Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (104630)	3/17/2005 8:21:57 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

Hi Bill, the person who wrote that article has only a surface level understanding of the issue, because of that, his remarks tend to give a misleading picture of the situation. I've touched on the important role the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) played in this situation in previous posts. They are not run by the Navy (contrary to the impression given in that article). I am sure there is some cross pollination of personnel, however, they're a government civilian run organization, which is tasked with making chart corrections available to "all" Mariners who operate on the high seas, the submarine force being one small customer who uses their service. pollux.nss.nima.mil In numerous articles there has been speculation regarding a satellite shoal area. It makes interesting foreplay of a sort, but the bottom line is satellite imagery doesn't mean a thing to a submarine captain preparing charts for use. Chart corrections put out by the NGA do. As do other pieces of information known as Hydrolants, Broadcast NTM, MODUS, NAVAREA's and publications such as Sailing Directions, Coast Pilots, and Fleet Guides. The skipper has been fired on San Francisco. So have a few other key personnel involved with chart preparation. They were fired for a number of reasons, the main one being a young sailor was killed and one of our billion dollar national treasures in undersea military war fighting capability has been crippled. We take that responsibility very seriously, and are accountable to the American people when something this severe happens. What no article has touched on thus far is the role a very little known publication played. That publication is called a "Sailing Direction". It's required to be read and understood by everyone involved with the safe navigation of a submarine. In that publication, there are references to islands being incorrectly plotted, and by shoal water being present and uncharted in and around the Caroline Islands. It was a tough call imo, because the references in SD 126 are vague. And the area encompassing the Caroline Islands is huge. I am sure the board had a difficult time coming to their decision, since the seamount was uncharted; by either that Satellite imagery everyone in the press keeps harping about or anything else. If you recall my last post on this subject, I linked to a new chart correction the NGA just posted in their most recent Notice to Mariners. Here is a better article which has been recently written on the subject. _____________________________________________________________ seattletimes.nwsource.com Officers missed warnings prior to submarine's crash By Christopher Drew The New York Times Navy investigators have found that the officers on a nuclear submarine failed to take into account a variety of danger signs before the vessel smashed into an undersea mountain in January, Navy officials said in interviews last week. The officials said crew members on the submarine, the USS San Francisco, did not look at South Pacific navigational charts that might have suggested more caution. The sailors also should have checked the water depth more frequently and should not have been traveling at high speed, the officials said. One sailor was killed and 98 were injured Jan. 8 when the submarine crashed into the mountain 360 miles southeast of Guam. The Navy has said the mountain was not marked on the charts, but investigators found that several charts showed other possible hazards and had inconsistencies that should have prompted greater caution. The findings are part of a report that is likely to be released within several weeks. The submarine's captain, Cmdr. Kevin Mooney, has been replaced, and Navy officials said other officers could be disciplined. The accident crushed the vessel's bow, and repairs could cost $90 million to $100 million. Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a spokesman for the Pacific Fleet, would not comment on the investigation. But he said the Navy had briefed the rest of its submarine captains on maintaining "a skeptical attitude" about the charts. Pentagon officials have said the San Francisco ran aground three miles from the nearest hazard on its main chart. It was traveling at 30 knots, more than 500 feet below the surface, when it hit the mountain. Navy officials previously had said crew members took a sounding four minutes before the crash, and that it had indicated the vessel was still in 6,000 feet of water. But investigators have found that the last sounding was taken 12 minutes before the crash. And the report is likely to suggest that crew members should have taken more frequent soundings in that area. Satellite images taken in recent years show the mountain rising within 100 feet of the surface. But the main chart was not updated to note the hazard until after the crash. Mooney, the former captain, has said the charts indicated that the submarine was on a clear track. A shipyard in Guam is preparing the San Francisco to return, on the surface, to the continental United States, where more extensive repairs will be performed. The San Francisco, which carried 137 sailors, was commissioned in 1981. The vessel's nuclear reactor, which was not damaged by the crash, was refueled in 2002 during a $200 million overhaul