USS Fitzgerald
- Thread starter homerjack
- Start date
spuncopper
New member
Hey Thataway,
Dive teams are not assigned to combatant vessels such as the Fitzgerald and haven't been for several decades. I believe it was around 1972 when they started reassigning divers to dive lockers, repair ships, etc. About the same time they required all the old hard hat divers to train in SCUBA.
The Navy now has Consolidated Dive teams where they are rotated to the various repair ships (Submarine Tenders, Destroyer Tender, etc) and even the old dive lockers located at just about every Navy base. The salvage vessels (ARS/ASRs and ATFs) are now manned by civilians crews with one of the Dive teams assigned as needed.
About the only ship that would have had any divers on board at the time would have been an air craft carrier and they are usually an EOD team assigned on a rotating basis or a SEAL Team/USMC Force Recon Team on one of the gator freighters if they had been assigned/attached to that squadron/fleet
It is normal procedure for a CO to face a disciplinary hearing and/or court-martial after a collision with another vessel, especially of this magnitude. Either way their career is over.
A lot has changed since I retired. My rating was a Hull Maintenance Technician with a secondary NEC 5342 (Deep Sea Diver). The Deep Sea Divers is now a rating, as are EOD, SEALs and special boat units.
And, yes, it is proper procedure to "keep the captain informed" especially when operating in those conditions. I just don't remember a CO sleeping in their bunk under those conditions. I've seen them napping in their bridge chair, but not in their bunks in conditions like these.
Be good and if ya can't be good, be careful!
Dive teams are not assigned to combatant vessels such as the Fitzgerald and haven't been for several decades. I believe it was around 1972 when they started reassigning divers to dive lockers, repair ships, etc. About the same time they required all the old hard hat divers to train in SCUBA.
The Navy now has Consolidated Dive teams where they are rotated to the various repair ships (Submarine Tenders, Destroyer Tender, etc) and even the old dive lockers located at just about every Navy base. The salvage vessels (ARS/ASRs and ATFs) are now manned by civilians crews with one of the Dive teams assigned as needed.
About the only ship that would have had any divers on board at the time would have been an air craft carrier and they are usually an EOD team assigned on a rotating basis or a SEAL Team/USMC Force Recon Team on one of the gator freighters if they had been assigned/attached to that squadron/fleet
It is normal procedure for a CO to face a disciplinary hearing and/or court-martial after a collision with another vessel, especially of this magnitude. Either way their career is over.
A lot has changed since I retired. My rating was a Hull Maintenance Technician with a secondary NEC 5342 (Deep Sea Diver). The Deep Sea Divers is now a rating, as are EOD, SEALs and special boat units.
And, yes, it is proper procedure to "keep the captain informed" especially when operating in those conditions. I just don't remember a CO sleeping in their bunk under those conditions. I've seen them napping in their bridge chair, but not in their bunks in conditions like these.
Be good and if ya can't be good, be careful!
spuncopper
New member
Oh, yeah... oops. I hadn't seen where it had been decided the CO would face an NJP. Normally a NJP (Non-judicial punishment) would be a "Captain's Mast". In this Commanding Officer's case it might be an "Admiral's Mast" since he was a senior officer. It is a very sad incident all the way around.
Spuncopper
Spuncopper
I wonder even if the Captain had been napping in his chair on the bridge--since the crew didn't seem to have picked up the danger, if he would have been alerted in time to avert the collision. He should have been sure that the atmosphere on the ship was such that the collision was averted by proper lookouts.
As I understand Article 15 hearings, at the initial "Admiral's Mast"-- if the decision is made for NJP--that would not preclude after full investigation is completed that a further investigation could suggest a court martial. In either case it is a career ending event for an officer of any rank.
We had a widely followed case of the CO (Navy Captain) of the Blue Angels, who returned for a second tour, because of the inability of his successor to adapt to the flying discipline of the Blues,. After his second tour--the hearing was ref. the "atmosphere in the ready room". (PC) This Captain was up to be CO of Naval base Coronado--and reported to be on an Admiral's list. He had a letter of reprimand, was re-assigned to training squadron NAS Pensacola--and resigned from the Navy a few months later. It was said that the pilots who reportedly sent inappropriate messages and had inappropriate photos did not receive any punishment, because it would have required canceling the rest of the Blue Angel Shows for at least a year.
As I understand Article 15 hearings, at the initial "Admiral's Mast"-- if the decision is made for NJP--that would not preclude after full investigation is completed that a further investigation could suggest a court martial. In either case it is a career ending event for an officer of any rank.
We had a widely followed case of the CO (Navy Captain) of the Blue Angels, who returned for a second tour, because of the inability of his successor to adapt to the flying discipline of the Blues,. After his second tour--the hearing was ref. the "atmosphere in the ready room". (PC) This Captain was up to be CO of Naval base Coronado--and reported to be on an Admiral's list. He had a letter of reprimand, was re-assigned to training squadron NAS Pensacola--and resigned from the Navy a few months later. It was said that the pilots who reportedly sent inappropriate messages and had inappropriate photos did not receive any punishment, because it would have required canceling the rest of the Blue Angel Shows for at least a year.
spuncopper
New member
FYI (and then I'll shut up) concerning NJP (Non-Judicial Punishment).
In the Navy a NJP does not preclude a court martial. The accused has the right to request a court martial in lieu of a NJP. Accepting an NJP is you are admitting quilt.
Usually the accused is better off accepting an NJP. The punishment that can be handed down is limited. A junior enlisted sailor can usually overcome an NJP and have a career. The more senior you become the more detrimental it is to a career. If you are a senior enlisted or a senior officer, your career is pretty much over.
Now, I'll shut up.
Spuncopper
In the Navy a NJP does not preclude a court martial. The accused has the right to request a court martial in lieu of a NJP. Accepting an NJP is you are admitting quilt.
Usually the accused is better off accepting an NJP. The punishment that can be handed down is limited. A junior enlisted sailor can usually overcome an NJP and have a career. The more senior you become the more detrimental it is to a career. If you are a senior enlisted or a senior officer, your career is pretty much over.
Now, I'll shut up.
Spuncopper
And now same type incident w USS John McCain. WTH is going on over there.
Also, I completely agree w Robb on comment about Fed Govt. In this case a Navy discharge (firing) could be meted out if warranted. And Fed employees can and do get fired. Sadly, we can't do same for CIC.
Also, I completely agree w Robb on comment about Fed Govt. In this case a Navy discharge (firing) could be meted out if warranted. And Fed employees can and do get fired. Sadly, we can't do same for CIC.
Wandering Sagebrush
Free Range Human
homerjack":hq0vh638 said:
My 2 cents worth. I suggest we not bring politics into the discussion at any level.
homerjack":x9xu1330 said:
Thanks for correcting my incorrect attempted statement of fact. Glad to hear members of the Navy can be immediately terminated. All you hear about in the media is months or year(s) long costly investigations followed by a hearing or trial before a final discharge for an action which would have resulted in an immediate termination in the private sector. Not looking to make a political statement, just a comparison of how the Navy operates in contrast to the private sector. Wonder if this could result in a trial for involuntary manslaughter or some similar charge.
Ethics, morality, crime and punishment are not the same in military are they are in civilian life. Military operations, even outside of war, are often hazardous. Death from friendly fire happens - fault is often found, careers are often ended, but punishment is rare. I state this as an observer, not a defender of the differences.
In these two most recent cases, the fault and responsibility may flow uphill. Responsibility multiplies, not divided. What is going on in the Pacific Fleet, to paraphrase another disaster, The World Wants to Know.
In these two most recent cases, the fault and responsibility may flow uphill. Responsibility multiplies, not divided. What is going on in the Pacific Fleet, to paraphrase another disaster, The World Wants to Know.
What if--all of the electronic navigations systems were spoofed? GPS, Radar, FLIR, AIS, (I don't know if inertial can be spoofed?) So the sailors on deck were saying--"potential collision"--all of the electronics saying: we are in the clear--CPA (CPA is over 10,000 yards)- Captain usually to be called if closest point of approach is within 10,000 yards. No problem.
With all of the cyber warfare and hacking talk is this possible? There are a few articles in the last year on the internet which suggest that working retrograde thru satellite antenna systems, that ship's navigation systems--and theoretically this could even go to the inertial systems, which should be secure...
Would the Navy admit it if that is the case? What about the careers, if this is the case?
I am still having problems processing that both of these ships could get within a mile of the US warships.
These collisions just don't make sense--I wonder if Kim Jong-un i telling his people that he did it? (Pretty unlikely that he had anything to do with it, but ....)
With all of the cyber warfare and hacking talk is this possible? There are a few articles in the last year on the internet which suggest that working retrograde thru satellite antenna systems, that ship's navigation systems--and theoretically this could even go to the inertial systems, which should be secure...
Would the Navy admit it if that is the case? What about the careers, if this is the case?
I am still having problems processing that both of these ships could get within a mile of the US warships.
These collisions just don't make sense--I wonder if Kim Jong-un i telling his people that he did it? (Pretty unlikely that he had anything to do with it, but ....)
colbysmith
Active member
Oops, wrong thread...
nordicstallion
New member
I'm with Bob on the electronic hacking. As a Vietnam era sailor,homeported on a station ship in Yokosuka Japan & standing underway watches, my mind is compleatly boggled as to how anything with a light on it could possibly get within 10 to 12 miles of the ship. Where the hell was everybody? Centerpunching warships with a tanker without being seen seems extreamly fishy to me. These ships are bristling with electronics and eyes!! I don't get it!
Vern,
Are there not at least one E-3 or up aft on the ship, forward on the ship, and on both port and starboard sides at all times--on watch?
Lights on the water at night are very hard to interpret. Even more difficult in crowded waters with background shore light. The most common reason I was awoken by new crew members on our boats, was for ... stars or planets, which the new watch keeper though were ship's running lights--on a constant bearing.
Are there not at least one E-3 or up aft on the ship, forward on the ship, and on both port and starboard sides at all times--on watch?
Lights on the water at night are very hard to interpret. Even more difficult in crowded waters with background shore light. The most common reason I was awoken by new crew members on our boats, was for ... stars or planets, which the new watch keeper though were ship's running lights--on a constant bearing.
I read a longer discussion on my phone last night. It reported that merchant ships, for all the stories us sailors love to tell, have greatly reduced collisions over the last ten years. GREATLY, not several percent but made them rare. This all despite no lookouts, no one on the bridge, auto-pilot only, crowded seas.
The gist of the story is that the navy may need to look at what the merchant marine world wide has done to improve its impressive safety record.
Unfortunately I was not able to post, and I forget which newspaper I saw the story on. Goad me just a bit and I will do some research and attempt to cite. Or maybe someone on line read the story and remembers.
The gist of the story is that the navy may need to look at what the merchant marine world wide has done to improve its impressive safety record.
Unfortunately I was not able to post, and I forget which newspaper I saw the story on. Goad me just a bit and I will do some research and attempt to cite. Or maybe someone on line read the story and remembers.
For what its worth--often when a merchant ship or larger vessel hits s small recreational or fishing vessel, the don't know about it. Many instances of vessels lost at sea--and a merchant vessel has rigging tangled into it anchor, or scraps of the gelcoat/paint along the side.
One boat I had been following this year is now over 2 months overdue. These collisions are real. I suspect that the decrease in collisions among merchant vessels is due to the use of AIS. If a recreation vessel (or Navy vessel) were using AIS it will increase their chance of being "seen". If I was voyaging currently, I would have class "A" AIS on when underway.
Just saw a report on CNN, which claimed there was a "steering loss" right before the collision, and the steering was up and running shortly after the collision. Also that some "remains" were found on the flooded compartment. Possible remains found by Malaysian Navy...This suggest that more lives were lost. Tragic.
One boat I had been following this year is now over 2 months overdue. These collisions are real. I suspect that the decrease in collisions among merchant vessels is due to the use of AIS. If a recreation vessel (or Navy vessel) were using AIS it will increase their chance of being "seen". If I was voyaging currently, I would have class "A" AIS on when underway.
Just saw a report on CNN, which claimed there was a "steering loss" right before the collision, and the steering was up and running shortly after the collision. Also that some "remains" were found on the flooded compartment. Possible remains found by Malaysian Navy...This suggest that more lives were lost. Tragic.
nordicstallion
New member
Bob, correct! In my day there was always ( while underway) an 8 man rotating watch that rotated around the ship every half hour. on the bridge, a conn officer, an officer of the deck,helmsman,phone talker, messenger, port & stb lookouts that report anything & everything, also two radar men in cic and a raidioman on duty! As duty signalman on the signal bridge, I have fired up the 36" carbonarch search light (which turns night into day) to hit bridge of comm ships violating rules of the road & unresponsive to radio. I say this sounds like a sucker punch in this electronic age!!! I just don't buy it!!