Exclusive: U.S. warship stayed on deadly collision course despite warning - container ship captain

Authored by reuters.com and submitted by snowsnothing

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald, damaged by colliding with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel, is seen at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, Japan, in this photo taken by Kyodo June 18, 2017. Mandatory credit Kyodo/via REUTERS

FILE PHOTO: The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald, damaged by colliding with a Philippine-flagged merchant vessel, is towed into the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, Japan June 17, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai/File Photo

TOKYO A U.S. warship struck by a container vessel in Japanese waters failed to respond to warning signals or take evasive action before a collision that killed seven of its crew, according to a report of the incident by the Philippine cargo ship's captain.

Multiple U.S. and Japanese investigations are under way into how the guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald and the much larger ACX Crystal container ship collided in clear weather south of Tokyo Bay in the early hours of June 17.

In the first detailed account from one of those directly involved, the cargo ship's captain said the ACX Crystal had signaled with flashing lights after the Fitzgerald "suddenly" steamed on to a course to cross its path.

How the Federal Reserve serves U.S. foreign intelligence

Supreme Court revives Trump travel ban

Google set to face record EU antitrust fine

The container ship steered hard to starboard (right) to avoid the warship, but hit the Fitzgerald 10 minutes later at 1:30 a.m., according to a copy of Captain Ronald Advincula's report to Japanese ship owner Dainichi Investment Corporation that was seen by Reuters.

The U.S. Navy declined to comment and Reuters was not able to independently verify the account.

The collision tore a gash below the Fitzgerald's waterline, killing seven sailors in what was the greatest loss of life on a U.S. Navy vessel since the USS Cole was bombed in Yemen's Aden harbor in 2000.

Those who died were in their berthing compartments, while the Fitzgerald's commander was injured in his cabin, suggesting that no alarm warning of an imminent collision was sounded.

A spokesman for the U.S. Navy's Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, the Fitzgerald's home port, said he was unable to comment on an ongoing investigation.

The incident has spurred six investigations, including two internal hearings by the U.S. Navy and a probe by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) on behalf of the National Transportation Safety Board. The Japan Transport Safety Board, the JCG and the Philippines government are also conducting separate investigations.

Spokesmen from the Japan Coast Guard (JCG), U.S. Coast Guard and ship owner, Dainichi Invest, also declined to comment. Reuters was not able to contact Advincula, who was no longer in Japan.

The investigations will examine witness testimony and electronic data to determine how a naval destroyer fitted with sophisticated radar could be struck by a vessel more than three times its size.

Another focus of the probes has been the length of time it took the ACX Crystal to report the collision. The JCG says it was first notified at 2:25 a.m., nearly an hour after the accident.

In his report, the ACX Crystal's captain said there was "confusion" on his ship's bridge, and that it turned around and returned to the collision site after continuing for 6 nautical miles (11 km).

Shipping data in Thomson Reuters Eikon shows that the ACX Crystal, chartered by Japan's Nippon Yusen KK (9101.T), made a complete U-turn between 12:58 a.m. and 2:46 a.m.

fumat on June 26th, 2017 at 16:45 UTC »

I've been in the Navy on a similar vessel and my job was Helmsman/Lookout. I can assure you there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY the destroyer was not aware of the container ship. There are at least 5 or 6 people on the bridge at any given time and there are multiple ways to send or receive navigation warnings: radio, radar, visual (light or flag signals) or acoustic (which is pretty loud). In my opinion, Officer Of the Watch (OOW) made and error in judgment ordering the helmsman to turn to Starboard and the rest of the bridge crew failed to inform/remind him about the potential danger. PS. I had multiple instances while I was at the helm when OOW, XO and even the CO instructed me to turn Port or Starboard when they actually meant the opposite so I felt compelled to ask them to repeat and inform them about the potential dangers of executing the manoeuvre. "Errare est humanum"

Edit. I just passed along the news to my ex CO and asked for his opinion. He said "The destroyer is 100% at fault. According to COLREG the merchant ship was correct to turn to Starboard in order to avoid the accident."

fastinserter on June 26th, 2017 at 13:07 UTC »

I wouldn't necessarily think this man is telling the truth. The satellite gps data shows the container ship sailing back on course for half an hour. It was on autopilot. It was an hour before it came back to the site of the accident.

That said being hit on starboard side def indicates the fault of the destroyer. The container ship crossing on their right had right of way.

The Navy ship should have multiple lookouts plus radar with the operations room screaming at the bridge to change course. And the captain should have been woken up with another ship that close. So many things failed, and people died.

NoAstronomer on June 26th, 2017 at 11:44 UTC »

Sounds similar to what happened with the Andrea Doria when she collided with the MV Stockholm. Both ships turned to avoid a collision but the combination of their turns canceled each other out so they collided.