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.
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.