
Maybe today’s Navy is just not very good at driving ships - smacktoward
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/08/27/navy-swos-a-culture-in-crisis/
======
Jtsummers

      “We do not put a premium on being good mariners,” Hoffman
      said. “We put a premium on being good inspection takers
      and admin weenies.”
    

This is a problem across the DoD, not just the Navy. I've seen it first hand
in both military and civilian sides of the USAF. It's comparable to the
degradation of the US public schools with extensive testing. The tests that
start as attempts to evaluate and quantify effectiveness become the goals
themselves, rather than measures of the true goals.

~~~
ashark
I think it's a consequence of taking away individual judgement and becoming,
it seems, terrified of letting a person make a decision, because sometimes
they're bad at it, or have biases, or whatever. Organizations are afraid of
individuals deciding things, and individuals are eager to push their decisions
onto a "process" or "policy" because if they actually make a decision and
anything goes wrong—whether or not the decision was a good one given the
information they had—they're toast, fired if they're lucky, publicly demonized
and blackballed and fined and jailed if they're not. The individual cost of a
decision that is bad—even if it's only bad in hindsight—is too often _way_ out
of proportion to the harm it caused, so why risk it?

I don't know why it's happening, but it sure explains a lot of things across
much of US society. Politics, business, education, parenting. I wouldn't be
surprised if it's part of what's behind the frightening US "cost disease"
phenomenon from the Slate Star Codex post that was discussed here a few months
back.

~~~
nostrademons
I think you're observing Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, which I guess
could be stated pithily as "The goal of every bureaucracy is to become self-
sustaining. Those that don't are replaced by those that do":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy)

It's interesting that another active comment thread on the HN front page today
is about evolutionary game theory & the selfish gene. I'd posit that there's a
whole class of "evolutionary systems", subject to the axioms of 1.) large
numbers 2.) random variation 3.) selection bias and 4.) competitive pressure.
And any such system will always tend toward survival and maintenance of the
status quo as its primary imperative, for the simple, tautological reason that
those organizations that don't are replaced by those that do. This operates on
multiple levels, from the molecule to the gene to the cell to the individual
to the firm to the bureaucracy to the society as a whole. Oftentimes, behavior
that makes no sense on one level seems obvious if you consider the "actor" to
be the level above or below what you're looking at: the gene instead of the
individual, or the firm instead of the individual, or the society instead of
the firm.

In your example, for instance, the primary actor whose survival that the
bureaucracy optimizes for isn't the individual: it's the bureaucracy itself.
Individuals who serve their own interests instead of the bureaucracy are
rejected and fired, as are individuals who serve the other individuals that
the bureaucracy supposedly benefits. Why? Because bureaucracies without this
incentive structure are replaced by bureaucracies with it.

And there actually are plenty of areas within U.S. society where bureaucracies
are _not_ the primary actors. The individual is still valued over the firm or
bureaucracy within therapy culture, artist communities, fandom, Internet
forums, dinner parties, and many other social contexts. But because there is
no central bureaucracy or organization to point to, these niches fall off our
radar screen; niches where individual humans remain dominant are by definition
areas without enough resources to support a bureaucracy.

Baumol's cost disease is different, and IMHO a more short-term ailment that's
afflicting developed economies as they transition to the information age. This
phenomena of growing ever more complex systems on top of individuals is
pervasive, and will continue to happen as long as the population keeps
growing.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The trouble with that analysis is that "self-sustaining" doesn't inherently
imply large or bureaucratic or inefficient. It's possible for a large
inefficient bureaucracy to be replaced by a more efficient self-sustaining
system with less centralization.

The bureaucracy can _fight_ but it can also _lose_. Blockbuster Video is no
longer a thing that exists because of market pressure. Standard Oil was broken
up because of political pressure. There have existed countries that, following
the conclusion of a major war, actually disbanded the majority of their
military forces, both voluntarily and due to external force. Countries have
revolutions where the revolutionaries win and then exile or execute the
previous ruling bureaucrats.

In theory the same thing can happen through the democratic process, although
this is obviously less common because bureaucracies have a solid understanding
of how to subvert electoral opposition.

~~~
jessaustin
Your examples are of bureaucracies destroyed from the outside, by stronger
competitors for the same resources. It's quite impossible to curb a
bureaucracy from the inside, e.g. through "democratic process". The system
will not fix the problems with the system.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Perhaps, but so don't do that.

If the wasteful bureaucracy will not commit suicide then help some less
wasteful one to commit fratricide.

~~~
readams
Just need a competing Navy to conquer the US. Easy as pie.

~~~
jessaustin
If they have container ships, I wouldn't bet against them...

------
komali2
>After 2003, each young officer was issued a set of 21 CD-ROMs for computer-
based training — jokingly called “SWOS in a Box” — to take with them to sea
and learn. Young officers were required to complete this instructor-less
course in between earning their shipboard qualifications, management of their
divisions and collateral duties.

I'm trying to find the "seaman's schedule" someone in the navy posted on
reddit, but it basically demonstrated that between watches and other ship
duties, there was on average 5 hours of sleep a day a seaman could get,
usually at random hours, and not always consecutively. Curious when in that
schedule they could slot in "watching video lectures," and whether they'd be
able to even stay awake during them, let alone focus.

~~~
joezydeco
Here you go:

[https://np.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/6uz5hj/uss_john_mccain...](https://np.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/6uz5hj/uss_john_mccain_collides_with_merchant_ship/dlx2esb/?context=3)

~~~
GingerBoats
I served on both a FFGs and DDGs as a BM. This is pretty much a normal routine
out at Sea. Doesn't matter if it's a week, month, or year. It's fairly similar
sleep and work schedule. Combine it with other collateral duties, Flying
Squad, SAR Swimmer, LSE, Boat Coxwain, etc and it just slowly erodes your time
away.

It's not all doom and gloom though. If you properly communicate with your
chain of command, and slowly train junior personnel into the proper
qualifications, the problem starts to go away. Though, you're not looking at
more than 5-6 hours of sleep straight on a good day.

~~~
ptero
> If you properly communicate with your chain of command, and slowly train
> junior personnel into the proper qualifications, the problem starts to go
> away. Though, you're not looking at more than 5-6 hours of sleep straight on
> a good day.

This, to me, is a major problem. Many (most) young humans do not do well on 6
hours of sleep or less for a long time. One could probably load up on
stimulants, but this I suspect will bite you later.

Given that this happens in peacetime, do you think it can be improved with
better technology? That is, instead of, say, three people watching screens 18
hours/day you get them to do the work as well (or better) in 12 hours/day if
you give them better displays? I suspect it is not that simple, but would
still like to know where the snag is.

~~~
maxerickson
The snag is funding. The level of resources they have is inadequate for the
mission they are carrying out.

~~~
Pharylon
That's hard to believe, considering how much the US spends on the military.

~~~
maxerickson
The ships are understaffed (see the discussion here about people having 16+
hours of duty per 24 hours) and under maintained.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15120636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15120636)

Add crew and duty hours would go down. Reduce hours of operations and
maintenance would be better. More crew obviously costs more. Reducing hours of
operation means a smaller mission or more ships.

------
rectang
And/or maybe Navy higher-ups, having resolutely learned nothing from the
airline industry and crew resource management, pretend that there is no such
thing as sleep deprivation.

~~~
komali2
Culture of self flagellation. Somehow the finance industry, Japan, and Taiwan
all still haven't learned from this. From the way my investment banker
roommate talks about it, they almost seem to get off to it.

~~~
DontGiveTwoFlux
Medicine as well. Medical residents can have shifts that are 24 hours long.

~~~
mikeash
I understand that medicine is tricky because the handoff from one doctor to
the next can be dangerous for patients. You have to balance continuity with
exhaustion. That's not to say that they necessarily have the right balance
now, but it's a hard problem.

~~~
arjie
I've heard doctors say this, but they never cite evidence. But there is a
wealth of evidence that says that doctor performance drops significantly with
motor performance being harmed so much as to increase the number of errors and
excess movements. I'll add the citation at the end, but it's not about the
single study; it's about the fact that there is little evidence to the
contrary and lots of evidence saying it's the case. If this were a drug, we'd
be prescribing it every which way.

And most importantly, know that this is not necessary. American doctor supply
is restricted by the AMA. America could suck the best doctors out of many
other nations if it so desired and its healthcare practitioners would be
better rested, more mentally well, and far less error prone.

[http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7323/1222.1.short](http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7323/1222.1.short)

~~~
brownbat
> I've heard doctors say this, but they never cite evidence.

Seems pretty well researched by a quick google. Maybe they're eliding the
support not because it's an assumption, but because it's so thoroughly
established they take it for granted?

[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1405556#t=article...](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1405556#t=articleBackground)

[https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primers/primer/9/handoffs-and-
signout...](https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primers/primer/9/handoffs-and-signouts)

...

> But there is a wealth of evidence that says that doctor performance drops
> significantly with motor performance being harmed

That's true too, but I worry you're trying to rebut (X & Y) with evidence for
Y.

If we find ourselves slipping into a battle of emphasis, maybe we face a
problem of optimization?

~~~
arjie
From what I'm seeing, your hypothesis about this being a question of
optimisation seems well supported. I worry that medical professionals resist
changes here out of cultural belief or a resistance to process. That wouldn't
be without precedent. Even something as well-established as washing hands
between patients isn't done without explicit process (compliance is near 13%
without explicit reinforcement for something that everyone learns the legend
of Semmelweis for), and surgeons refuse even _private_ outcomes tracking.

~~~
brownbat
Agreed, I can't know from first principles if the right shift length is 4 or 8
or 30. I'm sympathetic to your suggestion that it would be a surprising
coincidence if doctors landed on the perfect number through historical
accident. Maybe they have a feel for safety in shift length, but they don't in
other areas like washing, so maybe not.

It probably varies by specialty and even individuals, probably a monster of a
problem.

------
navyguy
The article puts focus on Officers, but same is true with Enlisted Sailors. I
was an Electrician who was sent out to the fleet with 1 week of electrical
training. When I arrived to the fleet I did know the names of the tools I
would be using, but Navy was very confident that I could be trained onboard to
solve complex problems.

Luckily, I had a Chief who had gone through the old Electrical school and was
a capable Electrician. I got to learn a lot from him and by the time I
finished my contract I felt like I had become a good enough Electrician.

I am afraid when these guys who had proper Electrical training retire, what
will happen to the fleet ? This problem is very rampant in the Navy for almost
every discipline.

------
TYPE_FASTER
That's a really good read.

If the Navy really tried to replace helm and watch time with DVD courseware,
they are in trouble. How do you teach a cadet how to get used to fading light
and natural night vision via a 30min lesson?

Kind of related: [http://www.yachtingworld.com/blogs/elaine-bunting/comment-
ho...](http://www.yachtingworld.com/blogs/elaine-bunting/comment-how-the-team-
vestas-wind-crash-really-happened-and-the-surprisingly-simple-things-we-can-
learn-from-it-62634)

A professional navigator put a Volvo Ocean Race boat onto a reef, due mostly
to not looking at paper charts.

~~~
fredgrott
They could of did what the US Army did in coming up with a game simulating
real-life conditions...you could simulate fading light, navigation going
out,and whole host of things requiring exercise of good judgment..might even
up numbers of recruits for the US Navy as a whole..

------
willyt
Crew resource management is non-existent: Listen to the officer of the watch
shout down the other person in the lead up to the USS Porter collision.
[http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-
porter/](http://gcaptain.com/intense-bridge-conversation-porter/)

~~~
cconover
This is an area where I think the Coast Guard does a decent job. We have a
program called Team Coordination Training[0] which, while monotonous and
annoying to those who have to take it every year, aims to instruct students on
the importance of clear, non-punitive communication between all members of a
crew or team to ensure maximum situational awareness. Some implementations of
the training are better than others, but the intent is good, and is a more
useful tool than generic risk assessment models that are frequently blown off
in practice.

[0]
[https://www.uscg.mil/safety/cg1131/tct.asp](https://www.uscg.mil/safety/cg1131/tct.asp)

~~~
treetoppin
I was a Junior Officer on a Coast Guard cutter for a year and a half. Without
a doubt it comes down to command climate. Our Captain had "Standing Orders"
that every deck watch officer was required to follow. This is required for all
Coast Guard vessels, and I imagine for all Navy vessels as well. Included in
these were reasons to call the Captain, where if certain parameters were met
you had to call the Captain (and if its late at night that meant waking
him/her up, explaining a situation over the phone, and providing a valid
recommendation in accordance with the navigation rules of the road). The JOs I
knew who made shitty and dangerous deck watch officers were those who would
try to skirt the rules in order to avoid calling the captain. If the standing
orders said to call the captain and provide a solution to avoid coming within
two nautical miles of another vessel, and the radar was providing closest
point of approach solutions that bounced between 1 nm and 2 nm, they would
interpret that as not being necessary to call the captain.

So why would a deck watch officer not want to call the captain? Well if the
captain refuses to ever admit to being wrong, chews people out for tiny
things, tells people not to disturb them, or overall doesnt support their
junior members then people become less worried about safety and more worried
about covering their ass. A lack of training, crew fatigue and bad command end
up with bad decisions being made, and when bad decisions are made at that
scale people can die.

------
nowarninglabel
Plug for David Marquet's book "Turn the Ship Around" about his time improving
training / operations on a submarine he commanded. Every one had to announce
their intention to do an action before actually doing it, this gave others the
chance to identify when someone was going to take an incorrect action before
it happened.

It's a really great, short read that I'd highly recommend and gives some more
background into the operational issues with the Navy.

~~~
robotresearcher
That approach works even if you are doing an action alone.

Stating clearly: "I am pushing my commits to production", or even trivial
stuff like "I am feeding the cats".

You (a) get a chance to realize if that's a stupid thing to do,(b) get to
notice if your action doesn't match your stated intent, and (c) have a better
chance of remembering that you did it. It really helps me, particularly when
there's a lot going on to distract you.

See also the Japanese train guards and drivers, who point at stuff they are
attending to, even when no one is looking.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling)

~~~
sorenjan
Reminds me of rubber duck debugging:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging)

~~~
eric_h
Where I work, we'll ask each other to be our "talking duck". Usually just
talking through the problem, with no response from the person playing the
"duck", is enough to figure out what's wrong.

------
markbnj
The article makes a lot of sense. If you know ships than it's not difficult to
imagine how timidity - an unwillingness to literally "rock the boat" by making
a course or engine revs change, waking up a senior officer, etc. - could lead
to a situation where two vessels are converging past the point where anything
can be done about it. In the merchant fleets, and in yachting circles where
more competent sailors are involved, the people in control of vessels are
taught that the best way to avoid a collision at sea is to make big, early
changes to course and speed that the other vessel can clearly recognize and
act on. It's possible that's the one sort of action the current culture
discourages.

~~~
nnfy
Is it possibly good navy "opsec" not to telegraph maneuvers?

~~~
cconover
If they're not actively engaged in a naval exercise or actual warfighting
requiring them to maneuver outside the Navigation Rules[0], they are subject
to the rules the same as any other vessel - and even then, that's a pretty
hard argument to make without actual shots fired in anger. Considerations are
made in the rules for special requirements for lighting of naval vessels that,
by the nature of their design, are unable to comply with the rules. However,
the rules regarding avoiding collision apply to everyone, at all times.

[0]
[https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pd...](https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pdf)

------
jayess
Likely another example of how bureaucracies become complacent, increasingly
incompetent, and begin to structurally fail until some sort of catalyzing
external event forces a restructuring and systemic reset.

As the saying goes, nothing changes until it has to. The military is a
bureaucracy like any other, from personal experience. The problem with
government bureaucracies is that there's no market pressure to fix things.
Failure is rewarded and even encouraged since there is no real consequence.

~~~
jackmott
Indeed the world would be much better with privatized armies.Nothing like
profit incentive for war.

~~~
jayess
That's not at all what I was saying.

------
mikey_p
Sounds eerily similar to the concerns raised around the USS Iowa disaster:

> "We're shorthanded. Chiefs with seventeen years of service are quitting.
> I've got to teach these kids to push the right button, or they'll blow us to
> kingdom come! My butt is on the line!"

> Ziegler was especially concerned about his center gun crew. The rammerman,
> Robert W. Backherms, was inexperienced, as were the powder car operator,
> Gary J. Fisk, the primerman, Reginald L. Johnson Jr., and the gun captain,
> Richard Errick Lawrence.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion)

------
gonewest
So far 3 out of 3 reader comments at the bottom of that article somehow
interpret the root cause as being the Navy's focus on diversity goals?
Seriously?

~~~
rch
Those comments are coming directly from Facebook, so they probably didn't even
attempt to read the article.

------
mmmBacon
I had friends in college in the 1990s who were in the NROTC program. At the
time I recall it was a big deal and discussion on campus that the Navy was
removing/canceling requirements for celestial navigation. I think the reason
cited was the prevalence of GPS.

Here's a great article about how astronomers at Vanderbilt helped the Navy
reintroduce celestial navigation back into the NROTC curriculum.

>>>In the 1990’s increasing reliance on navigation technologies including GPS
caused the Navy to drop celestial navigation from its officer training
curriculum. Now, increasing awareness of the vulnerability of these systems to
hacking and other types of disruption has prompted it to reintroduce the
requirement.

[https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/07/26/vanderbilt-
astronomer...](https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/07/26/vanderbilt-astronomers-
help-nrotc-midshipmen-learn-celestial-navigation/)

~~~
yardie
Celestial navigation isn't difficult. I learned the basics in an afternoon. It
requires a sextant, a calculation book, and a really good timepiece. If you've
noticed that really expensive watches have a maritime theme it's because
accuracy costs money in an era before NTP servers and GPS.

In a small sailboat rocking in 3-4 foot waves I was accurate to ~50 miles. The
crew member who taught me was accurate within a mile. He was also 65 and felt
the GPS was almost as accurate as his sightings :-)

------
Stranger43
It might be yet another case of the US preparing for the war it wants to fight
while ignoring the skills it need to operate in the real world.

The US doctrine have always been fleet warfare with large formations of US
ships sailing alone on the open sea or in some water they have complete
dominance over. which is exactly the opposite environment to where the recent
accidents have happens as the us is forced to operate single ships under IMO
rules something I suspect is not a big part of the west point curriculum as no
self respecting naval officer is going to be caught dead doing coast guard
type work

The interesting and often forgotten thing here is that the Royal Navy who are
way better sailors, and have far less cultural aversions towards playing coast
guard then the USN failed miserably at a very similar mission in the icy
waters around Iceland doing the 70ies and 80ies when Iceland decided to extend
their economic exclusion zone beyond what the UK fishing fleets were willing
to abide by.

The problem is that nobody in Washington want the US navy to start a shooting
match within range of china's coastal missile batteries so none of the
warships equipment is applicable for any confrontation. so all they can really
do if the Chinese coast guard decide to board some "allied trawler" fishing in
what China calls Chinese waters is lurk about a 1000 yards away and yell on
the radio.

~~~
DugFin
> _The US doctrine have always been fleet warfare with large formations of US
> ships sailing alone on the open sea or in some water they have complete
> dominance over_

One of the problems with the US Navy over the last 70+ years has been a
tendency act as if they're still fighting WW2. It shows up in a lot of places
in interesting ways. Another example is the USMC's fixation with hot beach
amphibious assault, a tactic which is completely outdated with the advent of
modern air power, and which hasn't actually been utilized since the Incheon
landing in 1950.

~~~
bdunbar
\- In 1991 4th Brigade was kept afloat in the Gulf, forcing the Iraqi army to
devote resources to protecting beaches in and around Kuwait, and away from the
border where the actual assault took place. Then they snuck the brigade ashore
and added them to the striking power across the border.

Absent the ability to assault across a beach, those Iraqi divisions would have
been on the border.

------
clan
Pennies saved on education. Cutting out 6 months of basic training.

We live in a world managed by spreadsheets. Common sense is not in vogue.

~~~
djKianoosh
the problem with common sense is that it's not that common

~~~
PirateDave
During my time of service this was an oft repeated bastardization of Admiral
Nimitz' quote: Common sense was an uncommon virtue.

------
musgrove
My roommate's dad in HS was the Secretary of Defense back in the 1970's (James
Schlesinger) and I remember him telling me that ships inadvertently come
within 1/4 mile of hitting each other all the time. That seems pretty close
when you're steering a giant aircraft carrier. Of course, that was along time
ago, but still...doesn't seem like much has changed.

------
pureGuano
This may be a good time to review "How Complex Systems Fail"

[http://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/random/How%20Complex%20Sys...](http://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/random/How%20Complex%20Systems%20Fail.pdf)

------
jjcc
There are around 51,400 merchant ships trading internationally[1]. US Navy has
roughly 430 ships in active service or reserve. A naive estimate that a ship
hit another ship purely by accident: 99% of chances the other ship will be a
commercial vessel. Only probability of 1% would involve a US Navy ship.

If it happen twice, it's 0.01%, 3 times, 1 millionth, now we have 4 times in
one year.

There _need_ to be some explanation. Maybe there are many deadly collisions
never show up in news so we don't know, or US Navy never follow the rules that
civilians follow, or US navy has been attacked but just don't know how it's
attacked.

[1][https://www.statista.com/statistics/264024/number-of-
merchan...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264024/number-of-merchant-
ships-worldwide-by-type/)

[2][http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-
ships/a15297/u...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-
ships/a15297/us-navy-entire-fleet/)

~~~
TorKlingberg
I would assume collisions between two merchant ships don't make the news the
way a collision involving a US navy ship does. You can't do statistics based
on what you read in the news without considering selection bias.

~~~
willyt
You can view stats for UK flagged ships or ships operating in UK waters here:
[https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports](https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports)

------
valuearb
"“Most department heads I had were afraid to go to the captain with anything
that might look bad for them — they did everything they did to protect their
own reputations and wanted nothing to hamper them from eventually getting in
the CO seat themselves,” said former Lt. Jonathan Parin, who served onboard
the destroyer James E. Williams."

Maybe the Navy's standard reaction of snap-firing the Captain and any involved
officers after any significant problem or accident leads to small problems
being covered up until they become big problems?

------
Animats
They're not very good at maintaining ships, either, says the report from an
admiral ordered to study this in 2010.[1]

[1] [https://www.scribd.com/document/43245136/Balisle-Report-
on-F...](https://www.scribd.com/document/43245136/Balisle-Report-on-FRP-of-
Surface-Force-Readiness)

------
sschueller
Funny how some media is jumping the gun and blaming others of using offensive
weapons and GPS jammers when the truth is a lot simpler and self made.

~~~
fotbr
It is always easier on one's psyche to blame someone else than to acknowledge
that you screwed up.

The same holds for teams and tribes, and fans of those teams or tribes. Look
at nearly any sporting event. You'll commonly see the losing side, or fans of
the losing side, blaming anything and everything they can - biased officials,
cheating on the opposing side, the weather, etc.

The US media, even though they may not like the current administration, is
reluctant to start saying "the navy screwed itself". It may very well be the
truth. From what I've been around in the other services, I can state that the
thinking and approach to training and education isn't unique to the navy. If
you're the the US media, calling them out on it risks being yourself labeled
as anti-american, or adding more "evidence" to someone's already existing
opinion. That can cost viewer eyeballs, and in turn, advertising dollars.

------
wohlergehen
Genuine question: All the commercial vessels continually broadcast their
position, speed and bearing, right?

Even if the military vessel does not do so, it should be able to receive all
commercial vessels telemetry...

So how can it possibly crash into one?

~~~
cconover
Yes, AIS is utilized by all ships, and even though military vessels are
permitted to not broadcast in the clear their AIS data, they can still receive
other ships' AIS broadcasts.

That being said, you still need competent mariners on the bridge who can look
at their instruments - AIS, ECDIS/chartplotter, radar - as well as use their
own eyes looking out the window to interpret that information and made a
prudent decision. As the Navigation Rules[0] are written, all vessels must
maintain a proper lookout, and electronic systems by themselves are not a
substitute.

Once a mariner determines that risk of collision exists, regardless of whether
they are the stand-on or give-way vessel, they must take sufficient action to
avoid collision. Additionally, depending on what the situation between the two
vessels is (meeting, crossing, overtaking), they are required to exchange
sound signals to indicate their maneuvering intention and acknowledgement by
the other vessel of that stated intention, or may make those arrangements by
radio in lieu of sound signals. All of that requires prudent, competent
mariners who can recognize what is happening around them, and their
responsibilities in any situation involving another vessel.

[0]
[https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pd...](https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navRules/CG_NRHB_20151231.pdf)

------
Chiba-City
I worked in State/AID around folks doing commodity exports. Never
underestimate the amount of sheer inbound "order taking" from endlessly needy
Congressional staffers living on trading favors. I later worked around
"developers" whose only Fu was tricks for passing lie detector tests to screw
up projects in lead lined bunkers. I suppose the dress up, TV pageantry and
fancy looking machines make disorderly bumbling infinitely costly operations
look orderly. Our trade presses are mostly very open about the dysfunctions,
but few waving flags pay much attention.

------
throw7
1\. 2003 - cuts to training, 6 month "SWOS Basic" training eliminated.

2\. reliance on technology, no basic seamanship skills

3\. Iraq and Afganistan wars, more need to support ground ops

4\. Officers care about Cover Your Ass.

------
mv4
Everyone's talking about the human element, but - isn't collision warning the
kind of problem that can be relatively easily solved with technology today?
Especially when large, relatively slow moving objects are involved - with no
attempts at stealth?

~~~
zaphar
I imagine this is actually a harder problem on the water. With ships of this
size and mass and the inertia they have, in an environment where hard stops
and turns are very difficult, any warning might trigger after it's too late to
do anything about it.

~~~
dkhenry
The ships are surprisingly agile. If you were paying attention you could
maneuver out of most of the things heading towards you in open waters. However
in the environment these ships were in its less of a "look there is a boat
coming right for me" situation and more of a "which side of the shipping lane
am I supposed to stay on again" kind of deal.

~~~
Someone
_" The ships are surprisingly agile"_

For an example, see
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs](https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Vih4tGmqjs)
(same class of ship as the McCain and the Fitzgerald, but two respectively one
years newer. I doubt that makes a difference, as all three are "Flight 1",
according to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-
class_destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer))

------
Theodores
Maybe it is just luck, like the flipping of a coin. There have been obviously
avoidable incidents in the past, where you wonder how anyone could be so
stupid. I remember submarines crashing mysteriously or surfacing under a
fishing boat in the last decade or so.

When the sextant arrived I am sure that there were accidents and people
wondering if sailors had lost their skills, overly reliant on tech.

~~~
astrodust
The Japanese tuna boat incident was a mistake that could have been avoided,
but at least precautions were taken, as sloppy as they were. They were doing
an emergency surfacing exercise and did surface to check for ships before
doing it.

The chance of randomly hitting a tiny boat when surfacing are astonishingly
slim. It was a bunch of factors, but mostly bad luck. I doubt a captain could
hit a boat like that on purpose of they tried, there's just too many
variables.

As a surface ship ramming into a boat is entirely avoidable. Those things
aren't invisible, and those destroyers have ridiculous amounts of sensor
equipment, active and passive.

------
nradov
Some other navies have separate career tracks for bridge and engineering
officers. This allows officers who want to focus on driving ships more time to
actually practice the skill before taking command.

[http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-
us-...](http://gcaptain.com/separate-equal-look-officer-training-us-navy-
merchant-marine/)

------
sytelus
While people are blaming sailor lousiness and training, I have to ask why
humans are even controlling these ships? For all non-war maneuvers shouldn't
these ships be self-sailing? Don't these high tech ships have _basic_ obstacle
detection? People should be blaming technology (or lack thereof) onboard these
ships. There should be "sail-by-wire" equivalent on ship where humans with
their limited sensory inputs and computational capability are only allowed to
provide relatively high level goals. Ships computer should be able to deal
with obstacles and remaining within safety parameters. I'm sure they have this
system but it just didn't worked as expected and _that_ should be the core of
the problem.

------
mikekchar
This may be a question that has been answered, but I haven't seen it in any
news services I've looked at. Has blame been assessed for these collisions? If
I understand correctly, they've been running into container ships, so by the
"big boat gets the right of way" rule, I guess the military ship is at fault.
So far I haven't heard the results of any investigations, though. I seems
incredulous, to be honest, and I'm really hoping that we'll eventually get
some explanations -- even if it's human error. The article itself seems a bit
speculative and I was hoping for more concrete information.

~~~
hudibras
I'll lay this down as timestamp'd predictions for future reference.

1\. The McCain collision was the result of the merchant ship not seeing
(visually or on radar) the McCain and turning directly into the path of the
Navy ship. In that location, there would have been little warning for McCain,
and with the combined speeds of the ships easily over 40 knots the damage
would be devastating. McCain will still shoulder some of the blame, the CO and
OOD will be reprimanded, but ultimately this will be seen as a "normal"
collision that unfortunately happens every so often.

2\. The Fitzgerald collision, however, will be found to be caused by gross
negligence on the part of the Navy ship, and at least two officers (the
Officer of the Deck and the Tactical Action Officer) will be court-martialed.
There's no excuse for that collision, with that geometry, in that part of the
world, and with such little warning (not waking the CO, for example).

------
egberts1
Good GOD! The strait is one of the most densest maritime traffic in the world.
Just try driving 23 knots passing each other as if you can change ships
without getting your feet wet.

------
24gttghh
“A radar can tell you something is out there, but it can’t tell you if it’s
turning,” Hoffman said. “Only your eyes can tell you that. You have to put
your eyes on the iron.”

I get this is HN, but there is something to be said for being able to get the
job done _without_ digital aids/hindrances; especially in fluid wartime
scenarios.

------
Fjolsvith
They are testing autopilot?

------
Sophistifunk
Let's hope so. Otherwise it's either a) incredibly shoddy software, or b)
somebody else's stuxnet. Either one of those options are very bad things.

------
TomK32
I bought my first boat, 31ft, with no more than three weeks of experience.
Yes, more exp would be a great idea.

------
martin_bech
Isnt it called sailing, not driving?

