Talk:USS Fitzgerald

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ship's crest[edit]

Is "crest" the usual terminology for the badge/coat of arms in the USN? Heraldicly it's of course not correct, as is especially clear here when the article ends up talking about the (heraldic) crest as part of the coat of arms as part of... the ship's crest. If it's the predominant usage in practice though, we're probably stuck with it. If not, wouldn't it be much clearer to say "badge", or something? Alai 16:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The collision[edit]

... should be at the bottom of the history section. If anywhere yet, because it's too early to report on this incident in an "enclopedia" - which this obviously is not. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting run into by a container ship, with serious damage, some berthing compartments flooded, multiple serious injuries, and 7 sailors missing? Do you think this is not worth mentioning in the article about the ship? Edison (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • He said it was "too early" and did not say "not worth mentioning", clearly he doesn't know that Wikipedia has become the place to find concise and summarized info about current events (I use it so) and he is thinking about old-style encyclopedias. --DelftUser (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to Starboard would indicate that the Destroyer did cross the Boxcarriers course from the left and thus was in a "give way" position. ( Going further all parties have to actively avoid a collision even if the rules are broken .. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.57.204.183 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Damage to starboard can also be done by an overtaking vessel approaching from the starboard quarter and thus the Cargo could be the give way vessel. The difference between a Crossing and an Overtaking situation is a matter of whether the other vessel is approaching at 22.5 degree abaft the beam, or less. This is a matter of investigation to determine and damage to Fitzgerald's starboard side does NOT in itself confirm that it was the Give Way vessel. Way too much speculation on the behalf of idjits who only think they know what they are talking about because they took a few seconds to look something up on the internet without real understanding of the matter.

Cg23sailor (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the collision should be in the Lede. Makes the article read more like a newspaper and less like an encyclopeida.2001:AC8:23:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACX Crystal[edit]

Particulars on this vessel can be found at http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:722169/mmsi:548789000/imo:9360611/vessel:ACX_CRYSTAL

Kablammo (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Lendon of CNN[1] and other sources are confusing gross tonnage with displacement. We should stick to the marinetraffic.com site linked above. Kablammo (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the BBC gets it wrong too. Somehow I expected better from the BBC. Kablammo (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And The Guardian Kablammo (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on USS Fitzgerald. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're adding to the Collision section, consider adding to the Collision article instead[edit]

Hi, all. The June 17 collision has its own Wikipedia article; if you're inclined to add info to the ship's page, consider making the edits to the collision page instead. PRRfan (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Details on the Collision[edit]

I left Youtube comment sections and came here looking for solid information on the collision and how/why it might have happened, only to find that it's "under investigation". There are allegations of a cover-up being thrown around. Given that this collision is the primary reason why anyone would consider the ship to be noteworthy, the most important aspect of the collision is either why/how it happened, and/or why the US Government might be interested in withholding this information from the public. Terrorist attack? Incompetent or mentally unbalanced Commanding Officer? Failed technology (RADAR, or whatever). Any information that grounds this article would serve to IMPROVE THE ARTICLE.2001:AC8:23:6:0:0:0:1E (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The exact nature and details of the accident will take a considerable amount of time to discern, digest and put forth. No disaster of any kind happens because one thing went wrong. It's a set of many things that went wrong. It's not just technology. It's not just people. It's not just any one thing. Patience is required. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, but the simple diagram of the crash will be good for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuye (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's operational security and standard procedure. They tend not to disclose exactly how to create the maximum amount of damage to and the structural weaknesses of military equipment. There are various anecdotal accounts, assumptions, fabrications regarding this topic. We're unlikely to see much information. as for a, "terrorist attack," its doubtful. Military vehicles turn off their transponders sometimes. Failed technology appears to be a possibility. There are reports that the fancy navigation system constantly blared a collision warning and so it was disabled. Incompetent? perhaps. The US navy reshuffled their leadership, retiring a few admirals and firing some as a result of the inquiry into how the collision happened. The officer at the helm was recently promoted, relatively inexperienced and the executive officer allowed them to pilot the ship without assistance at night. They crossed the bow of the freighter, essentially the same as stepping into a highway without looking. The captain of the Crystal shared some blame apparently with a significant ~36 million dollar insurance payout to the DoD out of the ~$500m total it cost to repair.

These things happen sometimes, like the Waterfall rail accident. people just set and forget, trusting the automatic navigation systems too much when experienced operators are needed to ensure all procedures are followed correctly. Who would have thought driving a 9000 ton boat would be difficult? 49.198.7.235 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source 20[edit]

The material of source 20 end with the following statement:

"It was also evident from this review that the entire Fitzgerald crew demonstrated real toughness that night. Following the collision these Sailors responded with urgency, determination and creativity to save their ship. Their rigorous damage control efforts and dauntless fighting in the immediate wake of the accident prevented further loss of life."

I believe that it would balance the report about the "mishap" if those were included and not just the demotion/relief of duty. That source also mentions relief of duty of various other people on board of that ship, not just the top brass. So maybe it would be correct to include that as well ? JB. --92.195.1.14 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status: end of November[edit]

Articles here and here on loading and damage while loading. (I won't be editing this article anytime soon.) Kablammo (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date?[edit]

@Davemck: - Hi, I see you added a date "with ref" for when CDR Miller took command, but I couldn't find the date in the attached ref. (maybe I missed it?) Could you point it out or otherwisw clarify? I would appreciate it. I hunted around before adding him to the list, but couldn't find the actual day in August he took over. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 01:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: - Hi, TWC. In the ref, the first 2 paragraphs are:

YOKOSUKA, Japan (NNS) -- The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) during a change of command ceremony at Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Aug. 25.

Cmdr. Garrett Miller relieved Cmdr. John "Jack" Fay as commanding officer of the Fitzgerald and her crew.

I'm assuming that's supposed to be all one sentence, saying the change of command ceremony took place on Aug. 25. Davemck (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be it. I missed it. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 02:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USS_Fitzgerald&oldid=1205867268"