Slate Chocolate Marble
Slate Chocolate Marble

Led Zeppelin Official Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Hotplant

Random Thoughts v.3

11,423 posts in this topic

50 minutes ago, IpMan said:

My friend Mike served on the USS Arleigh Burke (the first of this designation) from late 1991 until 1996 as a Fire Control Officer (guy who shoots missiles and stuff). He told me there is only one scenario which explains this: The navigator and or conn officer on deck refused to yield to the larger ship per maritime rules (smaller ships must yield to larger ships, ships to port must yield to ships to starboard). Whoever was in charge, on deck, violated at least two key maritime rules and also a good half-dozen naval rules as well.

He informed me this type of thing (expecting everyone else to yield) happened all the time and the US Navy & Russian Navy in particular have very bad reputation(s) across the globe for this type of behavior. Bottom line: many officers on these ships believe might makes right, unfortunately they sometimes find out the hard way that a 300m cargo vessel vs. a 160m destroyer = bad. In fact the cargo ship likely would have yielded if it were possible, but since it takes a good seven miles to stop a large cargo ship of this size and several miles just to turn, there was nothing the cargo ship could have done.

This is 100% the fault of the officer on duty of the Destroyer.

Fault cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt until after a proper investigation. It could be that the container ship overtook the destroyer from behind. The angle of damage to both ships suggests the destroyer may have been broadsided from behind. If that is correct the crew of the container ship may have violated the international COLREGS, or "rules of the road" on the high seas. Of course, the question would remain why didn't the destroyer perform an evasive maneuver to avoid being overtaken from behind. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SteveAJones said:

Fault cannot be determined beyond a reasonable doubt until after a proper investigation. It could be that the container ship overtook the destroyer from behind. The angle of damage to both ships suggests the destroyer may have been broadsided from behind. If that is correct the crew of the container ship may have violated the international COLREGS, or "rules of the road" on the high seas. Of course, the question would remain why didn't the destroyer perform an evasive maneuver to avoid being overtaken from behind. 

 

Except if that was the case there is still no excuse why the Destroyer did not evade. The cargo ship is a massive vessel, the Destroyer is much more nimble on the seas (not littoral nimble but comparatively speaking) and could have easily avoided the collision.

No excuse, 100% the fault of the Destroyers deck officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IpMan said:

Except if that was the case there is still no excuse why the Destroyer did not evade. The cargo ship is a massive vessel, the Destroyer is much more nimble on the seas (not littoral nimble but comparatively speaking) and could have easily avoided the collision.

No excuse, 100% the fault of the Destroyers deck officer.

I tend to agree.  I have an old friend who spent 6 years on a carrier deck as a signalman.  When out at sea, 12 on/12 off shifts were very common.  Considering where this destroyer was sailing, and the state of current events, I would think the crew would be on high-alert patrol status for anything in the air or water.  Really quite a strange incident.  I wonder if conversations at the helm and radar/sonar are recorded in some way.  It would be interesting to know exactly at what point they recognized each other's presence, if at all.  Anyone asleep in their bunk got an awful rude awakening.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, IpMan said:

Except if that was the case there is still no excuse why the Destroyer did not evade. The cargo ship is a massive vessel, the Destroyer is much more nimble on the seas (not littoral nimble but comparatively speaking) and could have easily avoided the collision.

No excuse, 100% the fault of the Destroyers deck officer.

Horseshit! When you've driving down the freeway do you veer left every time a vehicle approaches from the rear, or do you make the reasonable assumption the passing vehicle will elect to stay in it's lane as opposed to sideswiping yours at the last moment? Let the investigation run its course, and THEN we can assign fault.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Horseshit! When you've driving down the freeway do you veer left every time a vehicle approaches from the rear, or do you make the reasonable assumption the passing vehicle will elect to stay in it's lane as opposed to sideswiping yours at the last moment? Let the investigation run its course, and THEN we can assign fault.  

Oh yes Steve, excellent analogy equating massive ships at sea to the daily commute. I am sure this is exactly what the officer on deck was thinking too...that is if the officer on deck was a 10 year old brought on board due to bring your kid to work day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loving the new season of Orange Is The New Black! Holy moly! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, IpMan said:

Oh yes Steve, excellent analogy equating massive ships at sea to the daily commute. I am sure this is exactly what the officer on deck was thinking too...that is if the officer on deck was a 10 year old brought on board due to bring your kid to work day.

Rules of the road, so to speak, apply to both examples. The mass of the colliding objects is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

The mass of the colliding objects is irrelevant.

Tell that to the families of the deceased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stockholm after colliding with the Andrea Doria in 1956.

Stockholm_following_Andrea_Doria_collisi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... its officially Summer and the sweltering heat is on. ugh  Think i'll move to Phoenix :veryhot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, IpMan said:

Tell that to the families of the deceased.

Ok, the mass of colliding objects is irrelevant (with regard to the rules of the road on land or at sea).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, greengrass said:

... its officially Summer and the sweltering heat is on. ugh  Think i'll move to Phoenix :veryhot:

Me too. Gotta mow the yard in 120* weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching the Foo Fighters live at Glastonbury, I don't get them at all  what is the attraction.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Strider said:

Any "Young & the Restless" fans out there?

More like 'The Old And Resting.' ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, paul carruthers said:

* Raises Hand*

Cool. Your Christmas present is taken care of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw an old guy with a Page and Plant shirt in a Homebase type shop in France, made me smile. First time it happened :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 5:26 AM, JTM said:

 

El Capitan es stupido.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 People, including 2 "police" officers charged over The Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. About time too.

Now for other charges against police brutality at Orgreave Coking Plant in 1984 where they were out of control and injured many and lied about the actions of miners.

Worse, much worse was the so called "Battle of the Beanfield" in 1985. This from wiki:

The Battle of the Beanfield took place over several hours on 1 June 1985, when Wiltshire Police prevented The Peace Convoy, a convoy of several hundred New Age travellers, from setting up the 1985 Stonehenge Free Festival in Wiltshire, England. The police were enforcing a High Court injunction obtained by the authorities prohibiting the 1985 festival from taking place.[3] Around 1,300 police officers took part in the operation against approximately 600 travellers.[1]

The convoy of travellers heading for Stonehenge encountered resistance at a police road block seven miles from the landmark. Police claim that some traveller vehicles then rammed police vehicles in an attempt to push through the roadblock.[3] Around the same time police smashed the windows of the convoy's vehicles and some travellers were arrested. The rest broke into an adjacent field and a stand-off consequently developed that persisted for several hours.[1] According to the BBC "Police said they came under attack, being pelted with lumps of wood, stones and even petrol bombs".[3][4] Conversely, The Guardian states the travellers were not armed with petrol bombs and that police intelligence suggesting so "was false".[1]

Eventually the police launched another attack during which the worst of the violence is purported to have taken place. According to The Observer, during this period pregnant women and those holding babies were clubbed by police with truncheons and the police were hitting "anybody they could reach". When some of the travellers tried to escape by driving away through the fields, The Observer states that the police threw truncheons, shields, fire-extinguishers and stones at them in an attempt to stop them.[1]

Dozens of travellers were injured,[1] 8 police officers and 16 travellers were hospitalised.[2] 537 travellers were eventually arrested.[1] This represents one of the largest mass arrest of civilians since at least the Second World War,[5] possibly one of the biggest in English legal history.[6]

Two years after the event, a Wiltshire police sergeant was found guilty of Actual Bodily Harm as a consequence of injuries incurred by a member of the convoy during the Battle of the Beanfield.[4]

In February 1991 a civil court judgement awarded 21 of the travellers £24,000 in damages for false imprisonment, damage to property and wrongful arrest.[4] The award was swallowed by their legal bill as the judge did not award them legal costs.[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chillumpuffer said:

6 People, including 2 "police" officers charged over The Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. About time too.

 

It's been a long time coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now