Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

USS Tortuga CO, XO Relieved of Duty
Navy Newsstand ^ | 6/28/2002 | U.S. Atlantic Fleet Public Affairs

Posted on 06/28/2002 3:23:40 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity

NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- The commanding officer of the Little Creek-based dock landing ship USS Tortuga (LSD 46), Cmdr. Brian Shanahan, and the ship's executive officer Lt. Cmdr. Byron Tracy, were relieved of duty June 19 by Commander, Amphibious Group 2, Rear Adm. Kevin Moran.

Based on the preliminary results of an ongoing official investigation, Moran relieved the two officers for the grounding of the ship off the North Carolina coast near Morehead City the night of June 6. The grounding occurred about 1,000 yards off the coast. No one was injured, nor does the ship require any repairs.

At the time of the incident, Tortuga was participating in a routine exercise as part of the USS Nassau (LHA 4) Amphibious Ready Group. The ship safely floated off the sand bar at high tide the following morning.

Moran has assigned Cmdr. Tom Chassee as the commanding officer. Chassee's most recent assignment was as commanding officer of the Norfolk-based amphibious transport dock USS Ponce (LPD 15). The new executive officer is Lt. Cmdr. Les Cardenas.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: grounding; usstortuga
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last
Bummer.
1 posted on 06/28/2002 3:23:40 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Was this just an accident or was negligence afoot?
2 posted on 06/28/2002 3:25:06 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Almost any grounding or collision involves negligence.
3 posted on 06/28/2002 3:26:32 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Probably both, but the CO always hangs regardless. Those waters are notorious for high currents and the resulting shifting sandbars, not a great place to be only 1000 yds offshore, when you have another choice...
4 posted on 06/28/2002 3:28:05 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
That's right, the CO has the ultimate responsibility and he will swing no matter what. In many cases, the XO goes down with him.
5 posted on 06/28/2002 3:30:25 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Bummer

I'm not sure why you consider relieving the skipper and XO a 'bummer' for allowing their ship to run aground.

6 posted on 06/28/2002 3:30:32 PM PDT by Scuttlebutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt
Why can't we have this level of accountability throughout the rest of the Government?
7 posted on 06/28/2002 3:33:16 PM PDT by Isle of sanity in CA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Was this just an accident or was negligence afoot?

Makes no difference. Grounding your ship is traditionally the last thing you do in your naval career regardless of why. A harsh policy but there are new commanders waiting to pick up the ball.
8 posted on 06/28/2002 3:33:21 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt
I'm not sure why you consider relieving the skipper and XO a 'bummer' for allowing their ship to run aground.

Grounding is the kiss of death for a career. A commodore in command of the Big E had the carrier almost home to port in Alameda when he grounded the big bastard.

He's retired somewhere.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

9 posted on 06/28/2002 3:35:12 PM PDT by section9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah; Travis McGee; harpseal
I have no idea what the circumstances of this event were, but....

The USNavy LOVES to destroy the careers of it's officers. It seems to thrive on it. It is a zero defect mentality that leaves NO room for error.

I want the best in the fleet to command ships. I want the best in the fleet to fly aircraft, but the overwhelming majority of aircraft accidents are eventually written off as "pilot error". The overwhelming majority of ship incidents are written off by career keel-hauling of the offending CO. and watch officers.

This zero defect mentality has, IMHO, cost the Navy far more WARRIORS than it has prevented further incidents of incompetence.

Consider this; The CO of the USS Stark and the USS Cole did everything according to the book. Up until the incidents that took their crews lives they were perfect Naval officers. Conversely, John Paul Jones had how many ships shot out from under him?

I'm not taking a position on this incident, but I do think it's worth discussing.

Regards,

TS

10 posted on 06/28/2002 3:37:16 PM PDT by The Shrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt
You got all that from the word "bummer"?

I think the situation is a bummer. The CO and XO should be held accountable. I hate to see this happen, but sometimes it is necessary. I wish the rest of the government had to face a quarter of the accountability that the military does.

11 posted on 06/28/2002 3:37:20 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Isle of sanity in CA
Good question. Unfortunately, the people re-elect them and reufse (so far) to join a party that would make the needed changes.
12 posted on 06/28/2002 3:37:37 PM PDT by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt
I'm not sure why you consider relieving the skipper and XO a 'bummer' for allowing their ship to run aground.

Maybe they steamed around and cut their own target towline, too whilst chewing out a crewman for not having his shirt on.

Where's the strawberry tureen and the sand? I'll prove geometrically that someone ate the strawberries.

13 posted on 06/28/2002 3:41:39 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Bummer.

Badda Byng!

Walt

14 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:28 PM PDT by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I assume a tribunal will investigate the incident and hand down an appropriate conclusion. But I suspect this means the end of someone's career. Let's hope it's not for capricious or trivial reasons.
15 posted on 06/28/2002 3:42:28 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Shrew
Consider this; The CO of the USS Stark and the USS Cole did everything according to the book. Up until the incidents that took their crews lives they were perfect Naval officers.

In the case of the Stark, the Captain created a culture where the only guy who knew what was going on was a PO2 in the CIC--and that he would not report the situation to his seniors.

Some "perfect" Naval officer who "did everything according to the book."

16 posted on 06/28/2002 3:47:37 PM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: section9
And several years later, with a different captain in command, we grounded on a rock off the coast south of SF -- a long-charted rock with a freaking LIGHT on it! It ripped a huge, Titanic-sized gash on the ship's port side below the waterline, flooding the voids and causing such a list to port that our CAP (planes) couldn't land. We had to counterflood the starboard-side voids so that they could come in -- and THEN we discovered that we were drawing too much water to safely transit the Golden Gate! End result: two weeks at sea while temporary welds were performed on the hull by divers, then back to the Bay and a drydock berth at Hunter's Point for major hull repairs.

The Old Man got promoted to Rear Admiral and a desk job; the Navigator got casheried; and I got sick from drinking water contaminated with JP-5.

No s--t. God bless the Big E.

B-chan
Former MM3, USS ENTERPRISE (CVN-65)

17 posted on 06/28/2002 3:48:41 PM PDT by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Scuttlebutt
I don't really understand why the XO goes, also. Comments?
18 posted on 06/28/2002 3:48:56 PM PDT by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
Probable is these landing ships "have" to get in close and in wind-swept waters to deliver troops.

Tough love.
19 posted on 06/28/2002 3:53:26 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Being an ex-purpleshirt (airdale fuelie), I could have told you that washing the JP-5 down with a little diesel fuel would have had a neutralizing effect. Next time stick with the JP-4, much bigger bang for the buck.
20 posted on 06/28/2002 3:53:28 PM PDT by A Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson