Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesn't want you to read

[nitpicker]

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 doesn’t 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 destroyer’s 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 didn’t work and he soon discovered crew members who didn’t 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 skipper’s 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 destroyer’s squadron and Navy officials in the United States, Fort wrote.

Fort determined that Fitz’s 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 should’ve 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]

1. As with the captain of the Titanic

Going off to bed with a “steady as she goes” and keep an eye out for the ‘bergs

🤦🏽‍♀️

[mountain grammy]

2. Lessons unlearned.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

3. I suspect the reporting time-line list is misleading to casual readers.

When I saw this:

“dual-purpose investigation” was overseen by Rear Adm. Brian Fort and completed 11 days after the June 17, 2017 tragedy"

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):

This preliminary report was concluded on 28 June 2017; the findings were that each of the injuries and deaths occurred in the line of duty and none were due to any member’s own misconduct. Commander, Carrier Strike Group FIVE (CCSG-5) approved the findings of the preliminary inquiry on 30 June 2017.
-----------
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]

4. Yeah, the preliminary investigation is usually done in cases of death

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]

5. Thanks, Farmer-Rick.

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]

6. Yeah, the financial department of the Navy needs that determination

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.