Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesn't want you to read
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/worse-than-you-thought-inside-the-secret-fitzgerald-probe-the-navy-doesnt-want-you-to-read/Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesnt want you to read
By: Geoff Ziezulewicz 10 hours ago
A scathing internal Navy probe into the 2017 collision that drowned seven sailors on the guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald details a far longer list of problems plaguing the vessel, its crew and superior commands than the service has publicly admitted. Obtained by Navy Times, the dual-purpose investigation was overseen by Rear Adm. Brian Fort and completed 11 days after the June 17, 2017 tragedy. It was kept secret from the public in part because it was designed to prep the Navy for potential lawsuits in the aftermath of the accident.
Unsparingly, Fort and his team of investigators outlined critical lapses by bridge watchstanders on the night of the collision with the Philippine-flagged container vessel ACX Crystal in a bustling maritime corridor off the coast of Japan. Their report documents the routine, almost casual, violations of standing orders on a Fitz bridge that often lacked skippers and executive officers, even during potentially dangerous voyages at night through busy waterways. The probe exposes how personal distrust led the officer of the deck, Lt. j.g. Sarah Coppock, to avoid communicating with the destroyers electronic nerve center the combat information center, or CIC while the Fitzgerald tried to cross a shipping superhighway.
When Fort walked into the trash-strewn CIC in the wake of the disaster, he was hit with the acrid smell of urine. He saw kettlebells on the floor and bottles filled with pee. Some radar controls didnt work and he soon discovered crew members who didnt know how to use them anyway.
Fort found a Voyage Management System that generated more trouble calls than any other key piece of electronic navigational equipment. Designed to help watchstanders navigate without paper charts, the VMS station in the skippers quarters was broken so sailors cannibalized it for parts to help keep the rickety system working.
Since 2015, the Fitz had lacked a quartermaster chief petty officer, a crucial leader who helps safely navigate a warship and trains its sailors a shortcoming known to both the destroyers squadron and Navy officials in the United States, Fort wrote.
Fort determined that Fitzs crew was plagued by low morale; overseen by a dysfunctional chiefs mess; and dogged by a bruising tempo of operations in the Japan-based 7th Fleet that left exhausted sailors with little time to train or complete critical certifications.
To Fort, they also appeared to be led by officers who appeared indifferent to potentially life-saving lessons that shouldve been learned from other near-misses at sea, including a similar incident near Sasebo, Japan that occurred only five weeks before the ACX Crystal collision, Fort wrote.
(snip)
UpInArms
(51,753 posts)Going off to bed with a steady as she goes and keep an eye out for the bergs
🤦🏽♀️
mountain grammy
(27,197 posts)KY_EnviroGuy
(14,595 posts)When I saw this:
That didn't read right at all. No way in hell the Navy completed a complex investigation in such short time.
The Military Times and Navy Times repeated the same statements.
See: https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/14/worse-than-you-thought-inside-the-secret-fitzgerald-probe-the-navy-doesnt-want-you-to-read/
This is a PDF of the reporting to date, although I had problems downloading the whole 3.1mb file:
Link: https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1503000639.pdf
(snip from PDF):
-----------
CCSG-5 also forwarded the line of duty findings to Navy Personnel Command (PERS-13) on 30 June 2017 to expedite processing of survivor benefits for the dependents of the deceased service members, and disability retirement or severance pay for the injured service members.
Reality (as I'm reading it):
* a preliminary investigation was completed on June 28, 2017,
* an additional Supplemental Preliminary Inquiry was submitted on August 11, 2017, and
* I assume a final report will be issued at some later date.
Thanks for the OP, Nitpicker............
Farmer-Rick
(11,223 posts)So, that family members can get access to benefits. It's basically a line of duty determination, and in cases of death it is almost always a line of duty determination. Later a more thorough investigation is done.
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,595 posts)I take it when you say "line of duty determination", that mean those such as "injured in the line of duty" or "killed in the line of duty".
Is that correct?
Farmer-Rick
(11,223 posts)To know if the family or the injured person is eligible for benefits.
For example: if a sailor gets injured while committing a crime, they would not be eligible for benefits. But, and here is catch 22, if a sailor dies, they almost always get a line of duty determination. The unfortunate sailor would have to be doing something really awful for the investigating officer to make a determination that the death occurred while Not in the line of duty.
We had an office on vacation, on leave, in Puerto Rico died while using jet skies. It was considered in line of duty. The theory is that the Navy pays you for 24 hours, 7 days a week, even on leave they can recall you, so you're still on duty.