Collision

[Ivan Cloherty]

According to Maritime Bulletin, “Container ship ACX CRYSTAL though Philippines-flagged, said to be operated by Japanese NYK ?

Which means Keith, that she was a Philippine flagged ship, with a Filipino crew on Time Charter to the Japanese, which means that the only connection the Japanese had with the ship was her ports of loading and discharging and had no influence of the manning of the vessel, the most that they could have on board was a Japanese supercargo who had no influence on the day to day running of the vessel and had no influence in any of the navigational aspects of the vessel, his sole purpose was cargo aspects and would have to consult with the Filipino Master/Ch Officer on stability and theirs would be the final decision. So you cannot believe everything you read in the Press. The Japanese would be paying the Filipino owners a daily rate for the ship to trade where they wanted it to, but had no influence over the manning or operating of the vessel.

[Keith at Tregenna]

Thanks for the information, my concern actually regards to the loss of life.

K.

[Ivan Cloherty]

Thanks for the information, my concern actually regards to the loss of life.

K.

My #41 was solely in answer to your #40 where-in you were stating a perceived fact, no loss of life was mentioned in #40, As manager of a UAE Shipping Company (Global Shipping) responsible for setting up the company and chartering in over 100 ships on Time Charter and FIOS Charters and having a fleet of 22 Time Charter vessels operating at anyone time I believe that I may be well versed in the aspects of shipping more so than the correspondent whom you were quoting. That's all I am saying.

We serving and ex seafarers are always aware and have feelings for our fellow seafarers involved in tragedies/incidents both those who did not survive and those who did, such incidents leave an indelible mark on those involved in said incidents.

[j.sabourn]

As regards the post which states the navy would only be concerned on saving the ship. Would like to think that would be my concern as well and I"m not navy. The first obligation apart from saving human life was saving your vessel. Any master who skins out on the first sign of trouble is akin to the eyetie now serving a gaol sentence. Would be well rid of anyone showing those tendencies and could do without on board. A story that appeared in a newspaper about July 15th. 1988 was about a so called seaman who was claiming trauma money for having to witness a disaster 10 miles away. This I gave no credence to and just put it down to some reporter wanting to attract attention. If it was true however I would never of signed such on board any vessel I was on. JWS.

[John Arton]

Latest on the collision, the Captain of the container ship claims they tried to contact the naval vessel by light, no mention of VHF use but do the Navy even monitor Ch. 16?
USS Fitzgerald: Destroyer Ignored Warnings from Containership Before Collision -Reuters – gCaptain
The Container ships VDR will reveal all that they did.
rgds
JA

[John Arton]

Think this guy's comments are very true and relevant.
ttp://gcaptain.com/uss-fitzgerald-st...Captain.com%29
rgds
JA

[Ivan Cloherty]

Just been studying photographs of the new US Zumwalt Class of Stealth Destroyers, although I realise that they are built for stealth and plating is at odd planes to the vertical to bounce away incoming radar transmissions, studying the navigation bridge there is no where for any navigation officer to experience fresh air for an unobstructed view, or take azimuth bearings, nor will they be able to see right aft even pressing their noses against the side windows, their aft view also restricted by the accommodation block abaft and integral with the bridge. However with recent mishaps they will now probably have a stern lookout when in congested waters. maybe other photographs will show different aspects of navigating and observing facilities.

[j.sabourn]

#47... Ivan I was on a conversion US ex supply vessel for the North Sea. She had no views aft and had to rely on cameras which were all over the ship also. There was no expense spared for a safety vessel , hospital, morgue Fresh water showers all over thedeck outside for washing off survivors. Two FRCs you name it she had it. But still the thing lacking was crew numbers. Fought for and got those as well. The oil company’s however they see a supply type vessel and want to utalize it whenever possible for field transfers etc. Backing up to a rig or platform it is essential to have some sort of control and vision is the first thing. Cameras are not sufficient to feel confident with, might be alright for a motor car, but you aren’t driving a motor car, you are at the mercy of the sea and swell. The usual story you have the wrong people at the. Top making the wrong decisions. You might get away with it occasionally but twice you are chancing your arm. I did afield transfer on a trawler with no vision aft once, and got away with it, today would say no, might get the sack but today that wouldn’t bother me. People today rely far to much on electronic aids, the best aid any seaman has ishis eyes and his intuition and the ability to say No Way Hosaih. Cheers JWS. PS in case anyone has pictures of ships she was the Veesea Topaz. Came into the North Sea in 1989 she also had gas alarms all over the ship. JWS. PS Ivan I would imagine part. Ofthe arcitects design of these warships all planes and angles and apart from giving the least Radar image, would. Also be to facilitate washing down with water if exposed to nuclear. Or atomicradio active fallout. Again might be wrong. JWS.

[j.sabourn]

As this old post is on collissions and I have somewhere or other put a post about one I was on in 1962 in the river Plate . Does anyone and if anyone knows if the collission between the Dutch Passenger ship the ‘ Ruys’ , and the British ship Exmoor ever reached the media ? As far as I am aware the enquiry was held in BA which I was not called upon to attend which I found hard to believe at the time , not that I was complaining , but the 3 or 4 hours leading up to it I was the bridge watch keeper . 10 miniutes after leaving the bridge the collission occurred . The damage was substantial and the insurance I was led to believe was settled by the NE shipowners Association. There was no loss of life. The master himself must have kept me away from the enquiry. Just maybe he may of thought I might say too much ? It would be intereresting although 60 years ago to know if this mini disaster ever reached any publicity .Graham if your reading this your the one most likely to be sitting on it, if there ever was some reporter got a distorted view of it. Cheers JS

[cappy]

As this old post is on collissions and I have somewhere or other put a post about one I was on in 1962 in the river Plate . Does anyone and if anyone knows if the collission between the Dutch Passenger ship the ‘ Ruys’ , and the British ship Exmoor ever reached the media ? As far as I am aware the enquiry was held in BA which I was not called upon to attend which I found hard to believe at the time , not that I was complaining , but the 3 or 4 hours leading up to it I was the bridge watch keeper . 10 miniutes after leaving the bridge the collission occurred . The damage was substantial and the insurance I was led to believe was settled by the NE shipowners Association. There was no loss of life. The master himself must have kept me away from the enquiry. Just maybe he may of thought I might say too much ? It would be intereresting although 60 years ago to know if this mini disaster ever reached any publicity .Graham if your reading this your the one most likely to be sitting on it, if there ever was some reporter got a distorted view of it. Cheers JS

the only ref i saw in the shields gazette was.....A MAM IN NORTH SHIELDS STATES OUR JOHN NEVER DID IT ......BUT SHE DIDNT SIGN WHO SHE WAS ....SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN YOUR MAM.......lol cappy