Posted on 06/24/2018 4:42:58 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Diversity matrix compliance for promotion, I understand.
I see a porn movie in the making.
"Navy drops negligent homicide charge against Fitzgerald CO"
The "lumbering Philippine container ship"'s bow was RAMMED at flank speed in a hard left near-u-turn by the Fitzgerald's OOD -- who ordered that action as a change of course from one intended to pass safely astern of the container ship.
~~~~~~~~~
Who, on this forum -- male or female -- would violate the rules of the road -- and perform the same, stupid, suicidal stunt in a fast car -- with a semi approaching from their RiGHT?
It must be a real hi-tech simulator kind of thing.
Right?
Wonder if she’s related to a retired AF BG I used to know.
They passed the paper test, but when confronted with a “real life” test, most failed.
So it's not because women can't do the job: It's because they were so busy pushing pc agendas that they forgot to train their recruits to do the work.
And yes, I have heard the girls weren't talking to one another: But any officer worth his or her salt would have been aware of this and fired them.
Only in the open sea. Don’t let them park ships. ;-)
Lt. j.g. Sarah Coppock received a punitive letter and will forfeit half a month’s pay for three months as part of her sentence, according to a Navy statement.
—
Oh the horror! Poor gay gal, her career is ruined!
I wonder why warship bridges can’t have an automated collision warning system? It’s common on larger aircraft, both for detecting terrain and airborne aircraft which might pose a hazard.
If the warning was designed to go off in the captain’s quarters as well as the bridge, perhaps some folks would pay better attention.
don’t know, but it’s still wrong, on multiple levels
ya never know
The only one that came to mind where negligent homicide was the infamous Ribbon Creek Incident back in the Fifties (where the guy had been drinking and marched a bunch of recruits into a swamp and killed six of them) and I had to go look it up to be sure...and yes, that Marine DI was convicted.
This commanding officer of the McCain was certainly negligent. From what we saw in this investigation, it was an unbelievably lax environment, IMO. Accelerated and longer deployment cycles are no excuse.
But, I would be somewhat harsher on the junior officers who treated the Fitzgerald as their personal hotrod while making a speed dash -- cutting across a traffic-filled, multilane freeway -- at night!
~~~~~~~~~~
I've tried to avoid the gender issue -- but, do you really think a male LT OOD who brazenly violated the rules of the road, killed seven crewmates, and very nearly permanently scrapped his warship -- would have gotten only three months' reduced pay and a reprimand?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm going to have to re-draw my "final seconds" maneuver/collision map/diagram to reflect the "final" "190T-20kts" course and the (literal) last-minute "Flank Speed-Hard to Port" panic maneuver...
(My guess is that a Reduced Speed-Full Starboard solution to pass safely astern was more than doable during that "9-minute gap"...)
{Why no 0125 AIS point for Fitz?}
~~~~~~~~~~~
OTOH, I might reserve my extreme harshness for the XO -- who headed for his bunk three minutes after the CO did...
(Random thought: I wonder if the little JG OOD had ever made such a turn before -- or, even, had a license to drive a Yugo...)
Sunrise -- Yardarm -- XO...
~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, FRiend, I smell Obamadmirals -- covering their diversity-loving @$$3$... :-(
I don’t think we disagree. I just think a negligent homicide charge is a rarer one filed in a military setting, and harder to make stick. They almost always seem to go for something less.
But, just for me, I've got to understand that last couple of minutes of relative ship motion better.
~~~~~~~ NEW SUBJECT ~~~~~~~
BTW, I wondered in #54 if that LTJG had ever experienced driving Fitz through a hard, flank speed turn -- which brings up the question:
Does the sea Navy have anything like even the rudimentary flight simulators (with tilting axes) -- like the AF had near the end of WWII?
With all our simulator capability we have now, that seems like a good way to let seamen experience the response delay, heeling deck (?and bow/stern slide?) that occurs in a hard, high speed turn -- especially in different sea states. Seems to me that would be good, cheap, fun training for both helmsmen and deck officers... (Bet it would have a waiting list -- like a good arcade game...)
Heck, a simulator might even have been a help to me in learning the limits & abilities of my '65 Formula "S" Barracuda in full rally trim -- especially on different tires and road surfaces...
Unfortunately, I found a white paper from 2012 with this summary-which indicates to me the answer is that there is NOT. What a crying shame. They should have readily accessible simulators to practice ship handling and bridge software any time they want. This is just stupid, IMO, that they appear not to.
Currently, a gap exists between seminar-style shiphandling training and higher fidelity simulations available to the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer (SWO). There is currently no individually accessible, low cost, intermediate level, interactive modality shiphandling resource that would allow SWOs to practice shiphandling skills without requiring instructor oversight. A student research team from the Naval Postgraduate School’s MOVES Institute exposed newly commissioned SWO students at the Surface Warfare Officers School to basic task scenarios designed to be complementary to material covered in their introductory course of instruction utilizing VSTEP’s “Ship Simulator Extremes” game. The students completed the treatment task trainer protocol utilizing a Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter model and continued with the standard introductory course curriculum where they utilized the fully immersive Conning Officer Virtual Environment (COVE) shiphandling trainer. Students were later evaluated in COVE on their ability to maneuver a Guided Missile Destroyer, a similarly configured but larger ship, underway from a San Diego pier. The students exposed to the game-based scenarios performed at a statistically significantly higher level in the categories of “Standard Commands” and “Margins of Safety Maintained”—two key indicators of shiphandling proficiency—following their normal course of instruction, than the control group. Also of note, the novice level students encountered difficulty in unlearning the handling characteristics of one model and learning a new one through the course of their instruction. Our findings suggest that an individually accessible, game based, shiphandling task trainer with ship models matching those found in the COVE and Full Mission Bridge would benefit newly commissioned SWOs by reinforcing classroom instruction. This trainer could potentially be used by SWOs of all skill levels as a self-study tool prior to participation in high level, fully immersive, and manpower intensive, naval shiphandling simulators.
I guess it is just another case of “penny wise, pound foolish”.
Based on my extensive experience (aka "Play Time") with the A-10 flight simulator on my Mac, I probably could climb into one, do a fairly competent sortie against armor or radar site targets -- and (maybe) get it back on the ground in one piece...
At least, I wouldn't do stupid things like dirt-level knife-edge flight without compensating rudder offset... (Did that; "died"...)
And, at the very least, I wouldn't look at the instrument panel "like a calf looking at a new gate"... '-)
For starters, the Navy could look into partnering with one of the big game companies, like Electronic Arts. (Lots of re-usable "boilerplate" in that object code...) Besides, a non-classified version might be a big seller to civilians -- and a recruiting tool...
And, with today's multi-player capabilities, coordinating bridge crew with CIC would be a snap...
I'd have to think a bit about simulating "command-chain role" communication control, though... Interesting mental exercise...
Give the OOD a mike headset and the system a LUT (Look Up Table") of regulation commands -- and OOD-helm comms should be a snap.
That should also enforce command discipline: "Sorry -- unauthorized command!" while displaying the command table should teach the proper command format...
AAAck! Hate it when a problem puts my brain into Systems Analyst Mode" -- and I can't turn it off! It's 2:15 AM -- and I bet I have difficulty going to sleep... :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.