US SUB runs aground near Guam-AP
Tiger
|
15 minutes ago
|
|
HONOLULU - A nuclear submarine ran aground about 350 miles south of Guam, injuring several sailors, one of them critically, the Navy said.
|
There were no reports of damage to the USS San Francisco's reactor plant, which was operating normally, the Navy said.
Jon Yoshishige, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet based at Pearl Harbor, said the Friday afternoon incident is under investigation and the 360-foot submarine was headed back to its home port in Guam.
Details on the sailors' injuries were not immediately available. The sub has a crew of 137, officials said.
Military and Coast Guard aircraft from Guam were en route to monitor the submarine and assist if needed, the Navy said.
Guam is a U.S. territory about 3,700 miles southwest of Hawaii.
thom...@flash.net
>
> HONOLULU - A nuclear submarine ran aground about 350 miles south of
> Guam, injuring several sailors, one of them critically, the Navy
said.
That seems to be near Faraulep Atoll or possibly Gaferut Atoll
in the Yap Islands, Federated States of Micronesia.
Bill
With current operational procedures, how is an accident like
this possible?
thom...@flash.net
Bill wrote:
> With current operational procedures, how is an accident like
> this possible?
We don't know much about what happened as yet. The following excerpt
has the most I've seen so far. Note that Guam time is 10 hours ahead of
UT/GMT/Z, 15 ahead of EST, so the accident apparently happened around
2100 7 Jan Washington time.
http://www.guampdn.com/news/stories/20050109/localnews/1843619.html
Local News - Sunday, January 9, 2005
20 hurt in sub incident
By Natalie J. Quinata
Pacific Sunday News; nqui...@guampdn.com
The USS San Francisco, one of three fast-attack submarines home-ported
on Guam, ran aground yesterday and is expected to return Monday.
A U.S. Navy submarine home-ported on Guam ran aground about 350 miles
south of the island yesterday afternoon, with at least one sailor
critically injured.
The USS San Francisco was conducting a routine submerged operation and
was en route to Brisbane, Australia, for a routine port visit, said
Senior Chief Jonathan Annis, deputy public affairs officer for the
Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Marianas.
According to a news release, the incident occurred around noon
yesterday.
Annis said about 20 people on board were injured, but were being
treated by an on-board hospital corpsman with specialized emergency
training.
Annis said the corpsman has direct communication with on-shore
physicians in case specialized instruction is needed.
Although the extent of the injuries was not known, Annis was able to
say that the 20 sailors who suffered injuries were unable to stand
their regular duty watches.
[remainder snipped]
w...@wfzimmerman.com
One news account said most of the injuries were head injuries. That
sounds like a pretty hard bump ... maybe travelling at speed?
Fred
"Bill" <wjla...@accessinter.net> wrote in message
news:34am1kF...@individual.net...
thom...@flash.net
> One news account said most of the injuries were head injuries. That
> sounds like a pretty hard bump ... maybe travelling at speed?
To wit (I post this because it seems slightly worthwhile to
document who said what.),
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/08/nuclear.submarine/
U.S. nuclear sub runs aground in Pacific
20 crew members injured
Saturday, January 8, 2005 Posted: 1:45 PM EST (1845 GMT)
(CNN) -- U.S. Coast Guard and military aircraft Saturday are en route
to the western Pacific, where a nuclear attack submarine ran aground,
injuring at least 20 crew members -- one critically, U.S. Navy sources
said.
The USS San Francisco ran aground some 350 miles south of Guam -- the
nearest land mass -- while it was conducting submerged operations. It
has since resurfaced and is heading back to Guam, according to the
USPF's news release.
"At this point there does not seem to be damage to the (nuclear)
reactor," Lt. Adam Clampitt told CNN, from his base in Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii.
The accident happened Saturday at noon, Guam time (Friday 9 p.m. ET, 4
p.m. Hawaii time).
There are 137 crew members on board the USS San Francisco. in addition
to the one critically injured crew member. Nineteen others were injured
to the extent that they are unable to work, the sources said.
Most of the wounded suffered head injuries, Clampitt said.
--
[remainder snipped]
Ogden Johnson III
>With current operational procedures, how is an accident like
>this possible?
Rather dumb question this early. Or are you a member of the
tin-hat brigade who believes that the USN can read the minds of
the Captain and his crew at will, so they know what happened
already, and don't need to wait until they have a chance to
interview them to find out what might have happened?
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]
thom...@flash.net
> That seems to be near Faraulep Atoll or possibly Gaferut Atoll
> in the Yap Islands, Federated States of Micronesia.
If anyone wants to look at the geography of this,
www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/statesmicronesia.jpg
is the best I've found, though www.infoplease.com/images/mmicron.gif is
also useful for showing the overall picture.
If anyone has a pointer to a chart showing the water depths in the
area, please post it. I've looked around with no success.
Fred J. McCall
:With current operational procedures, how is an accident like
:this possible?
Human and equipment error. That's why they're called ACCIDENTS, Bill.
Fred J. McCall
:One news account said most of the injuries were head injuries. That
:sounds like a pretty hard bump ... maybe travelling at speed?
Unlikely. "Travelling at speed" and running aground in a sub would
probably give you some corpses. Think about human beings tossed into
sharp steel cabinets at 30 knots.
Head injuries are what you would expect in most any collision where
someone took a 'real' injury that was worth reporting. That's also
probably why they can't stand regular duty. When you take a head
injury, there is (or at least used to be) a 24 hour mandatory
observational period.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
richb...@yahoo.com
Fred J. McCall
:> That seems to be near Faraulep Atoll or possibly Gaferut Atoll
It looks like there are a bunch of atolls down in that area. Most of
the water is quite deep, but near some of the atolls it gets as
shallow as 10 fathoms.
Has anyone got something like the actual coordinates where this
happened?
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
Andrew C. Toppan
>
>With current operational procedures, how is an accident like
>this possible?
A number of ways - including the fact that nautical charts are
imperfect.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
"Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
Andrew C. Toppan
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Unlikely. "Travelling at speed" and running aground in a sub would
>probably give you some corpses. Think about human beings tossed into
>sharp steel cabinets at 30 knots.
I think it's hard to say, since we have NO idea what kind of impact
they had. Sure, 30 knots into a vertical wall is going to toss people
into sharp steel cabinets and cause massive injuries (and damage), but
30 knots bumping across and "barely" touching a shoal will be a lot
more minor.
I think the fact that the boat was in transit between two distant
ports, and is now operational and underway, implies steaming along at
a moderate cruising speed (perhaps not "high" speed), and lightly
'bumping' into some obstruction. A hard "grounding" in a traditional
sense would tend to damage the boat more and caution might dictate not
operating on own power until a more complete inspection of damage.
Andrew C. Toppan
<fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Has anyone got something like the actual coordinates where this
>happened?
Since all reports so far are just re-re-re-reporting the initial and
very brief press release, I doubt anybody has any coordinates. If the
Nay isn't saying, nobody's going to know.
~^ beancounter ~^
skipper will loose command of the vessle, right?...
isn't this navy tradition..??
Newby
"Andrew C. Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
news:jqo0u01ir6366d1qo...@4ax.com...[snipped]
> A number of ways - including the fact that nautical charts are
> imperfect.
Consider the possibility that the recent earthquake re-arranged the ocean
floor and put obstacles where there were none before.
J.T. McDaniel
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:59:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Unlikely. "Travelling at speed" and running aground in a sub would
>>probably give you some corpses. Think about human beings tossed into
>>sharp steel cabinets at 30 knots.
>
> I think it's hard to say, since we have NO idea what kind of impact
> they had. Sure, 30 knots into a vertical wall is going to toss people
> into sharp steel cabinets and cause massive injuries (and damage), but
> 30 knots bumping across and "barely" touching a shoal will be a lot
> more minor.
>
> I think the fact that the boat was in transit between two distant
> ports, and is now operational and underway, implies steaming along at
> a moderate cruising speed (perhaps not "high" speed), and lightly
> 'bumping' into some obstruction. A hard "grounding" in a traditional
> sense would tend to damage the boat more and caution might dictate not
> operating on own power until a more complete inspection of damage.
>
of head injuries has me wondering if the head-end of
the bunks is forward and a lot of these guys were
asleep when the boat ran aground.
--
Jack
http://jtmcdaniel.com
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Andrew C. Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
A better possibility is that what they really hit was rapidly shoaling
terrain, which sort of drives the floor up toward your nut....
Tiger
Tiger
department at Home Depot in Fresno...... :-[
~^ beancounter ~^
bw
> this possible?
Sonar fairies playing with themselves.
Henry J Cobb
> On 8 Jan 2005 18:11:01 GMT, wjla...@accessinter.net (Bill) wrote:
>>With current operational procedures, how is an accident like
>>this possible?
>
> A number of ways - including the fact that nautical charts are
> imperfect.
Since it's fairly clear that the area around our forward operating base is a
fairly likely battleground, shouldn't some effort be put into correcting the
chats in this area?
Would sea gliders or unmanned surface ships with sonar and GPS be able to
automacally chart most of this area?
-HJC
Fred J. McCall
:"Bill" <wjla...@accessinter.net> wrote in message
Spoken like someone who thinks ground somehow shouts out so you can
hear it....
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
William Black
"~^ beancounter ~^" <richb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105232400....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> i would assume, no matter what the reason is...the
> skipper will loose command of the vessle, right?...
> isn't this navy tradition..??
>
Certainly some careers will be in the trash can...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe
Barbeques on fire by chalets past the headland
I've watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off Newborough
All this will pass like ice-cream on the beach
Time for tea
Jack Linthicum
The TV news says the critically injured sailor died.
Andrew C. Toppan
>Since it's fairly clear that the area around our forward operating base is a
>fairly likely battleground, shouldn't some effort be put into correcting the
>chats in this area?
Perhaps, but the Navy's budget for charting is not exactly large, nor
is NOAA's budget large, and there is a huge backlog of charting work
to be done. A lot of charts in the continental US are still based on
*very* old surveys done with wire drags and such.
>Would sea gliders or unmanned surface ships with sonar and GPS be able to
>automacally chart most of this area?
If such things existed....
Andrew C. Toppan
<richb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I would say it's certainly quite likely, but not for sure. A quick
preliminary investigation will quickly show if this shows signs of
serious error by the ship (if so, the CO is removed), or if there was
some sort of external or unavoidable cause (then the CO would stay).
Andrew C. Toppan
>Consider the possibility that the recent earthquake re-arranged the ocean
>floor and put obstacles where there were none before.
Thousands of miles away, on the other side of major land masses? Not
likely.....
David Lesher
>>Since it's fairly clear that the area around our forward operating base is a
>>fairly likely battleground, shouldn't some effort be put into correcting the
>>chats in this area?
>Perhaps, but the Navy's budget for charting is not exactly large, nor
>is NOAA's budget large, and there is a huge backlog of charting work
>to be done. A lot of charts in the continental US are still based on
>*very* old surveys done with wire drags and such.
Ahem, compiling the data is non-trivial. A friend worked at such, at
what was once called DMA but has been through 3+ renames since....
They get sent the raw data from many places, and you get lots of
suspect data. The automagic log from USN ships gets weighed with
greater credence than others, but not absolute blind acceptance.
If there are multiple data sources, they get weighed in.
Plus, he pointed out it is NOT static -- the bottom changes over
time, especially near busy ports.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
thom...@flash.net
> A better possibility is that what they really hit was rapidly
> shoaling terrain, which sort of drives the floor up toward
> your nut....
An additional factoid for consideration:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/01/mil-050108-247c3790.htm
VOICE OF AMERICA
SLUG: 2-321615 (CQ) Pacific / Nuke Sub Accident (L-only) DATE: NOTE
NUMBER:
DATE=1/8/05
TYPE=CORRESPONDENT REPORT
TITLE=(CQ) PACIFIC / NUKE SUB ACCIDENT (L-ONLY)
In-Depth Coverage
NUMBER=2-321615
BYLINE=STEVE HERMAN
DATELINE=TOKYO
[snip]
TEXT: The U.S. Navy says the U.S.S. San Francisco was on its way to a
port visit in Australia when the accident happened in the Pacific
Ocean, about 560 kilometers south of Guam.
Petty Officer Alyssa Batarla, a spokeswoman for the Navy's Pacific
Fleet in Honolulu, says the nuclear-powered submarine appeared to have
hit the ocean floor in the middle of the East Marianas Basin, causing
injuries to some of the 137 crew members.
[snip]
Henry J Cobb
> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:36:50 -0800, Henry J Cobb <hc...@io.com> wrote:
>>Would sea gliders or unmanned surface ships with sonar and GPS be able to
>>automacally chart most of this area?
>
> If such things existed....
So what are these guys working on?
http://www7400.nrlssc.navy.mil/7440%20overview.htm
> The team conducts research on positioning, navigation and timing with an
> emphasis on autonomous deployment of undersea sensor systems.
-HJC
Homer Hickam
Cover-up' fury after US nuclear sub is grounded
By Peter Popham in Rome
13 November 2003
An American nuclear-powered submarine ran aground last month off the
north coast of Sardinia. The 7,000-ton USS Hartford hit the rocky
Mediterranean floor with such impact that rudders, sonar and other
electronic equipment were severely damaged.
The vessel, 362-ft long and carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles, possibly
with nuclear warheads, had left its Sardinian base at La Maddalena and
was sailing east past the island of Caprera soon after midnight on 25
October when it ran aground. The US Navy kept the accident secret, but
it leaked in America this week after relatives of crew members on the
Los Angeles class submarine learnt that the ship's six-month tour was
to be cut short, only a month after it started. After temporary
repairs, the Hartford will sail back across the Atlantic to the naval
dockyard in Norfolk, Virginia, for a full refit.
The US Navy says there was no damage to the Hartford's nuclear reactor
and no injuries. But the severity of the incident was clear from the
fact that both the captain, Commander Christopher R Van Metre, and his
squadron commander, Capt Greg Parker, who was also on board at the
time, were summarily sacked. When another US submarine, the USS
Oklahoma City, hit a Norwegian merchant ship east of the Straits of
Gibraltar a year ago, the captain was only relieved of his duties two
weeks later.
A spokeswoman for the US Sixth Fleet, which is based in Gaeta, near
Naples, said yesterday that the two officers were immediately removed
from their posts because their commander, Rear Admiral P Stephen
Stanley, "no longer had confidence in their ability to command". Six
other crew, including two officers, have also been disciplined.
There was furious reaction to the accident within Italy, as much
because of the cover-up as because of what actually happened. In
Parliament a Green Party MP, Mauro Bulgarelli, said: "It's the
umpteenth demonstration not only of the grave risks to which the
civilian population is exposed ... but also of the culture of silence
that invariably covers military activities in Sardinia."
He continued: "Our country was denuclearised nearly 20 years ago, due
to the wish of the overwhelming majority of the Italian population. It
is unacceptable that, thanks to American troops based in our territory,
the nuclear risk should be reintroduced. In another age that would be
called colonisation."
The Minister of the Environment, Altero Matteoli, conceded that it was
"a serious incident" and said an official had been sent to investigate.
But "first reports did not mention environmental problems".
H3
It is better to confess ignorance than provide it.
http://www.homerhickam.com
Scott Ferrin
>Andrew C. Toppan wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:36:50 -0800, Henry J Cobb <hc...@io.com> wrote:
>>>Would sea gliders or unmanned surface ships with sonar and GPS be able to
>>>automacally chart most of this area?
>>
>> If such things existed....
>
>So what are these guys working on?
Are they in service? If not then for all intents and purposes they
*don't* exist.
jbeck
"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41E0A4DA...@hotmail.com...
>I think it's safe to say the Captain's next command will be the Plumbing
>department at Home Depot in Fresno...... :-[
>
How much went into training a man (or woman) to be competant enough to be in
charge of a nuclear submarine? And then we're going to throw them away?
Dave Kearton
news:41e1c9c4$1...@nntp.zianet.com
I'd say it serves as a warning to others .....
Running your ship into the landscape has traditionally been viewed as an
avoidable accident, in most navies that don't have unlimited resources.
One way of ensuring a personal committment from all involved in the process
is to shred the carreers of those _proven_ to be negligent in any way that
contributed to the incident.
This may change if submarines are fitted with wheels, but I seriously doubt
it.
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Ian MacLure
news:1105286409.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
> Petty Officer Alyssa Batarla, a spokeswoman for the Navy's Pacific
> Fleet in Honolulu, says the nuclear-powered submarine appeared to have
> hit the ocean floor in the middle of the East Marianas Basin, causing
> injuries to some of the 137 crew members.
So they were under way submerged?
IBM
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
sfb
rewards are high, the price of failure is also high.
"jbeck" <jNOSP...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:41e1c9c4$1...@nntp.zianet.com...
Kerryn Offord
> "jbeck" <jNOSP...@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:41e1c9c4$1...@nntp.zianet.com
> | "Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:41E0A4DA...@hotmail.com...
> || I think it's safe to say the Captain's next command will be the
> || Plumbing department at Home Depot in Fresno...... :-[
> ||
> |
> | How much went into training a man (or woman) to be competant enough
> | to be in charge of a nuclear submarine? And then we're going to
> | throw them away?
>
>
>
> I'd say it serves as a warning to others .....
>
I hardly think the CO did it deliberately...
If he was at fault..punish him, but if it was "just one of those things"...
Tiger
Dave Kearton
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:41e1...@clear.net.nz
Just one of _what_ things ?
--
Cheers
Dave Kearton
Fred J. McCall
:"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No women.
There are always more folks behind them (they only command a boat for
a few years). Always more qualified folks than there are boats for
them to command.
You don't want to give the 'unlucky' ones a boat.
--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.
Mark Borgerson
fmc...@earthlink.net says...
> "jbeck" <jNOSP...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
> :"Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :news:41E0A4DA...@hotmail.com...
> :>I think it's safe to say the Captain's next command will be the Plumbing
> :>department at Home Depot in Fresno...... :-[
> :
> :How much went into training a man (or woman) to be competant enough to be in
> :charge of a nuclear submarine? And then we're going to throw them away?
>
> No women.
True. Only Norway has a woman as a submarine CO---and I presume itss
a diesel boat.
http://www.dod.gov/news/Jun1998/n06171998_9806172.html
>
> There are always more folks behind them (they only command a boat for
> a few years). Always more qualified folks than there are boats for
> them to command.
As opposed to WWII when we could build them faster than we could get
good captains and crews. In wartime, command errors are often
fatal and submarine CO's didn't get a second chance.
>
> You don't want to give the 'unlucky' ones a boat.
At least not a second time.
Question for the submariners: do the boats run a depth sounder while
on transit? Or is ANY kind of ping considered too noisy?
Mark Borgerson
Kevin Brooks
"Ian MacLure" <i...@svpal.org> wrote in message
news:Xns95D9AFC678...@129.250.168.14...
> "thom...@flash.net" <thom...@flash.net> wrote in
> news:1105286409.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Petty Officer Alyssa Batarla, a spokeswoman for the Navy's Pacific
>> Fleet in Honolulu, says the nuclear-powered submarine appeared to have
>> hit the ocean floor in the middle of the East Marianas Basin, causing
>> injuries to some of the 137 crew members.
>
> So they were under way submerged?
That is what the reports have been saying.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
"Dave Kearton" <dkearton-with-a-...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
message news:mLmEd.39$8X2....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
You think all charts are absolutely correct? No uncharted seamounts exist,
etc.? Just one possibility of how it could have happened and not been his
(or anybody else's onboard) "fault"...guess we'll have to wait and see what
the investigation yields before we nominate the guy for keelhauling, eh?
Brooks
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
>
Fred J. McCall
:Question for the submariners: do the boats run a depth sounder while
:on transit? Or is ANY kind of ping considered too noisy?
They have one. I doubt if it's run when they think they're in deep
water. Water in the area where it looks like this occurred is
generally quite deep and shoals rapidly in the small spots where it
gets shallow. By the time your depth sounder noticed a difference,
you'd have probably already hit anything there was to hit.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Declan O'Reilly
>
>> Petty Officer Alyssa Batarla, a spokeswoman for the Navy's Pacific
>> Fleet in Honolulu, says the nuclear-powered submarine appeared to have
>> hit the ocean floor in the middle of the East Marianas Basin, causing
>> injuries to some of the 137 crew members.
>
> So they were under way submerged?
>
> IBM
That part about hitting the ocean floor in the middle of the marianas ,
suggests that they were submerged.
Declan O'Reilly
Henry J Cobb
> They have one. I doubt if it's run when they think they're in deep
> water. Water in the area where it looks like this occurred is
> generally quite deep and shoals rapidly in the small spots where it
> gets shallow. By the time your depth sounder noticed a difference,
> you'd have probably already hit anything there was to hit.
This is looking more and more avoidable.
http://www.kuam.com/news/12138.aspx
> "The U.S.S. San Francisco was in the area of the Caroline Ridge,"
OK, I admit to watching too much Star Trek as a kid (long before there was a
next generation), but couldn't they have a virtual viewscreen on the bridge
that shows a computer generated map of all the known ridges around their
computed location?
-HJC
Olsen
news:m334u0dt803qr816n...@4ax.com...
They don't use the fathometer or active sonar except when entering or
leaving port because it gives your position away. If I remember correctly
they are red-tagged while underway.
Brian Sharrock
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:5NudnT8uueK...@io.com...
Then; determine how to display it ...
BTW, it's not the 'known' obstacles that bite ...
it's the ones un-'known' to the crew.
--
Brian
George William Herbert
>You don't want to give the 'unlucky' ones a boat.
I wouldn't give a boat to someone who had screwed up
and ended up with an avoidable grounding. The US Navy
standard interpretation is "...or whose crew screwed up
and ended up with an avoidable grounding," as accountability
flows uphill.
However, if through no fault of his or the crews,
they had an equipment malfunction or the charts
simply didn't show whatever they hit and their
standard transit operations didn't require them
to be using depth sounders in believed to be
deep water, then I object to your approach.
As a leader, I want my subordinates to know that
they are going to be accountable for screwups,
particularly ones with dire consequences, but that
they will not be responsible for unforseeable and
unavoidable acts of god or bad luck. Having people
cashiered for acts of god or bad luck which were
unavoidable is a morale-buster.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Peter Skelton
wrote:
Or make them president?
Peter Skelton
Fred J. McCall
Wouldn't it be easier to just have a telepath on the bridge who could
sense such things?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>You don't want to give the 'unlucky' ones a boat.
:
:I wouldn't give a boat to someone who had screwed up
:and ended up with an avoidable grounding. The US Navy
:standard interpretation is "...or whose crew screwed up
:and ended up with an avoidable grounding," as accountability
:flows uphill.
:
:However, if through no fault of his or the crews,
:they had an equipment malfunction or the charts
:simply didn't show whatever they hit and their
:standard transit operations didn't require them
:to be using depth sounders in believed to be
:deep water, then I object to your approach.
Then you have a problem, as my approach is pretty much the Navy's
approach.
:As a leader, I want my subordinates to know that
:they are going to be accountable for screwups,
:particularly ones with dire consequences, but that
:they will not be responsible for unforseeable and
:unavoidable acts of god or bad luck. Having people
:cashiered for acts of god or bad luck which were
:unavoidable is a morale-buster.
And yet there is fierce competition for these posts, which indicates
that morale among those holding them is hardly 'busted'.
People don't get cashiered, George. They just get relieved early and
don't get another boat. They're unlikely to see any further
advancement, but by that point they've got enough time to retire
anyway. If they demonstrate that bad luck isn't a bad habit, they may
eventually find themselves back on the promotion ladder, although
that's pretty unlikely at that level.
We don't call that 'bad luck'. Winners make their own luck. The Navy
prefers to trust its ships and the lives of their crews to folks who
are winners, because one piece of bad luck can cost you a ship and a
crew, particularly when it comes down to when it's time to earn your
money and people are actually trying to kill you.
--
"I was lucky in the order. But I've always been lucky
when it comes to killin' folks."
-- William Munny, "Unforgiven"
Kevin Brooks
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:5NudnT8uueK...@io.com...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> They have one. I doubt if it's run when they think they're in deep
>> water. Water in the area where it looks like this occurred is
>> generally quite deep and shoals rapidly in the small spots where it
>> gets shallow. By the time your depth sounder noticed a difference,
>> you'd have probably already hit anything there was to hit.
>
> This is looking more and more avoidable.
As usual, you are jumping to conclusions that are not supported by the
obvious dearth of currently available information.
>
> http://www.kuam.com/news/12138.aspx
> > "The U.S.S. San Francisco was in the area of the Caroline Ridge,"
>
> OK, I admit to watching too much Star Trek as a kid
(long before there was a
> next generation), but couldn't they have a virtual viewscreen on the
> bridge that shows a computer generated map of all the known ridges around
> their computed location?
And how would you display the *unknown* features on this wondorful
viewscreen?
Brooks
>
> -HJC
Max
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
> And how would you display the *unknown* features on this wondorful
> viewscreen?
obviously by pinging madly away like the Seaview.
.max
or one could dispatch FLYING FISH (FS-1) to look for trouble ahead.
--
the part of <beta...@earthlink.net>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
Henry J Cobb
>
>>
>>>"The U.S.S. San Francisco was in the area of the Caroline Ridge,"
>
> viewscreen?
The Caroline Ridge was discovered many years ago and hasn't moved much since.
-HJC
Peter Skelton
Going back to the previous post, plotting tables that displayed
the position of the vessel in real time on a standard chart were
developed before WWII.
One grounding is purported to have occurred because a high
ranking guest put his cuppa down in the wrong place. (I don't
believe it, there are two many versions but it's an interesting
story.)
Peter Skelton
sho...@trailing-edge.com
> time, especially near busy ports.
According to the VOA today (Jan 10) the features in that area had
shifted greatly as a result of the Dec 26 tsunami.
Tim.
sho...@trailing-edge.com
> shifted greatly as a result of the Dec 26 tsunami.
Whoops, looks like I misheard the audio tidbit. The article on the web
at
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-01-10-voa2.cfm
makes it clear that tsunami damage in that area isn't widely considered
to be likely.
Tim.
jr...@webtv.net
together a Thermographic "radar" project if nobody's already done it,
that is...
Kevin Brooks
You know that the entire ridge, and surrounding protuberances, have been
accurately charted? The cite you provided said, "..the area of...", right?
Please tell us how you are so sure of all of this?
Brooks
>
> -HJC
a425couple
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote
> > || Plumbing department at Home Depot in Fresno...... :-[
> > | to be in charge of a nuclear submarine? And then we're going to
> > | throw them away?
> > I'd say it serves as a warning to others .....
> I hardly think the CO did it deliberately...
> If he was at fault..punish him, but if it was "just one of those
things"...
Obviously we will have to see what the investigation finds, but:
I am frequently surprised at the number of people who do
not understand the traditional, and very valid, huge responsibility
the naval services place on the Captain.
Errors must be fixed. Repeats cannot be tolerated.
Grim, but harsh reality and responsibility.
In most cases, either the captain has made a mistake or set a tone
that will accept mistakes, or is not constantly vigilant to spot and
eliminate problems. Rarely does an accident happen with no warning
or precursors.
It goes against the grain of those of the touchy-feely, or feel-good,
or tolerant mindset.
I was lucky enough to be in a Operation Quality Control seminar a
while back, and heard a Naval Captain of nuke. subs talk. It was
very sobering to hear him explain. I'll paraphrase, "We cannot
allow errors. For every submerging (whether it's our 1st, or 1,000th)
there has to be an exactly equal number of successful surfacings.
Exactly equal! 99.9% success is not acceptable!"
Sure, it's possible some of his crew thinks he is a hard head for
insisting that every checklist be followed every single time.
But they have a much better chance of getting home that way.
So yes, when a PR show-off sub surfacing destroys a tour ship,
or a carrier runs over a coastal boat, or a BB runs aground,
the captain is most often held responsible.
Howard Berkowitz
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On my one visit to an operational submarine, they did have what I
understand is a somewhat common plaque in the control room:
"There is no such thing as a minor accident on a submarine."
David Loewe, Jr.
<gungyw...@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote:
>"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:m334u0dt803qr816n...@4ax.com...
>> Mark Borgerson <mborgerson.at.comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> :Question for the submariners: do the boats run a depth sounder while
>> :on transit? Or is ANY kind of ping considered too noisy?
>>
>> They have one. I doubt if it's run when they think they're in deep
>> water. Water in the area where it looks like this occurred is
>> generally quite deep and shoals rapidly in the small spots where it
>> gets shallow. By the time your depth sounder noticed a difference,
>> you'd have probably already hit anything there was to hit.
>They don't use the fathometer or active sonar except when entering or
>leaving port because it gives your position away. If I remember correctly
>they are red-tagged while underway.
>
That's not the way *I* remember it. They sometimes need to be used.
--
"Never appeal to a man's "better nature". He may not
have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more
leverage."
-Lazarus Long
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>How much went into training a man (or woman) to be competant enough to be in
>charge of a nuclear submarine? And then we're going to throw them away?
There are plenty of equally well trained candidates who aren't
currently getting the opportunity. The final stage of any such course
is a grading where only the "best" candidates are chosen. This "pour
encourager les autres" approach doesn't waste this _training_, it
merely re-arranges that final grading. Culpable groundings aren't so
frequent that they give rise to a serious shortage of commanders.
John S. Shinal
>And how would you display the *unknown* features on this wondorful
>viewscreen?
With Dark Emitting Diode displays, obviously (scoff).
;-D
Kristan Roberge
"thom...@flash.net" wrote:
> w...@wfzimmerman.com wrote:
>
> > One news account said most of the injuries were head injuries. That
> > sounds like a pretty hard bump ... maybe travelling at speed?
>
> To wit (I post this because it seems slightly worthwhile to
> document who said what.),
Its not the hitting the seabed that hurts, its the sudden deceleration
trauma of the contents of the sub
hitting something in front of them.
So, did they hit a piece of seabed that was moved post tsunami and quake?
Kristan Roberge
of an automobile
during a 20mph collision with a solid object (like a wall) ? Anything not
buckled down or wedged into
place before it happens keeps moving, at 20mph, until it hits something.
20mph is enough velocity to
cause some serious injuries. That's only like 18 knots.
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 22:59:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Unlikely. "Travelling at speed" and running aground in a sub would
> >probably give you some corpses. Think about human beings tossed into
> >sharp steel cabinets at 30 knots.
>
> I think it's hard to say, since we have NO idea what kind of impact
> they had. Sure, 30 knots into a vertical wall is going to toss people
> into sharp steel cabinets and cause massive injuries (and damage), but
> 30 knots bumping across and "barely" touching a shoal will be a lot
> more minor.
>
> I think the fact that the boat was in transit between two distant
> ports, and is now operational and underway, implies steaming along at
> a moderate cruising speed (perhaps not "high" speed), and lightly
> 'bumping' into some obstruction. A hard "grounding" in a traditional
> sense would tend to damage the boat more and caution might dictate not
> operating on own power until a more complete inspection of damage.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
> "Haze Gray & Underway" - Naval History, DANFS, World Navies Today,
> Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more - http://www.hazegray.org/
Derek Lyons
>As a leader, I want my subordinates to know that
>they are going to be accountable for screwups,
>particularly ones with dire consequences, but that
>they will not be responsible for unforseeable and
>unavoidable acts of god or bad luck. Having people
>cashiered for acts of god or bad luck which were
>unavoidable is a morale-buster.
Incorrect. Having people who have bad luck cashiered is a morale
_booster_. It tells the community that those kinds of folks are
steadily filtered out... And that the guy who you trust with your
life isn't unlucky.
The Service isn't the same culture as MeGaCo Inc. Things like the
crews belief in the Old Man's luck or lack thereof *matter*.
Especially when it comes time to make the tubes ready in all respects
and the bad guy is bearing down on you.
That being said, he probably won't be cashiered, but shifted aside and
allowed to find his own level somewhere that doesn't involve
commanding a boat.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Kristan Roberge
Newby wrote:
> "Andrew C. Toppan" <acto...@gwi.net> wrote in message
> news:jqo0u01ir6366d1qo...@4ax.com...
> > On 8 Jan 2005 18:11:01 GMT, wjla...@accessinter.net (Bill) wrote:
> >
> [snipped]
> > A number of ways - including the fact that nautical charts are
> > imperfect.
> [snipped]
>
> Consider the possibility that the recent earthquake re-arranged the ocean
> floor and put obstacles where there were none before.
Plus charts are only 100% accurate the day the survey was actually done.
Kristan Roberge
"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:48:08 -0800, "Newby" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >Consider the possibility that the recent earthquake re-arranged the ocean
> >floor and put obstacles where there were none before.
>
> Thousands of miles away, on the other side of major land masses? Not
> likely.....
False. Land in NY state shifted a half inch during the 9.0 quake that caused
the tsunami, and
the position of the magnetic north pole, which is 10k miles and a continent
away moved an inch
or so, and that's stuff they had equipment in place to actually MEASURE the
changes of. Some of
the tsunami energy did spill out into the pacific, and waves on the western
coast of mexico were
recorded being a couple meters higher than normal.
thom...@flash.net
Kristan Roberge wrote:
> Plus charts are only 100% accurate the day the survey was actually
done.
Do navigational charts for areas like the Carolines indicate the
quality of the data that went into making them? Would there
be notations such as "This area is thoroughly surveyed and the
charted features are reliable," or "This area is known to have
several seamounts. Existing surveys are inadequate to preclude
the existence of others: Proceed With Caution!" ?
George William Herbert
>:and ended up with an avoidable grounding. The US Navy
>:standard interpretation is "...or whose crew screwed up
>:and ended up with an avoidable grounding," as accountability
>:flows uphill.
>:
>:However, if through no fault of his or the crews,
>:they had an equipment malfunction or the charts
>:simply didn't show whatever they hit and their
>:standard transit operations didn't require them
>:to be using depth sounders in believed to be
>:deep water, then I object to your approach.
>
>Then you have a problem, as my approach is pretty much the Navy's
>approach.
I know. However, IMHO it's wrong.
The Air Force doesn't ground people whose planes crash
due to mechanical fault. They don't even ground most
pilots who have a pilot error related crash, as long
as it was error and not incompetence or arrogance or
gross neglegence.
More to the point, airliner flight crew are not held responsible
for mechanical and other failures. They have as many people on
board as Navy ships do (excepting aircraft carriers and amphibs).
The planes cost a large fraction of the cost of a ship or sub
($200 million for 747 class aircraft, $250 mil for A-380 est).
Those pilots who experience catastrophic failures and manage
to avoid killing everyone on board are in fact lauded as
heros... for example, the pilot and copilot of the DC-10
that lost all hydraulics and control after its aft engine
exploded, and the pilot who was riding as a passenger
and then helped them fly the plane, were all treated
as heros and promoted to senior positions afterwards,
from which they both still fly and are senior safety
advisors and advocates industrywide.
I know the Navy has different traditions, but other
military arms and other transportation industries
have a different standard, and they seem to do just
fine with it.
>:As a leader, I want my subordinates to know that
>:they are going to be accountable for screwups,
>:particularly ones with dire consequences, but that
>:they will not be responsible for unforseeable and
>:unavoidable acts of god or bad luck. Having people
>:cashiered for acts of god or bad luck which were
>:unavoidable is a morale-buster.
>
>And yet there is fierce competition for these posts, which indicates
>that morale among those holding them is hardly 'busted'.
>
>People don't get cashiered, George. They just get relieved early and
>don't get another boat. They're unlikely to see any further
>advancement, but by that point they've got enough time to retire
>anyway. If they demonstrate that bad luck isn't a bad habit, they may
>eventually find themselves back on the promotion ladder, although
>that's pretty unlikely at that level.
>
>We don't call that 'bad luck'. Winners make their own luck. The Navy
>prefers to trust its ships and the lives of their crews to folks who
>are winners, because one piece of bad luck can cost you a ship and a
>crew, particularly when it comes down to when it's time to earn your
>money and people are actually trying to kill you.
The idea that winners make their own luck is baloney.
Some of the best and most competent people on earth,
doing everything right and completely dilligently,
have had catastrophic failures happen.
Astronauts are winners subjected to an equally rigorous
selection process, and yet NASA has no problem flying
astronauts again after they experience failures and
problems in flight. Fred Haise would have been one of
the first Shuttle flight crews if he'd wanted to,
and was the backup commander for Apollo 16 and flew
several shuttle glide test flights before the first
launch. Neil Armstrong had the thruster failure on
Gemini 8 and crashed the lander simulator before he
was assigned to command Apollo 11. Michael Foale
had numerous problems on his Mir stay and went on
to command the ISS Expedition-8 crew. David Wolf
has continued to fly and is chief of the EVA branch.
I could go on...
Even the Navy has some sense of this. Former Cdr
Kirk Lippold, who was CO of the USS Cole when she
was hit by suicide bombers, was promoted to Captain
two years later, though the Senate had a slight
snit about that.
Accidents happen. What *I* want in crews and
commanders is people who have demonstrated that
they did the right thing when the accident happened,
and who are people who didn't cause the accident
neglegently. I would rather see people held on
to and kept on sea duty if they're proven fit.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
George William Herbert
>[...]
>I was lucky enough to be in a Operation Quality Control seminar a
>while back, and heard a Naval Captain of nuke. subs talk. It was
>very sobering to hear him explain. I'll paraphrase, "We cannot
>allow errors. For every submerging (whether it's our 1st, or 1,000th)
>there has to be an exactly equal number of successful surfacings.
>Exactly equal! 99.9% success is not acceptable!"
I think that the historical record, though, is that the actual
success record is at best 99.99% and probably somewhat worse than
that, but clearly somewhat better than 99.9%
It's a common way of lying with statistics, to use the best
nicest number you can just short of telling people what your
actual failure rate really is. He may not have meant to do
so but it is important for people to realize that we have
had several incidents of grounding, hitting a vessel during
surfacing, sub to sub collisions, or other accidents each
decade with the Sub force.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Pavelow
"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:crut11$jv7$4...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <1105392543....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> I'm wrong. It's been a while.
>
> -Geoff
>
Charts produced by the UK Hydrographic Office will have a box printed on it
giving a breakdown of which area was surveyed at a particular time. There is
a chart of Plymouth Harbour which shows the creeks going inland which are
dated as being surveyed going back to Nelsons time using a lead line.
--
Richard
I know the Brit military, and take it from me that they make better friends
than enemies. The Royal Navy is well respected by our guys.
Tom Clancy
A.B.T-C
20 February 2004
J.T. McDaniel
> In article <41E2EF6D...@ca.inter.net>,
> Kristan Roberge <krob...@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:48:08 -0800, "Newby" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Consider the possibility that the recent earthquake re-arranged the
>>> >ocean
>>> >floor and put obstacles where there were none before.
>>>
>>> Thousands of miles away, on the other side of major land masses? Not
>>> likely.....
>>
>>False. Land in NY state shifted a half inch during the 9.0 quake that
>>caused
>>the tsunami, and
>>the position of the magnetic north pole, which is 10k miles and a
>>continent
>>away moved an inch
>>or so, and that's stuff they had equipment in place to actually MEASURE
>>the
>>changes of. Some of
>>the tsunami energy did spill out into the pacific, and waves on the
>>western
>>coast of mexico were
>>recorded being a couple meters higher than normal.
>
>
> Half inch. Inch. Couple of meters higher waves.
>
> Kristan, these things do not suddenly cause the Carolinas Ridge
> to jump up in front a submarine unexpectedly. Did changes happen?
> Fine. They happened. I don't really care. Did significant changes
> happen? Highly, highly doubtful.
>
QM friend of mine recalled that some fairly
recent charts of that area had places where the
last recorded soundings were in the 1820s. The
priority is on charting waters shallow enough for
surface ships to run aground, regardless of what the
sub drivers would like.
Reports coming out of Apra are saying that the boat
was at or near flank speed and slowed almost
instantly to about 4 knots. Significant damage to
the sub's main ballast tanks reportedly required
running the low pressure blower for something like
30 hours straight to make up for leakage. The sailor
who died was reportedly thrown forward about
20 feet by the impact and hit his forehead and never
regained consciousness, despite care by a surgeon
flown out from Guam by helicopter.
--
Jack
http://jtmcdaniel.com
a425couple
"George William Herbert" <gher...@retro.com> wrote in message
His talk was in no way indicating statistics.
He was clearly emphasizing the attitude of "Zero Mistakes".
Do everything crisp and correctly, never relax about critical
work issues. Do not accept the attitude of "Close enough for
government work" or "it doesn't matter - there are plenty of
safety redundancies."
Certainly damaging and killing incidents do happen.
Some may be pure flukes.
Most are human error (and many are in the repeated
skips of proper procedure).
His talk was an inspiration to set high standards, refuse to
accept complacency (that can suddenly kill you and your men).
He was dedicated and committed to not be one of the failures!
sfb
Lots of charts for surface ships and fewer for subs.
<thom...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:1105392543....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Edward Green
> "Tiger" <Lana_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41E0A4DA...@hotmail.com...
> >I think it's safe to say the Captain's next command will be the
Plumbing
> >department at Home Depot in Fresno...... :-[
> >
>
> How much went into training a man (or woman) to be competant enough
to be in
> charge of a nuclear submarine? And then we're going to throw them
away?
Some non-operational command use can be found for his talents and
training.
Edward Green
\
> "Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:5NudnT8uueK...@io.com...
> > Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > > They have one. I doubt if it's run when they think they're in
deep
> > > water. Water in the area where it looks like this occurred is
> > > generally quite deep and shoals rapidly in the small spots where
it
> > > gets shallow. By the time your depth sounder noticed a
difference,
> > > you'd have probably already hit anything there was to hit.
> >
> >
> > http://www.kuam.com/news/12138.aspx
> > > "The U.S.S. San Francisco was in the area of the Caroline
Ridge,"
> >
> > OK, I admit to watching too much Star Trek as a kid (long before
there was
> a
> > next generation), but couldn't they have a virtual viewscreen on
the
> bridge
> > that shows a computer generated map of all the known ridges around
their
> > computed location?
> >
> Paraphrasing Mrs Beeton ... first get your data ...
> Then; determine how to display it ...
> BTW, it's not the 'known' obstacles that bite ...
> it's the ones un-'known' to the crew.
Well, I have something to add to this discussion. I was onboard a sub
involved in a grounding. And it turned out that the line drawn on the
chart passed directly over a depth contour that was shallower than the
keel depth.
The CO and the Navigator lost their jobs, the OOD and the quartermaster
of the watch got a slap, and I, who was the last OOD on watch, there
but for the grace of God and etc., got an interesting story to tell.
But I really stopped by to ask a question:
The latest CNN article at
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/nuclear.submarine.update/index.html
says that the accident caused "part of the sonar dome to flood".
I'm not familiar with this class of sub, but as I recall the sonar dome
_was_ flooded all the time -- it was outside of the pressure hull! Am
I misremembering, or have things changed...
w...@wfzimmerman.com
guess is 100% correct.
"The submarine was traveling in excess of 33 knots -- about 35 mph
--when its nose hit the undersea formation head-on, officials said."
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/nuclear.submarine.update/index.html
Andy Dingley
<spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
>Some non-operational command use can be found for his talents and
>training.
I wonder how "Commander Bond" got to leave the RN 8-)
thom...@flash.net
>
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/nuclear.submarine.update/index.html
33+ knots is top speed, or close to it, no? ISTR from talking to
a couple of SSN drivers back in the '70s that a fast, non-emergency
transit at the time would be more like 20 knots.
Or CNN might have gotten it wrong, Ghu forbid.
Fred J. McCall
:Just noodling: If I was working at Raytheon, I'd be trying to put
:together a Thermographic "radar" project if nobody's already done it,
:that is...
And you'd be out of a job just about the time someone found out what
you were spending money on (unless, of course, you got the government
to put out an RFP for this thing, whatever it is when it is up and
dressed).
Just in case I'm missing something, just what would you think a
'thermographic radar' would be and what physical principles would it
operate on?
There is a difference between having an open mind and having a hole in
your head. This seems to fall in the latter category, as near as I
can tell.
So what do you think you know that you think the rest of the world
doesn't?
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
J.T. McDaniel
"Edward Green" <spamsp...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1105406823.9...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Navy on this and they mention damage to the bow and
to 1&2 MBT. Low pressure blowers were being kept
running until they could get some extra flotation under the
bow. Some references to who's being brought in suggest
the vents were damaged.
--
Jack
http://jtmcdaniel.com
http://www.fleetsubmarine.com
Fred J. McCall
Not even then.
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
stmx3
> "Andrew C. Toppan" wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:48:08 -0800, "Newby" <nob...@nowhere.net>
wrote:
> >
> > >Consider the possibility that the recent earthquake re-arranged
the ocean
> > >floor and put obstacles where there were none before.
> >
> > Thousands of miles away, on the other side of major land masses?
Not
> > likely.....
>
> False. Land in NY state shifted a half inch during the 9.0 quake that
caused
> the tsunami, and
> the position of the magnetic north pole, which is 10k miles and a
continent
> away moved an inch
> or so, and that's stuff they had equipment in place to actually
MEASURE the
> changes of.
False still. Although not the bastion of scientific thought, this CNN
article
(http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/10/quake.earth.vibe.reut/index.html)
remarks on the immediate effects of the quake to be equivalent to the
effects of sun and moon on the earth, namely 20-30 cm. In fact, they
report the earth is still ringing to the tune of a millimeters and will
continue to do so for several weeks.
-stmx3
Fred J. McCall
:The latest CNN article at
:
:http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/10/nuclear.submarine.update/index.html
:
:says that the accident caused "part of the sonar dome to flood".
:
:I'm not familiar with this class of sub, but as I recall the sonar dome
:_was_ flooded all the time -- it was outside of the pressure hull! Am
:I misremembering, or have things changed...
The sonar dome BETTER be flooded. Think Schnell's Law. You want the
same density material (as close as you can) from the face of the
transducer element to the open ocean where the target lives.
Otherwise your sound beams bend at the density changes and you can't
tell where the hell anything really is.
stmx3
Also, if it weren't flooded, that GRP bow dome would be ripped off
everytime you submerged. In port, when work is done on the
hydrophones, you have to pump out the dome, ventilate it, etc. Then it
typically gets refilled with freshwater...which leads to the arguments
about accuracy of hydrophones due to the difference in water densities.
If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's compensated for in the
software...but can't be sure about this. Or else the effects are too
minimal to be of significance.
-stmx3
stmx3
All very interesting. As far as I know, the "Official" published speed
is 20+ knots. According to fas.org
(http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm), the "Actual"
speed is 30-32 knots. What I want to know is who's got the loose
lips???