Isn’t computerized “fly by wire” great? One bad sensor and the vehicle is history. In this case going into “limp mode” was a really bad thing...
Also these things must HAVE inertial navigation platforms that would have given warning. Maybe THAT is what failed. But they’d also be triple redundant.
Wow.
“found a second gauge…….”
What did someone have a towel over it. Seems like redundancy fault training would have made it apparent that there was a second gauge.
Redundancy saves the day!
I’ve got to tell my brother about this: retired Navy, who used to be in subs.
Take that, Putin!!!!
Good thing someone was paying attention.
We had a faulty sensor that indicated that the flap on the snorkel was closed when in fact it was stuck open. This resulted in flooding when we dove as water poured into the upper level. Surface! Surface! Surface!
Yeah, I can just envision it...
CREWMAN #1: "Irregardless" is not a word!! CREWMAN #2: Yes it is! It's used all the time!!! CREWMAN #1: NO!! You're thinking of "irrespective"!!!! I already let you have 21 points for "woke"!!!! CREWMAN #2: Well you should have because "woke" is a real word!!!! CREWMAN #1: NO IT'S NOT! IT'S SLANG!! CREWMAN #2: WHERE'S MY DICTIONARY? AGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! CREWMAN #1: THAT'S MY DICTIONARY!!! AAAAAAGHGHGHGHGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Very odd. There must be more to the story, but we’ll never get the details (classified).
Good thing that the nukes were paying attention. I wonder why this is a headline? UK MOD needs ‘moar money’ no doubt.
How could a competent and certified crew "discover" another depth gauge in a rear compartment? Submariners are crosstrained in multiple qualifications. A large chunk of everyone on the boat knows every corner, gauge and valve.
In this case there is probably less to the story.
Reminds me of the USS Thresher and USS Scorpion disasters.
The article makes it appear that there is a unique depth at which the submarine implodes. There is no such depth, it is not a unique number. As they get deeper, the probability of implosion increases.
Yawn….been there, done that.
There was no “massive malfunction”
There was no “endless dive”
Using the limited true information from the article and inserting my own persona experience:’
There was a failure of the primary depth in indicator in the Control room. The backup systems worked correctly. The crew training worked correctly.
The Engineering section Lin Maneuvering Room saw their depth indicator was showing a depth at which the ship should be been rigged for deep dive (additional crew stationed in each compartment, all watertight doors closed and dogged, annunciation deep dive evolution was happening). The Engineering watch called this to the attention of the Control Room and corrective action was taken. The boat was never outside the operating envelope and proceeded to rise stabilize the depth and commence repairs. Everything worked as it should using backup systems and good training.
Only possible take-away in my thinking is why there wasn’t a dual redundant depth indicator in Control, one digital and one analog, as it was when I was operating.
Ice Station Zebra (1968)
How does a bad depth gauge directly harm the sub? If I am at a depth and I lost track of what the depth is, due to the gauge not responding, I simply surface.
Their radars and other instruments were working fine. Is their radar pinging closer to the bottom? That is a depth gage proxy that still worked.
I don’t see a real problem, here. They know if they’ve gone “up” or “down” by how buoyant they were.
If the depth gauge suddenly said they were at the surface, or at the bottom of the ocean, far below crush depth, they just need to set the sub to surface, period. They would know something was wrong.
Computerized control systems can do amazing things and quite dreadful things. 140 crew members have quite a story to tell. Let’s hope the event hasn’t scared any of them out of the service.