Originally Posted by PimTac
I agree. The Navy, I hope is reviewing its training and also its promotion standards. These were two areas that drew a lot of flack after those two accidents in Asia. Officers being promoted too quickly and a lack of training all around. The touchscreen are a deflection away from the real issues.
I don't think the Navy or NTSB is saying the touchscreens were a major factor in the accidents, but they were a contributing factor.
https://news.usni.org/2019/08/06/nt...primary-causes-of-fatal-mccain-collision
Quote
Almost two years after the collision between a U.S. destroyer and a merchant ship off Singapore, the first in-depth independent investigation has determined the most probable cause for the incident that killed 10 sailors was lack of adequate Navy oversight and training.
The National Transportation Safety Board found that the most likely cause of the fatal collision of guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and chemical tanker Alnic MC on Aug. 21, 2017, "was a lack of effective operational oversight of the destroyer by the U.S. Navy, which resulted in insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures," reads the investigation.
The conclusion of the report breaks from the Navy's own assessment of the incident, which placed the blame for the early morning collision almost entirely on the leadership of McCain and not on what the NTSB determined were the service's own "insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures."
...Both [Admiral] Davidson and the NTSB report agreed on the basic facts: watchstanders on the bridge had not understood how the Northrop Grumman-designed integrated bridge and navigation system (IBNS) helm controls functioned in depth.
As the warship approached the busy shipping lane off of Singapore, an attempt to split the steering and throttle to two different consoles in fact transferred all controls to the lee helmsman - a sailor who was less familiar with the intricacies of the IBNS and had not slept the night before. The mistake led the helmsman to believe he had lost control of the ship. Meanwhile, the ship's throttles - operated by touch screen - became unlinked.
"Control of the port shaft and steering was now at the lee helm station, while control of the starboard shaft remained at the helm station," read the report.
When the helmsman thought he was slowing down both propellers, he was in fact only reducing the speed of the port screw, causing a sharp turn in front of the tanker.
The confusion around how the controls had been configured led to three minutes of the watch being unable to control the ship, allowing McCain to move in front of Alnic MC - unbeknownst to most of the bridge team. The collision occurred shortly after the bridge regained control of McCain.
I agree. The Navy, I hope is reviewing its training and also its promotion standards. These were two areas that drew a lot of flack after those two accidents in Asia. Officers being promoted too quickly and a lack of training all around. The touchscreen are a deflection away from the real issues.
I don't think the Navy or NTSB is saying the touchscreens were a major factor in the accidents, but they were a contributing factor.
https://news.usni.org/2019/08/06/nt...primary-causes-of-fatal-mccain-collision
Quote
Almost two years after the collision between a U.S. destroyer and a merchant ship off Singapore, the first in-depth independent investigation has determined the most probable cause for the incident that killed 10 sailors was lack of adequate Navy oversight and training.
The National Transportation Safety Board found that the most likely cause of the fatal collision of guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) and chemical tanker Alnic MC on Aug. 21, 2017, "was a lack of effective operational oversight of the destroyer by the U.S. Navy, which resulted in insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures," reads the investigation.
The conclusion of the report breaks from the Navy's own assessment of the incident, which placed the blame for the early morning collision almost entirely on the leadership of McCain and not on what the NTSB determined were the service's own "insufficient training and inadequate bridge operating procedures."
...Both [Admiral] Davidson and the NTSB report agreed on the basic facts: watchstanders on the bridge had not understood how the Northrop Grumman-designed integrated bridge and navigation system (IBNS) helm controls functioned in depth.
As the warship approached the busy shipping lane off of Singapore, an attempt to split the steering and throttle to two different consoles in fact transferred all controls to the lee helmsman - a sailor who was less familiar with the intricacies of the IBNS and had not slept the night before. The mistake led the helmsman to believe he had lost control of the ship. Meanwhile, the ship's throttles - operated by touch screen - became unlinked.
"Control of the port shaft and steering was now at the lee helm station, while control of the starboard shaft remained at the helm station," read the report.
When the helmsman thought he was slowing down both propellers, he was in fact only reducing the speed of the port screw, causing a sharp turn in front of the tanker.
The confusion around how the controls had been configured led to three minutes of the watch being unable to control the ship, allowing McCain to move in front of Alnic MC - unbeknownst to most of the bridge team. The collision occurred shortly after the bridge regained control of McCain.