Navy ship collides with oil tanker

Thanks again Zaphod.

I'm not going to get into a MM vs. Navy scuffle, but I am really curious about how this can happen because I (like many commercial mariners) have had encounters with U.S. Navy vessels which left me perplexed asking myself (and/or my watch partner) "what the hell are they doing?" Everything from outrageous CPA requests, to unpredictable maneuvering in high-traffic areas, to radio conversations that left me scratching my head. This appears to be a pattern in the Surface Warfare community and it's not limited to just navigation; seamanship in general is slacking (see Long Beach pilot ladder incident). Bottom of the barrel Chinese bulkers even rig and maintain ladders better than that.

I don't know much about Navy radar systems or the kind of graphic interface they present, but I do remember when getting a tour of a Navy bridge during my first AT, a comment was made by an officer regarding that he much preferred the presentation given by their run-of-the-mill Furuno commercial radar (it was a 21x7 series unit) over the Mk-whatever military radar they had too. I understand the need for redundancy and battle-worthiness but it seems to me that for the amount of money that is poured into these vessels, someone could come up with a reliable, solid version of radar that at least allows a decent presentation for regular transit needs in heavy traffic and teach the OOD/JOOD how to make conning decisions based on that information. Furuno is not cheap, low-quality stuff. Seems to me it wouldn't take much to make a battle-hardened version of one (at least, the graphic user interface).

One more question: What kind of specific training do SWO's get with regards to integrating with commercial traffic (running a TSS, using bridge-to-bridge VHF, etc)? Is there such a thing? Any simulator time? Is the Navy teaching any sort of sea-sense any more or is it all about the procedural-jargon and being technically precise without any sort of flair or instinct (ie, just drive the damn ship)?


BTW: the significance of the damage being done to the starboard side implies that they originated to port of the vessel they collided with. In a standard two-power driven vessel encounter under COLREGS Rule 15, this would mean that the Porter was the give-way vessel. Either that, or she presumably came left during a head-on encounter (also, generally, a big no-no). This doesn't mean that the tanker will be found without fault either, but the main investigation will be what exactly were the lead-up actions that the Porter took.
 
BTW: the significance of the damage being done to the starboard side implies that they originated to port of the vessel they collided with. In a standard two-power driven vessel encounter under COLREGS Rule 15, this would mean that the Porter was the give-way vessel. Either that, or she presumably came left during a head-on encounter (also, generally, a big no-no). This doesn't mean that the tanker will be found without fault either, but the main investigation will be what exactly were the lead-up actions that the Porter took.

Once again, these are assumptions. You can presume whatever you want, but I guarantee you there is more information that you don't know about. I'm curious what makes you think PORTER would be the main focus. What if the tanker was off PORTER's port bow, heading perpendicular (crossing situation) and decided to come starboard as it crossed close to PORTER's bow? (that was one scenario I thought of that could explain why the collision was on stbd side). Who knows what happened, my guess is as good as yours, but I don't know how one can just start implying it is PORTER's fault with the scanty information available.

Additionally, I have found the same exact issues with commercial vessels with the exception of asking for a greater CPA, but that is normally a protection issue, which shouldn't come as a shock. In one case where I was OOD, I made numerous calls to another commercial vessel (and yes I used name, POSIT, C/S -- it was pretty obvious) and I got no response -- it made me ponder whether the ship was on autopilot and their watchstander fell asleep. Another instance, a commercial vessel was erratically moving around me. So the picture that is being painted, that the Navy is the only party that "doesn't get it" is completely wrong. Oh then there was that time that a commercial vessel displayed restricted in ability to maneuver and clearly wasn't doing anything special, but we later determined that she displayed those lights to make others maneuver around her.

I'm sure for every story you have about a Navy incident, there is an equal one to tell about a commercial merchant.

I can't tell you how other ships handle the training of their watch teams, but we had a good number of OODs who cared about what we were doing, anticipated situations far in advance and planned early for maneuvering, used all available sensors (including Mk1-eyeballs)....all of this is based on experience and though, simulators are in use and they are a great complement, they don't cover every situation one might come into. As Zaphod has pointed out, CIC is suppose to back the bridge up and concur/not-concur with maneuvering intentions (if non-concur, then they need to resolve why and come up with a solution).
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to get into a MM vs. Navy scuffle, but I am really curious about how this can happen because I (like many commercial mariners) have had encounters with U.S. Navy vessels which left me perplexed asking myself (and/or my watch partner) "what the hell are they doing?" Everything from outrageous CPA requests, to unpredictable maneuvering in high-traffic areas, to radio conversations that left me scratching my head.

It's not a MM v. Navy thing it's a Navy v. Everyone else thing. Maybe the Coast Guard does it too (I'll let the MM guys tell me, I've only been on one side of that).

The fact that a Navy vsl can be the giveway vsl seems to escape them. Entire disregard for the ROTR. You don't HAVE to give way just because your situation is with a Navy vsl.

I've always enjoyed the experience of trying to figure out what a Navy YP was doing (I assume man overboards) on my cutter's approach to the Cape Cod Canal.

But yes, everything you listed seems to be a common experience. Whether the Navy doesn't care or doesn't know, I won't speculate about.
 
It has been awhile, so I'm not sure if they had anything up, but it would be an Oscar flag.


That said, don't play games where big boys are trying to enter a relatively narrow canal. :wink:
 
LITS, if that is true, that was probably not the smartest thing to do...lol.
Then again, it's mainly MIDN who run the YPs (I think).
 
Haha! We spotted them a number of miles off (it was raining so visibility wasn't TOO great) and assumed they were heading into the canal too... until they turned to stbd. We kept up our approach... then they turned to port.

We had CPP and twin screws, but a 55 year old 210' cutter needs some time to slow down and line up for an approach.


But....no collision...so all was ok.
 
I've always enjoyed the experience of trying to figure out what a Navy YP was doing (I assume man overboards) on my cutter's approach to the Cape Cod Canal.

I'd think for professional mariners of any stripe, trying to figure out what a Navy YP is doing is a fruitless search that's bound to end in frustration.
Despite the whole ROTR test that all MIDN have to pass, expecting them to apply that knowledge in real life is apparently asking too much.
 
What if the tanker was off PORTER's port bow, heading perpendicular (crossing situation) and decided to come starboard as it crossed close to PORTER's bow? (that was one scenario I thought of that could explain why the collision was on stbd side).
[FONT=&quot]This makes no sense whatsoever. If the tanker was on the PORTER’s port bow she would have been the ‘give way’ vessel and a turn to starboard to pass astern of PORTER would have been the appropriate maneuver. In that situation the only way the tanker could have struck the PORTER’s starboard side is if the PORTER turned to port (to almost a reciprocal course) rather than maintaining her course and speed as she is required to do as the 'stand on' (burdened) vessel. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And it looks like by the tankers AIS track history (linked below) she very well may have been directing her course to starboard when she collided with the PORTER.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?zoom=9&oldmmsi=371687000&olddate=8/11/2012%201:00:00%20PM[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At time 0027L OTOWASAN was on a course 060 speed 13.8 knots and at the approximate time of collision (0053L by my estimate) she had changed course 14 degrees to the right. My educated guess here is she was coming right to either go port to port in a meeting situation, passing astern of a vessel crossing from starboard to port or possibly overtaking a vessel on that vessel's starboard side.[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Jadler,

I wasn't stating fact. Just answering Zaphod with regards to his curiosity regarding why stbd side damage is noteworthy. Of course the actions of the tanker will be scrutinized too, but my concern (as a taxpayer) is what my countrymen who are responsible for lots of money and lives did that night in a situation that's hardly unusual at sea. We'll see what the investigation turns up.

As for your scenario, I think you're grossly overestimating the maneuvering capabilities of a VLCC. I assure you, nothing (course or speed changes) happens fast on one of those. There's no way they just turned to starboard, startling the 8 or so Navy crew supposedly watching, to the point that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer can't move out of the way either by altering course or speed. If that is what happened then I would seriously be concerned about how they could possibly react to a threat from a small (and highly maneuverable) boat.

And yes, there are a lot of morons out there driving commercial ships. But, there are only what, about 200 or so US Navy vessels, along with thousands of commercial ones? Kinda disproportionate there. There are two types of vessels that whenever anywhere near me, I keep an extra sharp eye on. One is commercial fishing boats because their attention is usually on the deck (they also have a specific class in the COLREGS though) and the other is a US Navy warship.

Speaking of the YPs, three or four went aground on a very well known, marked and charted shoal a couple months back. It was Steppingstone Rocks... right off Kings Point. Oops.
 
Last edited:
This makes no sense whatsoever. If the tanker was on the PORTER’s port bow she would have been the ‘give way’ vessel and a turn to starboard to pass astern of PORTER would have been the appropriate maneuver. In that situation the only way the tanker could have struck the PORTER’s starboard side is if the PORTER turned to port (to almost a reciprocal course) rather than maintaining her course and speed as she is required to do as the 'stand on' (burdened) vessel.

I saw a very similar track but with no time mapped to it. When I saw that track, the "s" turn is what caught my attention (thus the crossing situation) and thought that still might have been pre-collision, but this AIS website (which I actually haven't been on to) seems to clarify the timeline, so I'd definitely agree with your assessment. I still am going to wait for the official report to be released because there are rumors that, IAW COLREGs, PORTER would have still had been the stand-on vessel, regardless of the situation (whether these are substantiated or not is TBD).
 
Of course, if the actions of the giveway vsl are not sufficient alone, the standon vsl must take action.

I think in the world of jet pilots, in the slow 10-20 knot world of ships it would seem to be very easy in any situation, however I think anyone with some time on a ship can tell you, CBDR can "come out of nowhere". Get those hair on the back of your neck standing up.... and I've never even collided with anything.
 
I actually just read CDR Salamander's blog and seems he has a first hand account of the incident, which would not substantiate the rumors I heard.

LITS,

Ditto and that is the golden rule of the road. Ya...I remember a few of my nights as OOD going through a sea of dhows in the gulf, it really made for quite a time. It was impossible to do moboards on 20 different dhows and it really came down to using radar tracks, binos, and most importantly -- bearing drift. One second one dhow might be right bearing down stbd side, but then changes its course to left or CBDR and of course it's one vessel of many just hundreds of yards apart.
 
there are rumors that, IAW COLREGs, PORTER would have still had been the stand-on vessel, regardless of the situation (whether these are substantiated or not is TBD).

That is a possibility if the tanker was overtaking the PORTER on the PORTER's starboard side and their courses were converging. In that instance the tanker would be 'burdened' to keep out of the way of the PORTER until she was finally passed and clear. The PORTER's obligation would be to avoid any alteration TOWARD a vessel on or abaft her beam.. However from what I understand the PORTER was inbound from the straits. So unless she had turned around and was heading back toward the TSS it's unlikely that the tanker hit her while overtaking.

I'm sure there was other traffic in the vicinity that morning that probably muddied up the situation..

2009KPer said:
I think you're grossly overestimating the maneuvering capabilities of a VLCC. I assure you, nothing (course or speed changes) happens fast on one of those
Yep, particularly one drawing 19 meters of water and moving at 14 knots as the [FONT=&quot]OTOWASAN was.[/FONT]
 
I think it is fairly obvious from the all the possible circumstances and the timeline AIS presents, that it was a head on collision....the question is how it happened and if there are any other facts we don't know.
 
Back
Top