• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

USS John S. McCain Collision 20 Aug 17

tomahawk6 said:
Singapore says the tanker was visible on VTIS but not the McCain. AIS on the McCain was turned off for security reasons. The article raises the hacking theory.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/us-destroyer-collision-uss-john-s-mccains-presence-undetectable-before-tragedy-struck-says

SINGAPORE - Singapore authorities did not detect the presence of US warship John S. McCain before its collision with an oil tanker in Singapore waters on Monday (Aug 21) morning, surfacing a possible cause for the accident.

The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) told The Straits Times that its Vessel Traffic Information System (VTIS) had detected only the presence of the tanker, Alnic MC.

The monitoring system detects and tracks vessels via their radar or the Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals, which all commercial ships have to switch on but warships are exempt from doing so.

Depending on visibility, that might not have made a difference. The collision happened on the starboard bow of the tanker. They would have held the McCain on radar, and would have clearly seen her and/or her lights (depending on the conditions of visibility at the time). Unless the merchant ship was conduct collision avoidance solely based on their AIS picture, I don't see the fact that McCain's AIS was off as the direct cause, but it could certainly have been a contributing factor, albeit a minor one, IMO.
 
Perhaps it is time to conduct a view classes on the use of the Mark 1 eyeball as a necessary requirement to supplement all those wonderful electronic aids.  Decades of procedures for ship-handling are predicated upon watchkeepers actually keeping watch: looking out the window. Employing RADAR, VTIS, AIS usage procedures are enhancements of those initial out the window activities.  It is far more comfortable however to sit in a padded bridge chair and glance periodically at the scope beside you than it is to actually go and stand on the bridge wing with a pair of binoculars and visually identify the orientation of the traffic shown on the scope. 
 
Thanks for the comments,they are enlightening. If McCain did in fact have a steering failure,then that will be the official cause for the collision.This will be borne out early in the investigation. Thanks again !!
 
tomahawk6 said:
Thanks for the comments,they are enlightening. If McCain did in fact have a steering failure,then that will be the official cause for the collision.This will be borne out early in the investigation. Thanks again !!

I wonder... If the McCain was the straw that broke the camel's back that got the CO of 7th Fleet tossed, and it turns out McCain was an unforeseeable mechanical failure, not a trainign or leadership failure, would he have grounds to grieve his dismissal?
 
Lumber said:
I wonder... If the McCain was the straw that broke the camel's back that got the CO of 7th Fleet tossed, and it turns out McCain was an unforeseeable mechanical failure, not a trainign or leadership failure, would he have grounds to grieve his dismissal?

He may have a case, but then again if the investigation finds planned maintenance procedures 7th fleet wide have not been correctly followed he maybe sunk anyways. 
 
Vadm Aucoin was due to retire and Radn Sawyer was his named replacement.Sawyer was slated for promotion to Vadm so they just moved everything up.
 
To add to T6's comment: Scheduled to retire within two weeks. Now he retires with a very big blot on his career.
 
Lumber said:
Depending on visibility, that might not have made a difference. The collision happened on the starboard bow of the tanker. They would have held the McCain on radar, and would have clearly seen her and/or her lights (depending on the conditions of visibility at the time). Unless the merchant ship was conduct collision avoidance solely based on their AIS picture, I don't see the fact that McCain's AIS was off as the direct cause, but it could certainly have been a contributing factor, albeit a minor one, IMO.

It's quite likely that both ships were aware of each other, but if the rudder failure is the primary cause, the amount of time to react could have been to short to correct it. The action of the bridge crew and engineering crew upon the failure will be examined. Quite possible that the requirement to go to action stations or prepare for collision might be one of the new procedures upon a mechanical failure in those waters.
 
Colin P said:
It's quite likely that both ships were aware of each other, but if the rudder failure is the primary cause, the amount of time to react could have been to short to correct it. The action of the bridge crew and engineering crew upon the failure will be examined. Quite possible that the requirement to go to action stations or prepare for collision might be one of the new procedures upon a mechanical failure in those waters.

Speaking from a RCN perspective if the waters were that restricted then our ships would have special sea dutymen or modified specials closed up, secondary steering would have been manned. The DC condition would have been at least yankee, with a collision zulu would have been ordered. I would have expected the US navy to have similar rules.

Dependent on the type of steering gear failure if that was the cause, then a backup may not been that effective as it does take time to reestablish steering.

 
Chief Stoker said:
Speaking from a RCN perspective if the waters were that restricted then our ships would have special sea dutymen or modified specials closed up, secondary steering would have been manned. The DC condition would have been at least yankee, with a collision zulu would have been ordered. I would have expected the US navy to have similar rules.

Dependent on the type of steering gear failure if that was the cause, then a backup may not been that effective as it does take time to reestablish steering.

Chief Stoker, riding on your post as a basis for questioning, and totally up for input from any who know...if USS McCain had suffered a steering failure that swung her from say, a Starboard 30 position on Alnic MC drawing down toward Alnic's starboard beam as it passed on the port side of McCain, now to the Port across Alnic's bow, what would an 'immediate [power-related] action' be regarding ship control, if secondary steering wasn't successful?  Full aft on the DDG's starboard screw and neutral on the port screw?

Regards
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
Chief Stoker, riding on your post as a basis for questioning, and totally up for input from any who know...if USS McCain had suffered a steering failure that swung her from say, a Starboard 30 position on Alnic MC drawing down toward Alnic's starboard beam as it passed on the port side of McCain, now to the Port across Alnic's bow, what would an 'immediate [power-related] action' be regarding ship control, if secondary steering wasn't successful?  Full aft on the DDG's starboard screw and neutral on the port screw?

Regards
G2G

If secondary wasn't successful then steer by main engines or emergency steering last resort depending on their EOP (EMERGENCY OPERATING PROCEDURES) Keep in mind if secondary wasn't manned then it would take over a minute to get back and switch over to secondary, its not instantaneous. Also keep in mind that not all secondary steering systems are not as responsive as primary.
 
The only large ship rudder failure I experienced was on one of the C class ferries rounding Bowen Island inbound for Horseshoe bay, when the Forward rudder locks let go and the rudder slammed over to Starboard causing the vessel to immediately turn to Starboard and not answering the helm, despite me bringing the wheel hard over to Port, of course it choose to do it directly at a small sailing craft, being single screw we could only stop engine and then full astern. Thankfully with no injury to anyone. It’s amazing how fast things can go wrong and how limited your time to action can be. Meanwhile your judgements in those few minutes/seconds may be analyzed for hours or days in an inquiry board or courtroom. 
 
Good2Golf said:
Chief Stoker, riding on your post as a basis for questioning, and totally up for input from any who know...if USS McCain had suffered a steering failure that swung her from say, a Starboard 30 position on Alnic MC drawing down toward Alnic's starboard beam as it passed on the port side of McCain, now to the Port across Alnic's bow, what would an 'immediate [power-related] action' be regarding ship control, if secondary steering wasn't successful?  Full aft on the DDG's starboard screw and neutral on the port screw?

Regards
G2G

USN Arleigh Burkes have twin screws, each one driven by two LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines, for a total of nearly 50,000 shaft horse power per screw.

If your rudder fails, causing your ship's head to pay off in an unintended directed, you have several different options, but they all depend on your proximity to other vessels and to land.

If I was on the bridge of McCain as her ship's head starting paying off to port, I would:
a. if the Alnic was far enough astern of me, go full speed ahead on my port engine, half-astern on my starboard engine, and get my ships head under control, then steer to safe position.
b. if the Alnic was too close to do this, I would go full speed ahead both engines ("All Ahead Flank!" in USN speak) and try and cut in front of her as fast as possible.

If I was a good OOW, I would be able to look out the window and and be able to make this decision very quickly.

If I was an even better OOW, I would already have both courses of action figured out, with specific distances from Alnic determining when I use which plan.
 
Lumber said:
USN Arleigh Burkes have twin screws, each one drive by two LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines, for a total of nearly 50,000 shaft horse power per screw.

If your rudder fails, and cause your ship's head to pay off in an unintended directed, you have several different options, but they all depend on your proximity to other vessels and to land.

If I was on the bridge of McCain as her ship's head starting paying off to port, I would:
a. if the Alnic was far enough astern of me, go full speed ahead on my port engine, half-astern on my starboard engine, and get my ships head under control, then steer to safe position.
b. if the Alnic was too close to do this, I would go full speed ahead both engines ("All Ahead Flank!" in USN speak) and try and cut in front of her as fast as possible.

If I was a good OOW, I would be able to look out the window and and be able to make this decision very quickly.

If I was an even better OOW, I would already have both courses of action figured out, with specific distances from Alnic determining when I use which plan.

Lumber, thanks to you and CS and Colin P for the feedback.  "Always have an out [alt action]" was something I was always mindful of flying, and I can imagine that with 100,000shp and tight quarters, bad things can/did happen to the McCain.  yes, I was wondering if "thrust, now" would have been a potential reaction, but I also wondered what the lateral separation between parallel lanes was in the Malacca Straits, and whether a "all-ahead flank" call could then become a 'crossing the highway into oncoming traffic' event.  Certainly a very hard place to be if that's what happened.  I still recall the video of a USN YTM being sunk after losing power/control and getting hung on an SSN's stern dive plane, it didn't take long for things to head south in a hurry.

Regards
G2G
 
Good2Golf said:
.... I also wondered what the lateral separation between parallel lanes was in the Malacca Straits, and whether a "all-ahead flank" call could then become a 'crossing the highway into oncoming traffic' event.

If you look at the location of the incident:

search-area-for-missing-in-john-s-mccain-collision.jpg


You'll notice that the collision happened on the outside edge of the McCain's and Alnic's traffic lane. So, yes, had McCain gone full ahead and tried to cut across her bow, she might have charged right into the side of a ship travelling in the opposing lane.

That being said, McCain and Alnic may have been so close already when the steering gear broke that no action was possible at all; that no engine or steering order by either ro both of the ships could have prevented a collision. You generally don't ever want to find yourself in those situations.
 
Good2Golf said:
Chief Stoker, riding on your post as a basis for questioning, and totally up for input from any who know...if USS McCain had suffered a steering failure that swung her from say, a Starboard 30 position on Alnic MC drawing down toward Alnic's starboard beam as it passed on the port side of McCain, now to the Port across Alnic's bow, what would an 'immediate [power-related] action' be regarding ship control, if secondary steering wasn't successful?  Full aft on the DDG's starboard screw and neutral on the port screw?

Regards
G2G

Allright, G2G. I've re-read the part underlined in yellow many times over and frankly ... what the hell are you talking about ??? 

I just can't picture what you mean, so as they say in Yes Minister, may I rephrase the question. Do you mean:

If McCain started from a position ahead of and about 30 degrees on Alnic's starboard bow and then suffered a steering breakdown that caused her to veer to port so that she would now cut off Alnic just as Alnic was almost coming level with the McCain, what would be the actions to take with the engines?

Is that the question?

If so, Lumber has answered you below, but not fully. Yes, the Arleigh Burke's are twin screws, but they are also controllable pitch (CPP). What he proposes, full ahead on the port engine combined with half astern on the starboard one would certainly send the bow swinging to starboard - even against a rudder stuck hard to port. In fact you would swing so fast you would get whiplash on the bridge.

To translate into air parlance, controllable pitch it's like a propeller airplane where you can control the pitch from a point where - based on the unchangeable direction of the shaft turning - you bite into the water so that you maximize forward trust and going all the way, in reverse, where you bit to maximize reverse trust. But unlike airplanes, we do not have "feathering" capability, so when you are at the "stop" position - midway - the blades of the screw are flat and act instead like a brake. You would be amazed how fast you lose way on a ship with CPP by going from, say 70% ahead power to merely "stop" position.

Contrary to what Chief Stoker implied, we don't wait until all other secondary and emergency steering methods have been used to start steering with engines. We teach OOW's that as soon as you realize you have a steering gear breakdown, you start steering with engines and continue to do so as long as necessary, even after the engineers inform you that they have switched to secondary. In fact, you would only proceed to test your secondary steering after you are convinced you can safely do so. In the meantime, you steer by engines.

In the case of the McCain, as soon as the helmsman reported loss of steering and the OOD notices a swing to port, he should have immediately (1) ordered the starboard engine stopped and evaluated the effect visually on the swing, if not enough then increase the difference between the two engines; (2) ordered the QM to sound six short blast on the ship's horn; (3) order the signals watch to hoist two black balls and issue a securite general call over channel 16 VHF to inform all traffic they had a steering gear breakdown in the strait.

If he noticed how close Alnic was, he should then have called for a general pipe to be made calling for the closing of all red openings followed by a pipe to brace for collision port aft, finally followed by emergency stations.

And G2G, if you look at the separation scheme that Lumber put just below here, you can see a thick purple line between the two opposing lanes. That's like a divider on the highway - no one should be there - however, what you don't see is that it's probably about half a nautical to 3/4 of  nautical mile wide. With their CPP and the power at their disposal, Arleigh Burke's should be able to enter such a zone at full speed and actually immediately proceed to full astern and stop themselves fully while still inside that divider. It would however probably take an OOW with balls to pull something like that on his/her own without the captain.

 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
If so, Lumber has answered you below, but not fully. Yes, the Arleigh Burke's are twin screws, but they are also controllable pitch (CPP). What he proposes, full ahead on the port engine combined with half astern on the starboard one would certainly send the bow swinging to starboard - even against a rudder stuck hard to port. In fact you would swing so fast you would get whiplash on the bridge.

We don't do enough of these kind of drills. I believe you, and trust in your experience, but my gut doesn't tell me we would recover from the turn THAT fast, simply because, in all my time on the bridge, we never did this. I was maybe on the bridge for one hard-over-rudder SGB that was a total surprise to me, and we were in completely open water, and there was no need to be this aggressive, so I never had to go full speed ahead port, stop starboard, half/full astern stbd. The only close quarters situation SGB I head was in Satellite channel overtaking an Orca aboard CAL. In this case, they didn't even move the rudder, they just turned off steerring, and I had ESP closed up. So, all I'm saying is, if you're right and they could have used engines to come hard right and avoid this, it's not something that intuitively comes to mind, because I don't have enough experience... unfortunately.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Contrary to what Chief Stoker implied, we don't wait until all other secondary and emergency steering methods have been used to start steering with engines. We teach OOW's that as soon as you realize you have a steering gear breakdown, you start steering with engines and continue to do so as long as necessary, even after the engineers inform you that they have switched to secondary. In fact, you would only proceed to test your secondary steering after you are convinced you can safely do so. In the meantime, you steer by engines.

Quite right steer by main engines until out of danger, then secondary once it closes up. Steering by main engines may not be viable. I guess this is all speculation as we weren't on the bridge that day.

 
Or maybe you should say "fortunately" Lumber  ;D

On ATH, Cdr MacIntosh did a full three hours of engine steering with all the mars officers once. Interestingly enough, we found that with the rudder amidship, you could do the equivalent of a standard rudder turn (nearly the same advance and transfer) with a differential of about 20% between engines (say 50% ahead on one and 70% ahead on the other). We also found out that again with the rudder amidship, you could let the throttle man steer the ship by using very little differential. with no more than 5% difference at most and by being careful with the movements, they could steer a course to the nearest 2 degrees without much difficulty.

That was pretty cool day at sea, I must say.  ;D

Don't know how the FFH's react - never been to sea in any of them.

Additional: Perhaps you could propose some trial of that concept to your next captain, Lumber, by using the McCain as the basis for trying it out: At an open waters area in relative calm seas, proceed at about 14 Kts then, order and hold the rudder hard to port. Immediately order 90 % ahead on port engine and 50 % astern on starboard and see what happens. Could be instructive for all.
 
excellent ideas although you might have to convince some cautious Captains and Chief Engineers that you won't break their ship.
 
Back
Top