| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Skipper Of Damaged Sub Relieved |
| 2005-02-14 |
| USS San Francisco Commander Guilty Of Hazarding Vessel Registration required, entire article The captain of a submarine that hit a seamount Jan. 8 in the western Pacific Ocean, killing one crewman and seriously injuring 23 others, has been found guilty of operating the submarine unsafely and has been issued a letter of reprimand, effectively ending his career. Cmdr. Kevin Mooney, the captain of the USS San Francisco, was permanently relieved as skipper after an administrative proceeding known as an admiral's mast. The proceeding was convened by an order of the commander of the Seventh Fleet, Vice Adm. Jonathan Greenert. Cmdr. Ike N. Skelton, a spokesman for the Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan, said late Friday night that Greenert determined during the investigation that Mooney failed to follow "several critical navigational and voyage planning" standards. "By not ensuring those standards were followed, Mooney hazarded the vessel," Skelton said, reading from a statement issued by Greenert. The mast concluded that Mooney's crew had access to charts that showed there might have been an underwater obstruction in the area, and that a sounding taken just minutes before the accident did not correlate with the charts that were in use at the time, which should have prompted him to be more cautious. The news stunned several Navy sources who have been following the accident investigation, particularly because Mooney's actions after the accident were characterized as heroic by everyone familiar with the situation. Despite extensive damage to the ship, he and his crew got it to the surface and kept it floating long enough to limp back to its homeport of Apra Harbor, Guam. The San Francisco was heading to Australia when it came to periscope depth a little more than 400 miles southwest of Guam to fix its position accurately. Minutes after diving, and while traveling at a high rate of speed, the submarine slammed into a seamount in an area where official Navy charts list 6,000 feet of water. Other charts of the area, however, show muddy water in the area, which normally indicates shallowness, and other government agency charts show evidence of the seamount less than 150 feet below the surface. The grounding destroyed three of the four ballast tanks in the submarine's bow, shattered the sonar dome and smashed the sonar sphere. In addition, a bulkhead at the front end of the ship was buckled. Machinist Mate 3rd Class Joseph Ashley was killed when he was thrown more than 20 feet and struck his head on a large pump. Almost two-dozen others were injured so badly they could not perform their duties, though they have all since been treated and released from the hospital in Guam. Seventy-five others received less severe injuries. The crew saved the ship by constantly running a low pressure blower meant for only intermittent use to force water out of the badly damaged forward ballast tanks, as well as using exhaust from the ship's diesel motor to augment the blower. Despite the force of the blow, the nuclear reactor and the ship's turbine generators continued to operate normally, and even sensitive electronic and navigation gear continued to function. On Jan. 20, Mooney was reassigned to Submarine Squadron 15 in Guam, pending the results of an investigation to determine the cause of the sub's grounding. Cmdr. Andrew Hale, the squadron's deputy commander, assumed duties as captain of the San Francisco. The mast means that Mooney will not face a more serious proceeding known as a court martial, but the letter of reprimand and the decision to relieve him of command "for cause" means that his promising career is over, the Navy sources said. In a related development, Lt. Cmdr. Jeff A. Davis, a spokesman for the Pacific submarine force commander, said late Friday night that assessment of the damage to the San Francisco is proceeding and that shipyard workers in Guam are planning to make temporary repairs to the bow of the ship so it can be moved under its own power to a shipyard where it can be repaired. Although the location where it will be repaired has not been determined, Navy sources said it would likely be Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or Bangor, Wash. "These temporary repairs will be engineered to ensure a successful transit," Davis said. "As part of having on-hand materials for potential use in these temporary repairs, a large steel dome about 20 feet high and 20 feet in diameter will be arriving at Guam in the next few days. As of now, no decisions have been made about when USS San Francisco will depart Guam, where it will go, or what her final disposition will be." Other Navy sources said that if the assessment determines it makes sense to repair rather than scrap the San Francisco, the Navy will likely use the entire bow section from the recently decommissioned USS Atlanta to replace the badly damaged bow of the San Francisco. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #4 that a sounding taken just minutes before the accident did not correlate with the charts that were in use at the time That's cause. SOP requires checking your sounding against the chart. If the sounding doesn't match the fix, both are in question. They should have slowed down until they got another sounding. Even worse if the sounding they got was less than the yellow or red limit -> either you aren't where you think you are, or you Nav screwed up. Other charts of the area, however, show muddy water in the area, which normally indicates shallowness, and other government agency charts show evidence of the seamount less than 150 feet below the surface. That one's bogus, you can't use a detailed area chart for a transit. You'd be changing charts 5 times a watch. Though presumably the Nav team would look at the detailed chart when laying out the track. Chop to a new fleet, squadron, group - a new set of standards applies. Nav standards were promulgated by SubPac, unless it's changed recently. It's not even that thick. The operational manuals are (were) alot less verbose than the admin ones, after all, someone actually has to use them. |
| Posted by: Anonymous4385 2005-02-14 7:19:54 PM |
| #3 I'd be relieved, too. Did you see what happened to that Russian sub? |
| Posted by: BH 2005-02-14 3:31:14 PM |
| #2 Mooney failed to follow âseveral critical navigational and voyage planningâ standards. If you're not cheating, you're not trying. No boat would ever leave the pier if it followed all the standards required of it. Not only does no boat follow all the standards, but the vast majority of the procedures, instructions, notices are not even read. There simply is no time. I remember walls in our off-crew offices in Charleston of binders of instructions. Every level of the chain of command puts out instructions - boat, squadron, group, on up to Navy. Chop to a new fleet, squadron, group - a new set of standards applies. All must be followed. Every commander that come's along, adds to the list. I remember holding a 10 pound instruction in my hands at sea and thinking, if my ship sinks because we were 10 pounds heavy, I am going to be pissed. All of submarining has been reduced to trying to read the standards and follow them. Initiative and independent thinking are the kiss of death in the submarine force. Every submariner with a conscience eventually comes to the conclusion that the purpose of written guidance is not to make operations better, but to provide ammo to nail submariners who tried to make decisions in good faith, under trying circumstances and with little sleep. At some point every submariner will screw up and leave his guts on the deck for any upper echelon punk to stomp on. Nothing of use will be learned from this event. All the instructions will be revised and amplified with further steps and cautions all of which will never be read except at some mandatory training that submariners everywhere will be woken up to attend. They won't hear anything at such training because they either will have fallen back asleep or they will be zoning-out in a mental fog. If they are serious about improving operations, then for goodness sake, abolish the 18 hour operational cycle. Human beings work on a 24 hour cycle in case the instruction-writing weenies have not noticed. |
| Posted by: Zpaz 2005-02-14 3:07:15 PM |
| #1 You can follow good discussion from sub guys at this link http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/ |
| Posted by: Sherry 2005-02-14 1:23:30 PM |