Honest ABC Reporting
Who said the is biased ???
'kin disgraceful 'reporting'
| Look Here -> |
Definitely a colour issue there...
How can the US ship 'smash' into said merchant ship......they must have been doing 15 knots going sideways
There is one area taxpayers money can be saved, get rid of the ABC altogether, privatise it if they like (good luck with that), I really couldn't care less, just use our taxpayers money for improving health & education. What a waste.
Cheers
Ted (Al)
admin (18-06-17),eaglem (18-06-17),enf (17-06-17),Landytrack (19-06-17)
Yeah...I guess they could have zigged when they should have zagged, but an inquiry will hopefully sort that out...Originally Posted by alpha0ne
How can the US ship 'smash' into said merchant ship......they must have been doing 15 knots going sideways
Lucky it wasn't the Melbourne. Voyager and Frank E. Evans would have been happy to hit this ship.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
eaglem (18-06-17)
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
Yet the ABC runs this program asking the "hard questions".
Yet Red cant ask them ? It sounds like Red is being discriminated against because he is white.
Couldn't agree more. He should invoke 18c against this senator........good luck with that little baby.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Seeing where the damage is (STB side), the container ship was crossing from the STB side. The Yank ship should have given way to the container ship.
Thala Dan (19-06-17)
I have absolutely no knowledge of shipping procedures, so I wouldn't know and will defer to you on that. But shouldn't the full investigation happen before jumping to what might seem to some to be an obvious conclusion?
Not all rear enders are the fault of the car behind either.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Yes, obviously a full investigation is required, but that is just standard international shipping regulations, and who knows what the reasons for non compliance were. In certain circumstances, usually in port waters, variations may occur though.
Thala Dan (19-06-17)
COLREGS - International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea
International Maritime Organisation
Rule 5
Look-out
Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means
appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk
of collision.
Rule 7
Risk of collision
(a). Every vessel shall use all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions to determine
if risk of collision exists. If there is any doubt such risk shall be deemed to exist.
(b). Proper use shall be made of radar equipment if fitted and operational, including long-range scanning to obtain early
warning of risk of collision and radar plotting or equivalent systematic observation of detected objects.
(c). Assumptions shall not be made on the basis of scanty information, especially scanty radar information.
(d). In determining if risk of collision exists the following considerations shall be among those taken into account:
(i). such risk shall be deemed to exist if the compass bearing of an approaching vessel does not appreciably change;
(ii). such risk may sometimes exist even when an appreciable bearing change is evident, particularly when approaching
a very large vessel or a tow or when approaching a vessel at close range.
Rule 8
Action to avoid collision
(a). Any action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances
of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b). Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large
enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of
course and/or speed should be avoided.
(c). If there is sufficient sea-room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
(d). Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The
effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e). If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take
all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.
(i). A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea-room for the safe
passage of the other vessel.
(ii). A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if
approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the
action which may be required by the Rules of this part.
(iii). A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when
the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.
Rule 15
Crossing situation
When two power-driven vessels are crossing so as to involve risk of collision, the vessel which has the other on her
own starboard side shall keep out of the way and shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, avoid crossing ahead of
the other vessel.
Rule 17
Action by stand-on vessel
(a).
(i). Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii). The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes
apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these
Rules.
(b). When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision
cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid
collision.
(c). A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule
to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port
for a vessel on her own port side.
(d). This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way.
Rule 8 (e)(iii) and Rule 17 clearly place some responsibility on the Stand-on vessel in regards to avoiding a collision with the Give-way vessel.
Many of those container vessels are just on autopilot, with little or no watch kept on the bridge.....hence they periodically run over smaller vessels.
But a military vessel, equipped with all the latest satellite and radar technology, and supposedly manned by "alert for any possibility" defence personnel?
Guess it's just as well it wasn't a deliberate attempt to ram her with a boat full of explosives as was the case with the USS Cole.
On the morning of Thursday, 12 October 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, docked in Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 9:30; refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small fiberglass boat carrying explosives and two suicide bombers approached the port side of the destroyer and exploded,[2] creating a 40-by-60-foot (12 by 18 m) gash in the ship's port side, according to the memorial plate to those who lost their lives. Former CIA intelligence officer Robert Finke said the blast appeared to be caused by explosives molded into a shaped charge against the hull of the boat.[3]
Not only that, the distance required to manoeuvre one of those container ships compared to the destroyer is pretty big. I bet the officer on watch, on the destroyer is a tad nervous at the moment.
Damn right there, Bob.
Those things are harder to turn than my missus once she's made up her mind
Also, the vis from the bridge is not brilliant, particularly dead-ahead at short distances when fully loaded:
Interesting observations here:
Before retiring for the night, Commander Benson would have signed routine “night orders,” updating the standing orders he had issued to the entire crew. They would almost certainly have dictated those on watch to wake him if another ship was expected to pass close to the Fitzgerald in the busy shipping lane south of Tokyo.
The fact that he was in his cabin when the collision occurred suggested that there was very little warning before the accident, Navy veterans said.
Some captains include in the night orders a generic admonition, “Call me if you’re in doubt.” Most ask to be awakened if another vessel’s closest point of approach, or C.P.A., is less than a certain set distance.
“My orders were always to call me if the C.P.A. was less than 5,000 yards,” said Bryan McGrath, a national security consultant who commanded a destroyer in the Atlantic from 2004 to 2006.
Such orders, in the kind of ocean traffic in that part of the Pacific, would make for much-interrupted sleep for the captain. But it reflects “the unique status of the captain of a Navy ship in American society — absolute authority, and absolute accountability,” Mr. McGrath said.
“It doesn’t matter if you’re asleep when the collision occurs,” Mr. McGrath said. “Why didn’t the watch standers call you? Were they not trained properly? Ultimately, it’s all your responsibility.”
As one poster said on an American forum:
I just find it difficult to understand how a US warship got caught so flat-footed given the current tinderbox situation in so many parts of the world.A major accident on a Navy ship is fatal to a career. This captain's next post is likely a Navy recruiting office in Kansas...
where is the get rid of the abc facebook page can't find it?
Probably deleted by the ABC.....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks