of crew, some that are normally closed, but can be opened if people are working in the area, some that are normally closed and can only be opened to allow passage and then immediately closed again, and there are some that are closed after leaving port only to be opened again at the destination.  With that said, my understanding is that they all have manual overrides (though the ones in the last category are also supposed to have something to make them tamper proof when in transit...)

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2017, 07:23:16 AM »
Interesting read on the repair process and some of the damage.   I am having a hard time picturing a 12'x17' hole below the water line suddenly opening up at 2:00AM, apparently without warning. 

Seems like there is a chance the ship may have to  be scrapped
Quote
One potential concern, according to Navy officials, is that the force of the collision may have warped the superstructure and created an alignment issue for the ship’s SPY-1 radar. Fixing that could add an enormous sum to the repair bill and could even be cost-prohibitive, but those assessments haven’t been completed yet.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2017, 08:45:34 AM »
I missed the attached article...

I find it to be very strange if they do not at least follow the same protocols as a cruise liner or cargo vessel given their role in war. 

SOLAS Regulation 13.5.1 requires power-operated watertight doors to be capable of being closed simultaneously from the navigation bridge in no more than 60 seconds with the ship in the upright position.  Whenever a door is closed remotely by power, there is to be an audible, distinct alarm at the door, sounding for at least five but no more than 10 seconds before the door begins to move and until the door is completely closed. As mentioned above, doors cannot be remotely opened from the bridge, but the "doors closed" mode will still allow a door to be opened locally, for the safety of an escaping person. However, the door will then automatically start to close upon release of the local control lever.

To me, that makes it quite clear that even in a flooded compartment, somebody (at least on a cruise ship or cargo ship) can open the door and save themselves.  If you look at the picture below, flooding in one compartment should not prevent the door from sliding closed.


The caption under the picture reads "The lower handle is for normal operations, the upper handle for emergency manual opening."

There are four kinds of doors on commercial vessels... And I have to imagine that the navy uses the same designations... There are some that remain open to allow free passage of crew, some that are normally closed, but can be opened if people are working in the area, some that are normally closed and can only be opened to allow passage and then immediately closed again, and there are some that are closed after leaving port only to be opened again at the destination.  With that said, my understanding is that they all have manual overrides (though the ones in the last category are also supposed to have something to make them tamper proof when in transit...)


There are many more factors that have to be taken into consideration in the construction of a warship. One that comes immediately to mind is the ability of structures and equipment to withstand the shock of exploding ordnance.  Bulkheads and framing are thicker and fittings are more robust.  A sliding watertight door as depicted would be vulnerable to becoming misaligned by shock and losing its integrity. 

However, if you think that naval architects and engineers are missing something you should let them know.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2017, 12:40:06 AM »
However, if you think that naval architects and engineers are missing something you should let them know.
That is the point- I don't know what kind of water tight doors they use, if they follow the same general type of regulations as a civilian ship, and most importantly (in my mind) if they are operable after being closed.  Again, your "attached article" was not attached... I would be interested to read it.

I do know that in July there is a guy coming into town who used to be high in the command structure of an U.S. aircraft carrier, and I really hope that I remember to ask him what they use in the course of conversation.

Love that you jump directly to "if you know more than naval architects."  No, I can only read the regulations to satisfy my curiosity, and for some strange reason, the US navy does not publish their design specifications (imagine that.)  So, I can only go with civilian codes, and those leave a huge question open if they are operable after being sealed on a war ship.  Do you have the published design specifications, RFP's, bills of materials that I can look at to satisfy my curiosity?  Possibly some US navy SOP's, training manuals, or even wiring diagrams?  The fact is that I am having a tough time finding regulations or specifications.

So far, I have only found the complete manual from the Heintz door manufacturer.  I can tell you how to rebuild those doors, and can even give you the part numbers of gaskets, connecting rods, dogs and levers for them... But I do not know if they have moved on from those style of door, or if they use others.  As it is, I found the manual in the Historic Naval Ships Association... Which tells me that this may be a manual from WWII or the 1970's or ?  Again, if you have the modern design specs, that would probably be more helpful.

https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/doors/index.htm

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #50 on: July 03, 2017, 02:08:31 AM »
Interesting read on the repair process and some of the damage.   I am having a hard time picturing a 12'x17' hole below the water line suddenly opening up at 2:00AM, apparently without warning. 

Seems like there is a chance the ship may have to  be scrapped

Thanks Walks... Interesting read.  :)

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #51 on: July 03, 2017, 09:23:33 AM »
That is the point- I don't know what kind of water tight doors they use, if they follow the same general type of regulations as a civilian ship, and most importantly (in my mind) if they are operable after being closed.  Again, your "attached article" was not attached... I would be interested to read it.

I do know that in July there is a guy coming into town who used to be high in the command structure of an U.S. aircraft carrier, and I really hope that I remember to ask him what they use in the course of conversation.

Love that you jump directly to "if you know more than naval architects."  No, I can only read the regulations to satisfy my curiosity, and for some strange reason, the US navy does not publish their design specifications (imagine that.)  So, I can only go with civilian codes, and those leave a huge question open if they are operable after being sealed on a war ship.  Do you have the published design specifications, RFP's, bills of materials that I can look at to satisfy my curiosity?  Possibly some US navy SOP's, training manuals, or even wiring diagrams?  The fact is that I am having a tough time finding regulations or specifications.

So far, I have only found the complete manual from the Heintz door manufacturer.  I can tell you how to rebuild those doors, and can even give you the part numbers of gaskets, connecting rods, dogs and levers for them... But I do not know if they have moved on from those style of door, or if they use others.  As it is, I found the manual in the Historic Naval Ships Association... Which tells me that this may be a manual from WWII or the 1970's or ?  Again, if you have the modern design specs, that would probably be more helpful.

https://archive.hnsa.org/doc/doors/index.htm

Here you go.  There is much more out there.  Google "Navy Ship Compartmentation."

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg90/Pages/specs.aspx
https://maritime.org/doc/label/index.htm
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/beginner.htm


Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #52 on: July 03, 2017, 09:55:46 AM »

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #53 on: July 03, 2017, 11:56:56 AM »
I sent the following back channel to Sredni Vashtar and Yorkshire Pudding today:



Hey guys,

In your absence the level of discourse on the part of the opposition on this thread has deteriorated to the point where I am seriously considering posting counter arguments to my own arguments in order to level the playing field and forestall any further damage to my brain through entropic degeneration.  Since that would amount to talking to myself, which the folks here at "The Home" consider to be unhealthy,  I would appreciate it if you would come back on line to give us your usual ration of shit from time to time to save me from being caught arguing with myself and having a privilege suspended.  Consider it an humanitarian act. 

P.S.  I promise that there will no further gloating on my part about past events but I can't rule out gloating about events yet to transpire. 



Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2017, 01:46:22 PM »
Looks like you can order your very own Naval water tight door here:

http://www.jdasales.com/index.shtml

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #55 on: July 05, 2017, 07:32:24 PM »
Not much new info in this latest article.  Other than existing hull patches are not big enough to cover a 12x17 foot hole

Quote
A Navy official told USNI News on Wednesday the repair teams at U.S. 7th Fleet faced a difficult challenge patching the hole, since it was larger than existing hull patch kits. Crews had to cobble together enough material to plug the hole in the side of the ship before it could be safely transferred to the dry dock in Yokosuka.

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/05/uss-fitzgerald-set-to-enter-dry-dock-later-this-month-patch-work-ongoing-to-fix-hull-breach

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2017, 09:35:21 PM »

This is by far the most plausible explanation for the collision I have heard yet.  The only problem with his theory is that the Fitzgerald would not be entirely "blacked out" at night in peacetime.  Its port and starboard running lights and it's masthead light would be displayed.  . 



Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #57 on: July 14, 2017, 06:46:34 AM »
This is by far the most plausible explanation for the collision I have heard yet.  The only problem with his theory is that the Fitzgerald would not be entirely "blacked out" at night in peacetime.  Its port and starboard running lights and it's masthead light would be displayed.  . 

Sounds similar to situations you get between aircraft but at a much slower speed. Isn't there some kind of automated system in shipping where ships automatically communicate with each other and alert the crews to danger if there's a collision risk?
Sort of like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #58 on: July 14, 2017, 07:37:34 AM »
It is the job of the damage control party or whoever remains in the sealed off compartment to deal with the causualty.

Still, indistinguishable from a Clinton presidency.

Re: US Navy Japanese container ship collision
« Reply #59 on: July 14, 2017, 11:45:14 AM »
Still, indistinguishable from a Clinton presidency.

I hope one day you can expand your vocabulary and between, "Hillary deleted" and "Still, indistinguishable from a Clinton presidency." you can use some new more innovative lines.
Otherwise boredom and monotony of your comments will be consisting 95% of the same old same old answers.
Get with the program and change the tune, being one track pony is not being hip...even if you are from Seattle.