Talk:Melbourne–Voyager collision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Melbourne's position 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[HMS Victoria (1887)|It was all my fault!]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  50th Anniversary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sure. Worst case, we find sources that say different, and change it again :) -- saberwyn 12:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Off I go. Rumiton (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: the officer of the watch and the navigator were not watching the ocean

message: We have the SAR vessel being pushed up against the carrier's flight deck, but this was a very small vessel (see here ) 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)
thread_title:  Damage to Air Nymph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fitness for command 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged cover-up