Posted on 04/22/2005 9:39:45 PM PDT by SmithL
Single Ping
One ping only.
I'm having a little trouble with this, as a former navigator (not on subs... but still...)
They were taking 15-minute interval soundings in open sea, with over 8,000 ft of water under the keel. When soundings didn't match the chart (and not by all that much) they periscoped to get a GPS position. Position checked out, and there was nothing proposing a hazard to the ship... so they resumed track.
I don't see here what they *should* have done that would have seemed reasonable given the facts at the time. Sure, if they'd taken a sounding in the few minutes before the crash they might have had something to act on, but I don't see where that sounding looked at all like it was needed?
“All members of the (San Francisco's) navigation team believed that the E2202 chart was the best information available and that it was based on extensive U.S. Navy surveys,” the report found. “This assumption was invalid.”
So, they're saying that the nav crew should have relied on information that they would have considered as less credible than what they had, and acted on it, in order to satisfy prudent mariner standards. Yah. Oookay.
Ping, an update on a sad story
A notation on the chart they chose stated features could be off by three miles.
Soundings did not match the chart they were using.
Other charts on board showed shoaling.
Didn't use all the navigation aids they had.
Compilation of errors upon mistakes, spoiled their whole day
Three miles, laterally, in open sea is trivial. I navigated in Alaskan waters on charts showing a note that "soundings known to be in error by as much or more than 30 feet after a 1964 earthquake". This almost ended my own career when trying to find an anchorage one evening. Missed an uncharted rock spike by mere inches.
Soundings did not match the chart they were using.
Soundings *never* match charted depth. There is no such perfect world where charts are exactly accurate and every square meter of sea bottom is perfectly charted. How much they are wrong and what to do about it is and will always be a judgment call.
Other charts on board showed shoaling.
No, there is some reference to "muddy water". This is not something I've ever seen on open sea charts, so I have no idea what this might mean.
Didn't use all the navigation aids they had.
Yes, they did.
Compilation of errors upon mistakes, spoiled their whole day
Well, the day was spoiled, this is true. But I think it is also fair to say that it was ONLY because of the obviously outstanding training of the crew of this ship that it did actually survive the incident. There can be no doubt that individual and collective acts of heroism made sure that the ship and her crew survived what might easily have been a total catastrophic loss.
That's my .02.
I guess I'm not so amazed that it happened, as much as I'm amazed that they (except for one unfortunate soul) survived the event.
Having seen the pics of the sub in drydock, and how catastrophic the damage really was, it really is staggering that they managed to save that boat without losing everybody. They hit that rock *really* hard.
The taxpayer pays for 10 bizillions dollars worth of technology and Dobie Gillis run into a mountain?.....
[sigh] Whatever.
"'Didn't use all the navigation aids they had.'"
"Yes, they did."
I thought the report said they could have programmed the Subbote into the VMS to assist in the navigation, and they failed to do this as explained below.
"...San Francisco had one of the most advanced navigation tools available today in the submarine force, the VMS. Though the system was not certified as a primary navigation tool, the ship could have programmed its Subnote into the system.
“Had this been done, the ship would have received a warning, alerting them to the presence of a navigational hazard along the ship's track,” the report says.
It found that the failure to use VMS was “the result of a lack of training, lack of adequate procedures and lack of supervision by both the internal and external chains of command.”..."
Any idea what the VMS is?
The X.O. and the Navigator can kiss their careers goodbye...
The VMS system (and I will admit to being unfamiliar with this system) was not yet certified for use as a primary navigation system. Had they relied on this system and run aground the skipper would have been at least or more negligent.
When an experimental system shows different information from proven systems, which would be "reasonable" to draw conclusions from?
The long and short of this lesson is to remember that the captain goes down with the ship, even when there is little he might have done to fix it. This is a case of a skipper who crashed his boat, and whether or not he might have been able to see it coming... doesn't matter. The skipper eats the worm.
It wouldn't really have mattered if the sea bottom had risen in a volcanic blast immediately in front of his boat without even a second to react.
We Americans like to point blame at *some person* and therefore we will and we do. It is as simple as that.
Pretty much.
better training needed perhaps???
I remember that when this happened, reports indicated that the maps used were from 1989 and that newer maps were not provided (due to lack of money - I think) and that newer maps the Russians and others had showed the undersea mountain exactly where the sub hit it.
I would think that would have been mentioned in the report unless the navy is trying to save some politician or admiral's a$$.
This is a cover-up. The report is saying that the crew should have known better while ignoring the real cause which was failure to provide the ship with up updated correct maps.
If the crew had seen a map with a mountain on it does anyone think they would have driven the sub into it?
This report stinks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.