I could have this completely wrong, Tempest, but in following the threads on this accident, my recollection, after lots of bashing of the Captain for running into a mountain, FGS, was that it was discovered that the mountain was NOT on any charts, sonar is not operating when the sub is being stealthy (I'm sure there is a more nautical way to say that), and that this was pretty much unavoidable. I know I will be corrected if I have misunderstood. Tremendous credit certainly does go to the engineers and those who built what must be a remarkable craft.
no you're correct. I was just being irreverent.
The Navy is EXTREMELY unforgiving of damage to a nuclear submarine, and all responsibility rests in his hands.
Here's the thing...the mountain was uncharted. Okay. However, there were many OTHER charted mountains in the area, and he should have been aware of this fact. He also should have been cognizant of the fact that the area had a lot of "holes" in the charting. Given this, trucking along at flank speed would seem a bit unwise.
That, at least, is my estimation of what the accident review will focus on, and use in the inquiry.
If indeed he performed well in the aftermath in getting the ship home, that will weigh in his favor. He might NOT see his career ended, but he will almost certainly be relieved.
Those are just a few of the things in play. The Navy's bias, for good or ill, will be to hammer the skipper. We take VERY strictly the resposibilities and accountability of a sub skipper. Seldom, if ever, is slack granted.