Minesweeper Aground
Even though it's always somewhat humorous to see a skimmer in distress, I still feel bad for the officers and crew of USS Guardian (MCM 5), aground in the Sulu Sea. The latest information is here. This picture shows how quickly the water goes from "deep enough" to "oh, crap".
Have you ever been on a boat that was grounded hard enough such that it was unable to move?
Update 0900 25 Jan: It looks like they've decided she'll sink if they pull her off the reef, so they're sending some heavy sealift assets to carry her back to port.
posted by Bubblehead at 12:43 PM
81 Comments:
Stuck hard, oh yes, the old P Can hold em game. A hull that shall not be named was stuck fast and hard. Some were joking about swimming to the Green House. Some cruise ships probably got some interesting tourist photos with all the tugs and the little tug diesels black smoke a rolling.
1/19/2013 1:13 PM
Fortunately not. However, GUARDFISH on the rocks was a chilling sight off of Pearl Harbor in the mid sixties when she climbed the coral reef at the entrance to Pearl Harbor returning from a special operation. The CO got the LOM for the OP and was relieved (However it was a scheduled relief. HIs successor made the Op and immediately took command when the sub finally moored at SUBASE Pearl (can't say that any more).
1/19/2013 7:08 PM
In 1988 my boat was in shipyard at PSNS when we got word that the Sam Houston had grounded near Gig Harbor. We nukes were in shiftwork and after our swing shift, instead of going out to a local tavern, got a case of beer and headed out to blow off some steam at someone else's misfortune.
PW
1/19/2013 7:54 PM
Worst swim call ever....
1/19/2013 10:42 PM
I have hit bottom in PI often...but never at sea!
Just to be clear, Sam Houston ran aground on Fox Island in Carr Inlet.
As an ANAV, just the thought of running aground is scary. To actually do it and then have to live with that would be hard.
Retired ANAV
1/19/2013 10:46 PM
The CO of the grounded Guardian is hoping history repeats itself.
about 100 years ago, a LT ran his ship aground in the PI, but he beat the rap at his Courts-Martial by proving the nav charts were wrong.
The 'Navigator of the US Navy', an Admiral has stated there is some corrupt data in the files of the nav charts to be downloaded to the ships.
So, the CO of the Guardian hopes his career will continue like the career of LT Nimitz who grounded his ship about 100 years ago.
1/19/2013 11:34 PM
I had friends on the "Slammin Sammy". Back in Pearl they dumped sand in the CO's parking spot and stuck a submarine model in it for him to find. He restricted all on board and never found out who did it.
I hope this will not be another case of a CO being relieved for another set of shyt charts."He should have had due concern due to the area" or some such big Navy bullshyt.
Wanna bet? I think it was 10 or 11 miles from our "brown spot" that was on a general area chart. Crock of shyt.
hagar
1/20/2013 1:40 AM
Hagar,
If the SAN FRANCISCO incident is any indication, there will be no sympathy for the CO, even though the chart is bad.
1/20/2013 6:25 AM
"His successor made the Op and immediately took command when the sub finally moored at SUBASE Pearl"
Not so. I was on that OP and the CO's reief was not onboard. The Change of Command came two months later.
1/20/2013 6:51 AM
Here's the article on the bogus DNC data.
http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/01/digital-map-error-may-have-led-to-minesweeper-grounding/
NOT an excuse, vis-a-vis SFO.
1/20/2013 7:20 AM
Nimitz was an Ensign (not LT) and was found guilty (did not beat the rap) of dereliction of duty; fortunately they needed people for this newfangled 'submarine' force.
Port Royal had a pretty vicicious grounding a few years ago off of Honolulu Airport that you could see from the beaches.
1/20/2013 7:27 AM
Ret ANAV is right.
Bad charts may be a factor but not an excuse. The Sulu Sea is a major transit route for hundreds of boats, ships, ferries, etc. and they do it safely every day.
This reef is very popular with diving outfits and a national park. The Sailing Directions clearly mark this reef.
Navigation is an art and it takes input from all sources, US or foreign, ships lookouts, bridge team, etc. to make it happen safely, every time.
Retired ANAV
1/20/2013 11:12 AM
From Sailing Direction 162, 10th Ed.(corrected up-to-date), page 304:
"Tubbataha Reef (8°50'N., 119°53'E.) are two extensive and
dangerous reefs separated by a channel 4 miles wide, lying
about 48 miles SW of Arena Island."
Type that lat/lon into google earth and you can see some nice pictures of the reef and the ranger station built there.
Luckily the Guardian didn't run into a building!
Retired ANAV
1/20/2013 11:27 AM
Minesweepers are O-4 commands. Apparently they're sought after for aspiring SWOs who want command experience relatively early in their career.
Is it possible that they're still too junior to gain a healthy amount of cynicism over such things? I think it's possible that a more experienced officer wouldn't have put such blind faith in the accuracy of those digital charts.
1/20/2013 12:35 PM
"Sam Houston ran aground on Fox Island in Carr Inlet."
CDR Kent MacNeill learned a hard lesson at that time--never tell the local commander that you're "in the area" on house-hunting leave, because you're a warm body not otherwise assigned a job. So, if they need a post-command dude to ride a submarine on sea trials, you get boned. And, if on the way back in from sea trials, they need a post-command dude to head a grounding investigation, you get boned again.
The 3MC on USS Connecticut may remember some of the details from his days as an newbie RM.
1/20/2013 7:07 PM
It gets worse
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/20/16613592-report-reef-bound-navy-ship-takes-on-water?lite=>1=43001
1/21/2013 12:08 PM
As this incident becomes a bigger public relations nightmare for the US, there is no doubt the CO is toast (whether he is a "great guy" or not).
Just like SFO, each ship is responsible for it's own safe navigation.
1/21/2013 12:48 PM
And SURFOR, by continuing to demonstrate that they "Don't Know what they Don't Know", faces an even greater uphill battle in their (painful) transition from paper charts to ECDIS
1/21/2013 12:59 PM
The sweeper CO had been in command only a month, but had been its XO for the previous year.
Imagine he's got to be the unluckiest dude in the Far East at this point. There is also the matter of a $7,000 fine for reef destruction.
1/21/2013 2:32 PM
Well, as XO, he was in charge of training and navigation supervision. Made his own mishap in my book.
Can't blindly follow ECDIS charts, as details aren't on every layer, and may be error prone. You still have to consult sailing directions, etc the old school way, or this happens.
Glad no one was hurt, and good luck to those in charge of the salvage efforts
1/21/2013 3:35 PM
On the Sweeps, the XO IS the Navigator.
1/21/2013 3:55 PM
I'm not sure why bubblehead would find one of our Naval assets, whether surface or submerged, grounded humorous, but I suppose it's his blog and he can say whatever nonsense peculates in his head.
Over in the give a shit about our entire Navy corner, I hope no one has been injured and the ship can be towed to safe harbor for repairs.
1/21/2013 4:17 PM
It's like driving your car onto a curb and getting it wedged there. Everyone is fine, so it's a little funny
Happiness stolen from skimmers is worth 8 times as much as happiness from a submariner.
1/21/2013 5:27 PM
"I'm not sure why bubblehead would find one of our Naval assets, whether surface or submerged, grounded humorous,..."
Same reason dead baby or grandma jokes are funny. If you were a submariner you would understand.
1/21/2013 5:46 PM
Ret ANAV -
Guessed that the XO was NAV, but thanks for confirming. In Command for a month and reaping the benefit of all his hard work over the last year as XO / NAV.
Oh well, pass the donuts and another cup of joe....still must suck to be a SWO.
1/21/2013 5:54 PM
Responding to Joel's original question: yes, I've been on a boat (SSN 688 Class) that was hard aground.
Aground on the rudder (and the occasional MBT), we eventually drove off the reef we were on by using tugs to push/pull the pointy end toward the open ocean and simply driving off. That big ol' screw pushes forward a lot more efficiently than it backs down. This doesn't remotely look to be any kind of option for the currently aground minesweeper -- just not gonna happen with the bow aground like that.
But, on the point of humor, I have to say that simply having a sense of humor is fundamental to getting through a Navy day many times.
In our case, the song that was made up and sung (in maneuvering) within one hour of the grounding and while we were still on the beach:
[To the tune of Neil Diamond's Love on the Rocks, the opening lines:
,"Sub on the Rocks
Ain't no surprise
When the OOD has sleep in his eyes..."
(etc.)
1/21/2013 9:34 PM
I'm a MM,not a navaguesser or even a quartermaster, but I've done some sailboat sailing in my time and the first thing that stands out to me is how the hell can you miss those breakers? That's a pretty good indication you have a reef. Typically I would kinda feel bad for a newly relieving CO when shit goes bad, but this guy had time to foster or hinder the proper command climate. When I sat back there with the hot rock pushing forward, I counted on the guys up forward to at least do the basics. Accidents do happen, but with the info I have so far, this seems to be a reminder of seamanship 101.
1/21/2013 10:52 PM
-- "Imagine he's got to be the unluckiest dude in the Far East at this point. There is also the matter of a $7,000 fine for reef destruction." --
Just curious, if the CO is found to be not afault, does the Navy pay the fine for him?
1/22/2013 6:05 AM
Talked to a skimmer bud (post-CO) who is in the thick of this recovery. Bottom line is that if the reef wasn't holding the ship up, this would be changed from a grounding to a sinking. Ship is holed and will have to be salvaged - not just gotten off the reef and towed back for repairs. Digital mapping and poor nav practices appear to be the cause.
1/22/2013 7:24 AM
That won't be easy. There aren't many floating cranes big enough to lift that ship without being on the reef themselves. And if the ship is really holed, then it is full to the waterline and even more difficult (heavier) to lift.
1/22/2013 8:25 AM
Sounds like we have a candidate for SINKEX 2013 to me!!!
1/22/2013 9:29 AM
"Sounds like we have a candidate for SINKEX 2013 to me!!!"
WHERE IS FRED WHEN YOU NEED HIM! DOUBLE DEUCE ICEX.
1/22/2013 11:13 AM
I have been on smaller sailboats (27 feet) that have run aground with a hard keel, and it was not a picnic.
The first time it happened we tried to back off with the diesel engine... that resulted in pulling the shaft out of the engine! Bad things... bad things.
The next time it happened (years later and a different shoal) we got off of it by letting a halyard out as far as it would go, walked out as far as we could go with it, then pulled hard with it... sailboat went to a 40 degree lean, keel came off of the shoal, and we were free. :)
1/22/2013 2:14 PM
Had a sailboat run aground once, too, that couldn't move under its own power.
It was in my bathtub.
I picked it up along with my Rubber Ducky, and set it free again. Problem solved.
1/22/2013 8:28 PM
I mean...a sailboat is a whole lot like a nuclear-powered submarine. Am I right?
1/22/2013 8:29 PM
There's nothing more to say or do.
She's going to have to be salvaged and pulled into port. That's because her Keel is slightly fucked off the ass end. It's gonna clearly take a damned tug to pick that ugly out of date bitch up from surface and turn her around to get back to port. Tell me I'm wrong.
Oh how I Thank the Fuck Christ I don't serve Topside! "Atleast not on a regular basis."
1/22/2013 9:21 PM
So paper charts and a QM keeping a DR is gone? Watch how fast that returns.
"Electronics reflects the science of navigation but only a competent human can practice the art of navigation".
1/23/2013 9:46 AM
Each day that goes by, the cruel sea is beating that ship to death. I'd bet it's a total loss at this point.
The salvage effort will be very interesting, unless the direction of the seas changes dramatically, with an unusually high tide. If that happens, it will float off and sink into that black abyss right next to the reef.
That will make us really popular in the PI
1/23/2013 3:50 PM
The electronic navigation routine didn't cause the ship to ground. Automating the DR process gives the nav team more time to focus on the big picture and look for hazards. The cause was a faulty chart with over-reliance on the Nav/QMOW vice visually driving the ship from the bridge.
Once you see land in good visibility, the navigator becomes useless provided the CO and OOD know what they're doing.
Sadly, we're finding out that too many don't.
1/23/2013 5:08 PM
And on another note, so far Ohole has put women on submarines, allowed open faggots in the military, initiated duty day breathalyzers, repealed the ban on women in combat units, and now this.
Obama: Swahili for, "I sucked Larry Sinclair's dick and let him ass fuck me."
1/23/2013 7:33 PM
I think this is awesome. Hope she sinks deep and will save all the expense of decomm and keeping the ship going for who knows how many more years.
Maybe they'll just let the entire crew get early EAOS for a mini-RIF
Defense cuts baby! Long overdue.
1/23/2013 8:19 PM
"So paper charts and a QM keeping a DR is gone? Watch how fast that returns."
Seriously? Firstly, the cause was bad charts, poor nav plan preparaion, and poor situational awareness by the bridge team, not the electronic navigation routine.
Secondly, maybe if the Navy got smart and learned how to use technology to its maximum value instead of mistrust it, we wouldn't get into these silly messes.
I'm able to drive on the street with 25' accuracy with a $150 GPS and have never in 5 years using it seen it crap out in any weather conditions. But put it on a submarine (with a backup GPS, no less) and we have to make a poor attempt at using visual navigation just in case. When the whole navigation team is trying really hard to do something pointless like shoot a good bearing to some water tower or buoy when you have a FOM 1 military and commercial GPS fix, then it stops looking at important things like sounding data, marking the turn, ship's position relative to track, and PROXIMITY TO SHOAL WATER!
Missing the forest for the trees. It's the submarine (and apparently SWO) way!
1/23/2013 10:43 PM
Bad charts was NOT the CAUSE of this accident.
While faulty charts certainly didn't do them any favors, the Voyage Management System is designed to alert the operator to hazards shown on ALL charts (not just the one you happen to be looking at)...both in the planning phase (BEFORE they even left Subic), and in the execution phase (The alarms were probably squawking at them for an hour or more before the accident). All too often, these indictions (alarms) are either misinterpreted or, worse, summarily ignored.
1/24/2013 3:27 AM
Salvage ships are arriving today by this report.
Here's a high-res photo of the ship's current situation. Lots o' lost draft it would appear -- that's got to make for a lot of wear & tear on the hull.
I wouldn't throw out the 10:43PM Anon's comments with the bathwater, Ret ANAV. He's making some very common sensical remarks (to some). If you have a solid (GPS) fix, then you have a solid fix...move on to the next problem, like ensuring the ship is really going where you want it to go with all hazards taken into account.
Clinging to old, useless, ustafish ways of doing things is just that: useless, or worse. Running 'fixes' shot out the 'scope (which are effectively DR'd) do not remotely compare to modern GPS fixes and just clutter up communications on the conn.
Navy note-to-self: "Learning has not taken place until behavior has changed."
1/24/2013 4:51 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
1/24/2013 5:18 AM
^^^Not at all throwing out his comments...I agree with them wholeheartedly.
He/She makes a very key point, ESPECIALLY WRT SURFOR's mindset:
"Secondly, maybe if the Navy got smart and learned how to use technology to its maximum value instead of mistrust it, we wouldn't get into these silly messes."
Navy in General, SURFOR in particular. Work with these guys every day, and he got it in one.
1/24/2013 5:21 AM
Meanwhile, back on the reef...
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/01/24/900650/singapore-based-firm-lift-us-ship-tubbataha-reef
Looking at the picture in this story, it's hard to imagine that the wooden-hulled ship will hold up for long under that beating. Not even long enough to get a super crane there and lift it. I bet they will end up taking the ship off that reef in pieces.
1/24/2013 9:27 AM
Not to be dickish, but I was looking at the high res pic (very nice pic, by the bye) and I noticed the pretty letters painted on the bridge wing.
Green E = Excellence Award for the best Combat Information Centers. (Surface Ships)
It has 3 stripes underneath.
Will they put a brown S over top of it?
Brown F = Oh shit, I fucked up
1/24/2013 10:26 AM
Dardar , did they do that with the Greenville and San Francisco, etc?
1/24/2013 11:45 AM
Ret ANAV, I admit to having much less experience than you but I have never seen a QMOW or Nav sup switch charts mid piloting to check an alarm. Doing so would be a 5-10 minute process (so you miss that oh-so-important visual fix to validate the FOM 1 GPS fix every 3 min) and could invalidate the whole nav plan. I agree that ideally the nav party should treat every alarm like a real hazard, but realistically it happens so often and VMS takes forever to do anything that the team can easily become frustrated and desensitized. There is plenty of blame to go around but not switching DNCs on every alarm isn't it.
1/24/2013 1:56 PM
Well Guys and Gals, here it is, though shouldn't be a problem. Integration complete, including enlisted women.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/01/navy-mabus-1st-women-selected-attack-submarines-012413/
1/24/2013 3:32 PM
^^^ Bubblehead - probably worthy of a separate thread ^^^
1/24/2013 3:34 PM
Statement from the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus on the Women in Service Review:
"I fully support Secretary Panetta's decision to rescind the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, which removes barriers preventing women Sailors and Marines from reaching their potential in certain fields.
I am pleased the Navy has completed an initiative I announced several months ago to open up one of the few areas not currently available to women, that of service on Virginia Class submarines (SSNs). Three years ago we announced a policy change allowing women to serve in guided-missile attack (SSGNs) and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and this is a planned continuation of that effort. Newly commissioned female officers have been selected for assignment to Virginia Class submarines upon successful completion of the Naval Nuclear Powered training pipeline. We expect these officers, along with female Supply Corps Officers, to report to their submarines in FY15. We also plan to include female enlisted Sailors in this process. The Navy has a long history of inclusion and integration and I am proud we have achieved another important milestone during my tenure as Secretary.
1/24/2013 3:41 PM
Another factual tidbit for today:
I just Googled for "Mabus" and "moron" and received about 828,000 results in 0.40 seconds.
Just sayin'.
1/24/2013 3:48 PM
Now, now...Ray has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English and political science from the University of Mississippi...and he was a skimmer officer for a whole TWO years.
Ray's motto: "Genius я me."
Fine words we can all live by. I would even go so far as to say that the first underway male/female crewmember orgasms should be accompanied by the words: "Ray...you're a ge-ge-ge-GENius!!!"
Amen.
1/24/2013 3:59 PM
We had to stay out to cover Georgia's target package when they had the accident with the tug. When we got back to Bangor she was there at the delta pier. During our extra three weeks we had a nuke who was a pretty good artist so he made up a template of a tugboat. The night we pulled in I was DCPO and strolled down the pier to talk to the topside watch on Georgia, two of my guys went onboard and while I talked to the topside watches they were able to spraypaint a white tug on the side of their sail.
Next morning my last duty was to hold colors and then go home. Saw the CO of Georgia coming towards us smoke coming out of his ears and just before he reached the brow the bugle sounded for colors. We held it, I keyed the 27 MC and said "Control-Off going DCPO, colors held properly and on-time, Georgia arriving" and I passed him on the brow...
CO and XO trapped me the next day in SES for a "talking to" but neither could keep a straight face.
1/24/2013 4:44 PM
Anon @1:56;
"I have never seen a QMOW or Nav sup switch charts mid piloting to check an alarm."
Nor should you. One of the features of VMS is that the system checks ALL charts...not just the one that happens to be on the screen. Results of a Danger Query, even if on a different (underlying) chart can be displayed on the chart in use.
"Doing so would be a 5-10 minute process (so you miss that oh-so-important visual fix to validate the FOM 1 GPS fix every 3 min) and could invalidate the whole nav plan."
Actually, it takes about 5-10 seconds, and doesn't invalidate anything (unless changes are made to the approved plan, which can't be done while it is running anyways).
"I agree that ideally the nav party should treat every alarm like a real hazard, but realistically it happens so often and VMS takes forever to do anything that the team can easily become frustrated and desensitized.
HERE lies the root of the problem! OK, let's think about WHY it happens so often. In my experience, it happens so often because users don't have enough system knowledge to understand that a large majority of the alrms are controlled by settings that THEY DEFINE. As for VMS "taking forever to do anything"...That is, again, in my experience, caused by poor maintennce practices on the part of the users/maintainers (Too many unnecessary charts loaded on the system, poor MO database maintenance, etc).
You got it in one with the word "Desensitized", but more often than not it's the teams that do thaaty to themselves.
"There is plenty of blame to go around but not switching DNCs on every alarm isn't it.
Once again, the team didn't have to switch DNC's to see what was in front of them. This also should hve been seen while BUILDING the Voyage plan before they even LEFT Subic. I'll give you four words (that re seen when you click "SAVE" on a Voyage Plan): "Voyage Plan Intersects Dangers...". This is the system looking not at one chart, but at ALL charts in the portfolio. This is also the system's way of telling the OPERATOR to CHECK FOR DANGERS.
1/24/2013 5:06 PM
BEFORE you click on the below link from today's news, first see if you can answer this question:
Q.: "What percentage of women in the military said they had an unintended pregnancy in the last year...?
.
.
.
. (imagine Jeopardy music playing here)
.
. duhh
. duhh-duhh-duhh
. duhh-dudh-duhh
. DUHH-DUH
. duhh-duhh--duhh-duhh
. DUHH...!
. *duhh-duhh-duhh-duhh-duhh*
.
.
.
.
Times up:
A. "Over 10%."
Ray...you're a ge-ge-ge-GENius...!!!
1/24/2013 5:38 PM
"The Navy has a long history of inclusion and integration and I am proud we have achieved another important milestone during my tenure as Secretary."
What about the Navy's long history of rum, buggery, and the lash?
Panetta? Mabus? Bueller?
1/24/2013 6:34 PM
Ret Anav,
You are starting to sound like Big Navy -- blaming personnel on the deckplate for systemic equipment and procedural shortfalls.
Firstly, a reality check: Those ANAVs who don't know how to train their QMOWs to properly tune VMS and build lean Nav plans were trained by you and your other now-retired peers. If you all really were so skilled at employing VMS compared to the current generation of ANAVs and QMOWs, any failure for them to build a nav plan and properly tweak VMS is the fault of your generation not ensuring your subordinates had proper navigational knowledge. So either your generation was asleep at the wheel and spent too much time in CPO quarters vice training your divisions, or you weren't as good as you think you were at employing VMS. I'm guessing it's a mix of both.
Secondly, it shouldn't take a computer whiz to figure out how to stop VMS from alarming because you looked at it sideways. If something is not sufficient with the SOM appendix for VMS settings, then the SOM ought to be revised.
Finally, there are some deployment areas and operational requirements that require complex nav plans with lots of data. It is not just human error for failing to purge the system of old data that causes VMS to run slowly. VMS is run on a Pentium III CPU with low-resolution monitors, which puts it squarely at mid 90s hardware trying to run 21st century software. Now pair that with text boxes taking up 50% of your chart viewing area. The damn thing can't even draw a circle to build a stovepipe. This is inexcusable when COTS processors and high-resolution touchscreens are so cheap compared to all the other crap the Navy wastes money on.
I may have exaggerated with 5-10 minutes but it can take the better part of a 3-min cyclic routine to even shift the center of the screen, let alone load a different DNC. Simple screen shifts have causes VMS to freeze and require resets, which does in fact invalidate the nav plan.
1/24/2013 10:58 PM
I am not meaning to be a dick about it or antyhing to blame the officers and crew, but in that great highres picture i do not see the correct dayshape for aground. just another indication of lack of attention to details and procedureal compliantcy that results in theser things happening.
1/25/2013 4:16 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
1/25/2013 4:20 AM
@10:58;
(Chuckle) An eyeroll and a shake of the head is about all you're going to get out of me for that little gem.
If you'd like to take this offline, please feel free to email me at retiredanav(at)gmail(dot)com. Otherwise, have a great weekend.
(You voted for Obama, didn't you?)
1/25/2013 4:21 AM
""So paper charts and a QM keeping a DR is gone? Watch how fast that returns."
Seriously? Firstly, the cause was bad charts, poor nav plan preparaion, and poor situational awareness by the bridge team, not the electronic navigation routine.
Secondly, maybe if the Navy got smart and learned how to use technology to its maximum value instead of mistrust it, we wouldn't get into these silly messes.
I'm able to drive on the street with 25' accuracy with a $150 GPS and have never in 5 years using it seen it crap out in any weather conditions. But put it on a submarine (with a backup GPS, no less) and we have to make a poor attempt at using visual navigation just in case. When the whole navigation team is trying really hard to do something pointless like shoot a good bearing to some water tower or buoy when you have a FOM 1 military and commercial GPS fix, then it stops looking at important things like sounding data, marking the turn, ship's position relative to track, and PROXIMITY TO SHOAL WATER! "
Seriously? Having a DR plotted on paper rather than programming a electronic piece of crap for voyage planning that was eroneously programmed by flawed humans is the flaw. As a former QM/SS/SW I used all methods as opposed to letting the machine do everything and then put my brain in neutral, as what seemd to be the case here. Of course we could armchair everything since everyone is always so much smarter after the fact. Over reliance on one method will always be the downfall. The lookouts must have been asleep as well. In short, the whole bridge watch failed. They used the technology to its maximum. It has been acknowledged that the electronic chart was off by 8 miles in that area and 6 miles off near the coast of Chile. Another reason to keep a paper chart and manual DR running. If I were CO of a vessel, count on that happening. Maybe its old school, but its a tried and tested method that works.
1/25/2013 4:59 AM
In other news...Rear Admiral William Hunter Hilarides gets to put on another star as he is nominated for Sea Systems Command.. Another 1120 climbing the star ladder. BZ. one star's should be out soon (officially, that is)
1/25/2013 7:01 AM
Hah. The one start list isn't usually out until April at the earliest.
Who's the smart money on for making it this year?
1/25/2013 7:57 AM
Not out, but the mumbling has already started.
1/25/2013 12:13 PM
mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble who??? mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble
1/25/2013 12:23 PM
@459am,
Another one who's part of the problem. Electronic navigation processes didn't cause the grounding. And any CO who gets a good idea fairy to keep paper charts too is gonna have lots of splainin to do in front of the commodore on why he thinks his QMOW is better off plotting dots less accurately than VMS can instead of looking at the bigger picture and proximity to nav hazards... and it's directly contrary to the SOM, but I don't expect you to know that bc coners don't read any manuals or pubs.
1/25/2013 3:18 PM
@1/25/2013 3:18 PM
When the VMS is in error and the paper charts are not?
Thats what caused this grounding. Blind reliance on something that can't be verified puts one brain in neutral and hazards will be ignored because the electronics can't be wrong, can they?
1/26/2013 2:44 AM
From what we know, VMS wasn't in error, the DNC in use was. Just like paper charts could have errors ala USS San Francisco.
1/26/2013 2:35 PM
I am interested in how the Fathometer was included in the NAVPLAN. Was it part of the cyclic routine? Operating properly? Operated properly? At a minimum, suspect soundings should have led to investigation of ship's position.
1/26/2013 3:50 PM
By their own procedures, they weren't in "Restricted Waters" (based on where they THOUGHT the reef was, anyways), which is defined s operating within 2nm of land/shoal water. Their sounding interval is tied to their fix interval. As far as THEY knew, they were in "Coastal Waters" (10-30nm from land/shoal water), which requires a fix interval of not more than 15 minutes and, again, a sounding with each fix. Of course, this all assumes they were doing what the NAVDORM TOLD them to do which, as we've already seen, they DIDN'T when it came to comparing charts/performing VMS Dnger Query.
1/27/2013 3:13 PM
^^^That was me
1/27/2013 3:15 PM
The latest is that they are going to "cut it up" piece by piece to get it off the reef.
Looks like an opportunity for any plank owners to make a claim.
1/29/2013 5:59 AM
I thought the first rule of navigation was "don't believe the charts" meaning you verify you position using other means available such as visual sight, fathometer, radar etc.
admittedly I took a nav course from the CG but it is not their ship on a reef is it?
1/29/2013 10:30 AM
How will the Nav, XO, and CO not get put in the brig for this?
The ship is going to be scuttled.
If they just walk away with a pension then the entire UCMJ needs to be rewritten so TEDs don't get hammered for the tiny stuff.
Waddle kills people and walks off in the sunset. The San Fran CO just goes off to the land of pensions.
I'm dead serious, these kinds of events need more than just a letter of reprimand and they retire.
Take pay, and in the case of Waddle and others there should be brig time.
Loss of an entire ship should be enough to take their entire pensions.
1/29/2013 11:12 PM
^^^^ Certainly if a CO is convicted of hazarding a ship in a general court martial, he can lose all that and more. Do the circumstances always warrant a GCM? If so, the Admirals can make it happen. Otherwise there is mast hence the reprimands.
1/30/2013 7:26 AM
I wonder how he gets Detached For Cause (DFC), if there is nothing to detach him from.
Maybe he'll speak at the Strickening Ceremony - the vessel will be struck (administatively) removed from the Commissioned Ship List - vice Decommissioning.
When was the last time we lost a Commissioned ship?
1/30/2013 2:49 PM
New update, Joel: Guardian is going home in pieces; lifting/towing is no longer an option.
One related quote: “...after a full review of all possible alternatives, our only viable option is to dismantle the damaged ship and remove it in sections.”
Sorta makes one wonder if they'll eventually turn it into an artificial reef...?
1/31/2013 5:36 PM
So they fire a Frigate CO and replace him with a her....whose ship was T-boned, but no news about this PR nightmare for PACFLEET? Heads will roll in a few days is my prediction!
2/24/2013 5:54 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home