[WildTurkey]

It WAS known that there were numerous pinnacles and undersea mountains in the area. Given this, going at flank speed (and therefore being nearly blind ahead) does not seem "prudent". The review will doubtless bring this up.

If this was a normal transit route employed by numerouse submarines previously (heck, maybe the SF had done it before) and your OPS ordered you to transit and gave you the schedule, you would be toast if you didn't get there in time.

[Eaker]

If this was a normal transit route employed by numerouse submarines previously (heck, maybe the SF had done it before)

This statement proves that you have not read the previous threads.

A few months doesn't make you an expert FReeper either.

[Long Cut]

All I'm pointing out is that the review will find ANYTHING that the skipper could have done differently and make it an issue. You know as well as I do that the Navy isn't known for forgiveness with these things.

Heck, look at the number of CO's that have been relieved recently. I've seen reports posted here at least a dozen times since 2002. Most were a LOT less than a nearly-totaled boat and twenty injured with one killed.

[Robert A Cook PE]

One image of the sub's track showed "reported discolored water" in an area "near" (6-10 miles) the sub's tract. This was surrounded by a dashed circle - no soundings, no location, no date, no information other than that.

But the soundings AROUND that area were 6000+ feet - so why suspect a mountain - if the map-makers COULDN'T even "draw" the place where one "might" be.

It's be like flying at 15,000 feet over Kansas City without oxygen because somebody in Denver reported "high mountains" nearby. But that person didn't say whether those mountains were near the east border or west border of Colorado.

[IonImplantGuru]

"It WAS known that there were numerous pinnacles and undersea mountains in the area. Given this, going at flank speed (and therefore being nearly blind ahead) does not seem "prudent". The review will doubtless bring this up."

If this was a normal transit route employed by numerouse submarines previously (heck, maybe the SF had done it before) and your OPS ordered you to transit and gave you the schedule, you would be toast if you didn't get there in time.

Precisely, WT! Early threads brought out that this transit was probably run 1 or 2 times a year by various boats. Don't know if the S. F. had done it before.

My take is that all of the previous boats were just lucky. I think the guy you were responding to is off base; i.e., define "in the area". To my knowledge, based on inputs from other threads, the charts showed nothing less than deep water for at least miles on either side of the track in the region.

My experience is that a skipper would have to have very good reasons for NOT following the precise depth/course/speed ordered by OPS - in this case SUBPAC Yokosuka.

A fellow ex-nuke