COs of Fitzgerald & McCain - Facing Negligent Homicide Charges

1,837 Views | 11 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by SEC Champs
DogCo84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can't say this was totally unexpected. The inquiry findings must've been pretty egregious--coupled with a need for someone to be punished for 17 deaths?

Former Fitzgerald, McCain COs Face Negligent Homicide, Dereliction of Duty Charges Over Fatal Collisions
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://news.usni.org/2018/01/16/former-fitzgerald-mccain-cos-face-negligent-homicide-dereliction-duty-charges-fatal-collisions
DogCo84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some additional discussion on the issue. Apparently, the negligent homicide charge has rarely (if ever) been used against COs in response to fatal incidents.

Negligent Homicides: A Bridge Too Far

Paladin05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Completely agree that we've gone too far here. The prosecutors may be able to make a technical legal case for negligent homicide, but I doubt any court-martial is going to convict on that. My guess is that they're looking to send a message with these charges while also making a conviction more likely on the lesser charge of dereliction of duty. Frankly, I think it will backfire on them. The COs are now sympathetic figures of government overreach, and they've just been given every incentive to put the Navy on public trial. The dirty laundry is about to come out for all to see.
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If not knowing how to utilize the navigation equipment on the bridge of your ship isn't negligence I'm not sure what is. I can't even comprehend how the CO's of these ships weren't on the bridge themselves. That alone is least dereliction of duty and several long time SWO officers I spoke to believe also negligence.

Your job as a commanding officer at any level is to identify critical points and ensure your command is as prepared as possible to execute those. If being on the bridge while navigating the busiest waters in the world doesn't rise to the level of a critical point then you are negligent of your duty.

Just because the Navy has set a precedent in the past that negligence doesn't rise to this level of scrutiny doesn't mean that's the correct decision in this case.
SEC Champs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The CO of the Fitz was asleep in his rack because it was the middle of the night. Nothing out of the ordinary with that; the ship was not in restricted maneuvering. If anyone deserves such charges, it's the OOD and JOOD, quartermaster, and lookouts.

The McCain CO, on the other hand, was on the bridge giving orders. He also made the fateful decision to postpone sea & anchor detail for an hour, which is why the helmsman-in-training that didn't know how to switch steering controls was on the bridge vice the master helmsman.
Diyala Nick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seems like a strong incentive not to be a SWO.
FCBlitz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was fortunate to get a personal tour of the McCain.....can't imagine with all of that giddy up they had that they would allow themselves to get so close to a vessel that would result in a collision.

The blue room was friggin awesome
CT'97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wede01 said:

The CO of the Fitz was asleep in his rack because it was the middle of the night. Nothing out of the ordinary with that; the ship was not in restricted maneuvering. If anyone deserves such charges, it's the OOD and JOOD, quartermaster, and lookouts.

The McCain CO, on the other hand, was on the bridge giving orders. He also made the fateful decision to postpone sea & anchor detail for an hour, which is why the helmsman-in-training that didn't know how to switch steering controls was on the bridge vice the master helmsman.
I have heard directly from more than one former CO who has sailed those waters who said the exact opposite and said they lived on the bridge while sailing those waters regardless of the time of day.
DogCo84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I recently did a 5 day Tiger Cruise on my son's DDG. I spent a good bit of time on the bridge during the 5 days between Pearl Harbor and San Diego--and felt like the Captain was either ON the bridge, or somewhere very close by most of the time. And that was in OPEN OCEAN where we didn't see another ship or aircraft overhead for FIVE days. Perhaps it was in reaction to all that went on with McCain and Fitzgerald--but I doubt it.

I have to say that it was a very happy ship--and the CO/XO were a big reason why. The CO is a leader who gives a damn...and the crew responded positively to his energy. I wish I could say I was as impressed with the Jr. Officers (including one Aggie)...but that's another story for another day.
drums
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Having served in the Navy over 4 decades ago, and pretty closely following Naval news since then, the only consistent thing I see regarding CO punishments i.e. courts martial is that the Navy will choose its judicial course based on what is least embarrassing to the senior admirals. Prime example, the USS Stark. that ship was in a war zone, but was at basically peace time steaming conditions on orders of the CO. 37 deaths there. No court martial, just CO allowed to retire. Then there was the mishandling of the USS Iowa turret explosion. There have also been numerous groundings, collisions etc where the only result was the CO was relieved, and "allowed to retire".

It seems to me that the senior leadership that has allowed training and certifications to slip to dangerous levels, and permitting routine 100 plus hour work weeks for the crew to exist definitely share in the responsibility, and should be sitting right beside the captains of these ships, and face the same possible punishments. I hate to see the how badly my Navy has deteriorated. I hope I live to see it return to what it can and should be.
johnrth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CT'97 said:

Wede01 said:

The CO of the Fitz was asleep in his rack because it was the middle of the night. Nothing out of the ordinary with that; the ship was not in restricted maneuvering. If anyone deserves such charges, it's the OOD and JOOD, quartermaster, and lookouts.

The McCain CO, on the other hand, was on the bridge giving orders. He also made the fateful decision to postpone sea & anchor detail for an hour, which is why the helmsman-in-training that didn't know how to switch steering controls was on the bridge vice the master helmsman.
I have heard directly from more than one former CO who has sailed those waters who said the exact opposite and said they lived on the bridge while sailing those waters regardless of the time of day.


I agree that the OOD and JOOD and the others on the bridge during the time the fitz had the accident should have to take most of the fall. I've only served on a carrier and never on the bridge but I do know the CO of a carrier has his out to sea cabin which was basically right behind the bridge so that he could be there in an instant rather than going up 6 decks from his in port cabin. I also dont know anything about those particular waters and the rules for those waters but the CO needs his sleep at some point to run a safe operation. I just don't see why theyre throwing the book at him and not doing much or anything to the people actually on the bridge at the time.
SEC Champs
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
johnrth said:

CT'97 said:

Wede01 said:

The CO of the Fitz was asleep in his rack because it was the middle of the night. Nothing out of the ordinary with that; the ship was not in restricted maneuvering. If anyone deserves such charges, it's the OOD and JOOD, quartermaster, and lookouts.

The McCain CO, on the other hand, was on the bridge giving orders. He also made the fateful decision to postpone sea & anchor detail for an hour, which is why the helmsman-in-training that didn't know how to switch steering controls was on the bridge vice the master helmsman.
I have heard directly from more than one former CO who has sailed those waters who said the exact opposite and said they lived on the bridge while sailing those waters regardless of the time of day.


I agree that the OOD and JOOD and the others on the bridge during the time the fitz had the accident should have to take most of the fall. I've only served on a carrier and never on the bridge but I do know the CO of a carrier has his out to sea cabin which was basically right behind the bridge so that he could be there in an instant rather than going up 6 decks from his in port cabin. I also dont know anything about those particular waters and the rules for those waters but the CO needs his sleep at some point to run a safe operation. I just don't see why theyre throwing the book at him and not doing much or anything to the people actually on the bridge at the time.
Should have mentioned that. The Fitz CO was, indeed, in his at-sea cabin, which *was* attached to the bridge. How do we know? He was thrown outside the skin of the ship! Just take a look at what was left of his cabin...
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.