Talk:Melbourne–Voyager collision

"Subsequent investigations"

I'm removing the "Subsequent investigations" section for the moment, as I'm uncomfortable with it. The section heading imples that one or more other official investigations ocurred after the two Royal Commissions, when instead, the section deals with academics speculating on the events of the collision. This speculation is not very well cited...I am having trouble verifying Frame's claims, and the Ferry source was hosted on a personal website with no info indicating if it is a published source.

The section is reproduced below, in the collapsed banner:

Subsequent investigations

After studying the collision for his doctoral thesis, naval historian Tom Frame (bishop) came to the conclusion that the most likely cause of the collision was a double mix-up of a signal from Melbourne, leading those aboard Voyager to believe that they had been ordered on a course to the west. Though not the same signal mix-up postulated by the first Royal Commission, the effect would have been similar in leading her to misunderstand her instructions.

In a Summer 2004 article in the Journal of the Australian Naval Institute, D. Ferry suggests it is most likely that the cause was a misjudged single 'fishtail', which is also known as an 'even speed' manoeuvre and is a recognised means of changing station. In this case Voyager attained insufficient room for such a manoeuvre. The misjudgement and late avoiding action may have been caused by deception as to Melbourne's course or a procedural mistake. This theory has since been supported by an ex-Maritime (ie Fleet) Commander with intimate experience of these ships and the manoeuvre.

Frame describes how a Navy inquiry was by-passed by the Government setting up the Royal Commissions, the fear being that there might be otherwise the appearance of a cover-up. Ferry notes that the first's Commission's terms of reference were insufficient, its efforts were concentrated on blame identification/attribution and its findings received no thorough review. The second Commission allayed some public disquiet but neither realised fully the scope for identifying lessons learnt. He lists examples of such lessons. Frame indicates that a suitable military inquiry system is now established.

I have a copy of Where fate calls here somewhere. I think I may have lent it to my father a few years ago, will see if I can dig it up. Frame was (I think he still is) the RAN's official historian and he was given unprecedented access to records relating to the Voyager collission which he used when writing this book. I'll let you know when I find it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning Frame. I've got Where Fate Calls open in front of me, and the conclusions in the article are not exactly corresponding with those in the book. I'm polishing this and the other Melbourne collision article in preperation for a "Today's Featured Article" with HMAS Melbourne (R21) on 10 Feb (the anniversary of this collision)... once I've given each a going-over, I'll take the time to pick through this section more thoroughly. -- saberwyn 06:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Nick, In case you were interested and/or didn't know, to get an article on the Main page as Today's Featured Article, you request it at WP:TFA/R. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am interested and I didn;t know, so thanks for that. However, I will let Saberwyn make the running for this article. Nick Thorne ^talk

I did not think you were questioning Frame, I just was offereing to help out find anything you were after in the book. Are you looking at it in a library, or do you have a copy yourself? Nick Thorne ^talk 12:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misinterpretation. I own a copy. -- saberwyn 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And done. I've renamed the section "Analysis" (because its bascally people analysing the collision and coming up with their own conclusion), matched up and/or tweaked the comments attributed to Frame, and cited Ferry's comments to a published article. -- saberwyn 10:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne's position

G'day All (particularly Saberwyn),

The section that reads: ' Ferry's theory eliminates the need for a double error in the communications signals, and the need for all on the bridge to believe that Melbourne was somewhere other than she should be: the fishtail theory accepts that the carrier may have been out of position, but not to such an extent ' needs to be changed; specifically the phrase '...[MELBOURNE] may have been out of position'. In Officer of the Watch Manoeuvres/tactical manoeuvering, such as Carrier Ops, the "Lead" Ship (I'm not referring to Lead ship of Class) - or "Flag" as it is more commonly known - can never be out of position.

By virtue of being a "Flag" all other ships take station off of it. All things aside, in this instance, it was the responsibility of VOYAGER to manoeuvre around MELBOURNE, and not the other way around. The article sentence above would suggest that MELBOURNE was in some way responsible for maintaining a position in relation to VOYAGER - which is incorrect.

However, what Melbourne is responsible for under the "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea" (or Rules of the Road), is to ensure that she must at all times keep a proper look-out by sight, hearing and all available means in order to judge if risk of collision exists (being Rule 5) - and many other Rules for that matter. I understand the intent of the sentence, but it suggests something other than what it implies. 58.165.137.46 (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was never my intention to convey that. Problem is, I'm a civilian attempting to take military actions and sources and rephrase them so they can be easily interpreted by other civilians...sometimes something gets lost in the translation. I've rephrased it to read "...the communications signals, and the need for all on the destroyer's bridge to have such a vastly incorrect assumption of where Voyager was in relation to the carrier." Does this clear it up? -- saberwyn 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's a good phrase; thanks for clearing that up - I could not have worded it better myself ;-) 58.165.137.46 (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I recall that Frame made the point that at night it is notoriously difficult to determine from what aspect you are viewing a carrier from another ship. He explained that on both bridges the officers saw what they expected to see until very late in the scene. Voyager was not where she thought she was in relation to Melbourne due to a misinterpretation of Melbourne's signalled intentions and on both bridges the nav lights showing from the other ship were what they expected to see at least to start with. Unfortunately, as Frame calculated, there was only a very short window between when the fatal change in course was taken by Voyager and when a collision was inevitable. Another point is that Melbourne was "flying flag Foxtrot" which is represented at night by a particular arrangement of lights from the mast and means that she is at flying stations. The significance of this is that a carrier showing Foxtrot (or the equivalenmt lights) has an absolute right of way. This is because from the bridge it is not possible to see approaching aircraft and any sudden change in heading of the ship may cause an accident. So in a sense the carrier is not under full control of the bridge, as if, for example, her steering is damaged. Nick Thorne ^talk 12:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Legally, I am not sure that there is any such thing as an "absolute right of way." Vessels involved in the launching and recovery of aircraft are "restricted in their ability to manouvre" and cannot be expected to get out of the way in the manner of an unrestricted vessel, but they are not "not under command". In extremis, they must act. If Melbourne could have acted in time to prevent the collision with the loss of a destroyer and 82 lives, and failed to, it would not have been a defense to say, "But by altering course we might have lost an aircraft." Anyway, Navy orders and traditions trump the Rule of the Road in these situations, which is one (good) reason why the RAN did not welcome a civilian based enquiry. I have never seen any report on what was understood Navy practice in 1964. Rumiton (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Compensation 'overbilling'

There was an article in the newspapers a few days ago claiming that the solicitor working on the lion's share of the compensation cases resulting from the collision seriously overbilled the survivors 'under his care': in one case, $412,000 in fees from the $484,000 compenastion awarded. I'm not sure its relevant for the article just yet, but I thought I'd note it here in case there are further developments, or others disagree. -- saberwyn 20:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Petrie, Andrea (23 November 2010). "Voyager solicitor 'overbilled millions'". The Age. Retrieved 28 November 2010.

Further development: the solicitor as not had his certificate to practice removed after an investigation of the above. Cite is Petrie, Andrea (19 December 2011). "Voyager solicitor 'not fit' to practise". The Age. Retrieved 23 December 2011.

1 more [1]. Considering the way this case is developing, at least some mention should be made in the article. -- saberwyn 19:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just made a mention. I hope you appreciate the editorial courage involved in reporting on a finding of misbehaviour by lawyers. At the next Normo Old Boys meeting you owe me a cool drink. :) Rumiton (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the lawyer's alleged liberties with the compensation funds is a very relevant and important part of this article. It is relevant that unscrupulous lawyers can compound the failure of the state to pay compensation in a fair and timely manner, which is also outlined in this article. Take heart that Fairfax editors have also had the "courage" to report on the lawyer's misbehaviour. RussHawk (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits

Hi all. I just made a bunch of small-to-medium article edits without first looking at this talk page. Should have known better, but I hope I haven't caused offense. They are pretty much self-evident changes, but please tell me here if there is any problem. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was all my fault!

Editors who are wondering what might have happened on the bridge of Voyager might be interested in the above collision article. Rumiton (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

50th Anniversary

There is a pathetic written pop-history anniversary article by the ABC related to this tragedy - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-09/voyager-disaster-memorial-held-at-jervis-bay/5247802

A SUGGESTION / REQUEST - as a Tribute, could some .gif Wizard please create a time-lapse interactive for the synchronised tracks of the HMAS Voyager running under the bow of the HMAS Melbourne. .. The data are available. .. Similar to this clever software-driven Article feature - from five years later's collision with the USS Charles E Evans. .. (quite different tracks of the respective Destroyers into collision) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Evans_collision.gif

Thank you, in hopeful anticipation … R.I.P. the Late121.127.213.128 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was one created at the same time as the Evans one was, but the scale and placement of the vessels incorrectly implied multiple near misses. Unfortunately, this was only noticed a little while ago, and there is not enough time to create a corrected image before the anniversary. -- saberwyn 03:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I noticed in that gif that Voyager appeared to cut across the bow of Melbourne prior to the collision, passing only a couple of ship's lengths ahead. I assumed it was kosher, and have even spoken in public about it. Now I am embarassed. I will wait for an improved gif. Rumiton (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the officer of the watch and the navigator were not watching the ocean

This statement is disturbing; what does it mean? It is the OOW's duty to keep a lookout "by all available means, at all times." Was their attention momentarily distracted? By what? I can't find any mention in Frame. What do other sources say? Rumiton (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hall, (to whom the statement was cited) doesn't specify exactly what had the OOW's and nav's attention at the time, but states that when the port lookout spotted Melbourne and yelled out, it was enough of a surprise for the OOW to drop his binoculars in shock. -- saberwyn 09:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that their attention had been diverted by something. Are you OK with the article reflecting that? Rumiton (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Worst case, we find sources that say different, and change it again :) -- saberwyn 12:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. Off I go. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Damage to Air Nymph

We have the SAR vessel being pushed up against the carrier's flight deck, but this was a very small vessel (see here [2]) and it seems unlikely the aerials would have come anywhere near the flight deck. Most probably they fouled the boarding nets that had been rigged, or just hit the steeply overhanging hull. Rumiton (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Fitness for command

We have a seeming contradiction in the way the findings were reported. Did the 2nd RC find that he was affected by alcohol on the night or not? (2nd para of Second Royal Commission section claims "drunkenness" as a possible cause.) Rumiton (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC) As you were, I should have read more carefully. It was argued that drunkenness played a part, but the findings were otherwise. Rumiton (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne–Voyager collision. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212202838/http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii to http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-melbourne-ii

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) 02:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Alleged cover-up

An ordinary seaman who was on board the Voyager during the crash claims he was muffled by a British captain. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/07/the-lucky-ones-died-that-night-lies-survivor-guilt-and-the-voyager-disaster -- Palosirkka (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a well written article in a reliable source. Could be worth a mention. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Voyager bridge crew to survive: one or two

The first description of deaths on the Voyager states that two, 2, sailors of the bridge crew survived. Later, in the first para of Analysis, the article states that only one, 1, bridge crew sailor survived the collision.