If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Navy Times)   You know how people were joking that grounded minesweeper USS Guardian had been using Apple maps?   (navytimes.com) divider line 59
    More: Followup, nautical chart, accident investigation, vice admirals, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, secret societies, environmental issues, naval ship  
•       •       •

15602 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jan 2013 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-21 09:48:31 AM
Sad thing is the Captain's career is likely still over.  It sounds like he had three charts available to him, two of which were right and one of which was wrong.  They'll ding him for failing to follow the two that were correct.
 
2013-01-21 09:51:17 AM
Yep, Captain's career is a bit bjorked. Ship temporarily evacuated, a fleet gathering to recover the vessel, headed up by an admiral on an arleigh burke. Protests going on by the locals over the damage to the reef as well.
 
2013-01-21 09:52:48 AM
The Guardian drove onto Tubbataha Reef in the Sulu Sea around 2:25 a.m. on Jan. 17

Oh, my.

/stubmitter
 
2013-01-21 09:58:01 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-21 09:58:50 AM
And your point, subby?
 
2013-01-21 10:00:18 AM
His career as captain was breef.
 
2013-01-21 10:02:57 AM

Warthog: Sad thing is the Captain's career is likely still over.  It sounds like he had three charts available to him, two of which were right and one of which was wrong.  They'll ding him for failing to follow the two that were correct.


I don't know. This situation is a little different as compared to the typical grounding, especially since the chart has been identified as defective.
 
2013-01-21 10:03:11 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Yep, Captain's career is a bit bjorked. Ship temporarily evacuated, a fleet gathering to recover the vessel, headed up by an admiral on an arleigh burke. Protests going on by the locals over the damage to the reef as well.


I like how no matter what goes wrong and why they always always fire the captain. Funny the rest of the world doesn't work that way.
 
2013-01-21 10:05:39 AM
I don't know about the CO's career being over. The top navigator in the navy essentially said "Stop using these charts until further notice.". I'm pretty sure that that means that there's a good chance that the people on the ship were not at fault.

The least detailed charts will direct a mariner to use other, more detailed charts when the resolution can't give enough information to safely navigate. If the charts don't tell you to switch to a higher resolution chart or if the higher resolution chart is missing critical data then it's unreasonable to expect someone unfamiliar with the area to know about some otherwise obscure reef.
 
2013-01-21 10:10:01 AM

Warthog: Sad thing is the Captain's career is likely still over.  It sounds like he had three charts available to him, two of which were right and one of which was wrong.  They'll ding him for failing to follow the two that were correct.


Call me crazy but if you're in charge of a few hundred million dollars of tax payer funded equipment and the lives of those aboard, you'd want to verify your course through at least 2 sources.

If those differed then you use the third for a tie break. Seems like that would have prevented this problem.
 
2013-01-21 10:12:05 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: Warthog: Sad thing is the Captain's career is likely still over.  It sounds like he had three charts available to him, two of which were right and one of which was wrong.  They'll ding him for failing to follow the two that were correct.

Call me crazy but if you're in charge of a few hundred million dollars of tax payer funded equipment and the lives of those aboard, you'd want to verify your course through at least 2 sources.

If those differed then you use the third for a tie break. Seems like that would have prevented this problem.


Shirley, you can't be serious.
 
2013-01-21 10:13:51 AM
Bring back Loran-C. Back in my Navy the Chief Navigator would actually confirm position celestially atleast once a night.

Not sure if he was really doing anything because he would always walk back onto the bridge "dead on course" without looking at the chart but it was cool to watch that old salty bastard out there with a brass sextant.
 
2013-01-21 10:15:28 AM

Radioactive Ass: I don't know about the CO's career being over. The top navigator in the navy essentially said "Stop using these charts until further notice.". I'm pretty sure that that means that there's a good chance that the people on the ship were not at fault.


According to TFA, the notice was sent on 18 January. The grounding happened on 17 January.
 
2013-01-21 10:16:48 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Bring back Loran-C. Back in my Navy the Chief Navigator would actually confirm position celestially atleast once a night.


eLORAN is the new hotness and has a ton of improvements.

/did some celestial navigation back in the Boy Scouts, but that was years ago. I should probably brush up on it.
 
2013-01-21 10:18:12 AM
I should add that the navys desire to "Go Digital" has long been criticized by the more old school sailors who don't trust the technology with their lives. I know that I for example wouldn't want to be on a boat whose control surfaces are by default a "Fly by wire" system with no manual backup. That's the reason why no boat has an X stern configuration even though it has superior maneuverability over the more traditional cruciform configuration, it needs to rely upon a computer to properly move all four control surfaces while a manual system can't do that and when the fit hits the shan you need to be able to rely 100% on the manual system or 100+ people and a billion or so dollars worth of ship and equipment end up being a crushed mess over a mile underwater.
 
2013-01-21 10:20:29 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Bring back Loran-C. Back in my Navy the Chief Navigator would actually confirm position celestially atleast once a night.


... and then he could go back into the bridge and use a chart which showed things in the wrong place.

"...coastal DNC charts would be corrected by Jan. 30, and advised ships not to use the Sulu Sea charts until then."

Hey, all you ships headed to help out at the reef: Good luck finding the place.
 
2013-01-21 10:24:28 AM

WelldeadLink: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Bring back Loran-C. Back in my Navy the Chief Navigator would actually confirm position celestially atleast once a night.

... and then he could go back into the bridge and use a chart which showed things in the wrong place.

"...coastal DNC charts would be corrected by Jan. 30, and advised ships not to use the Sulu Sea charts until then."

Hey, all you ships headed to help out at the reef: Good luck finding the place.


We had the good old fashion paper charts. Everything that could be hit, had been, and marked. Randomly you would hear of someone running aground somewhere or hitting something that wasn't marked. The Chief would pull out that chart and change it himself.
 
2013-01-21 10:24:54 AM
Farkin mobile site
 
2013-01-21 10:25:10 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: Call me crazy but if you're in charge of a few hundred million dollars of tax payer funded equipment and the lives of those aboard, you'd want to verify your course through at least 2 sources.

If those differed then you use the third for a tie break. Seems like that would have prevented this problem.


If you are working off of approved charts then there is no reason to cross check them. That was supposed to already have been done multiple times by people well above your pay grade. You are expected to triple check that your position is where you think that it is but if you are where you're supposed to be and the charts are wrong (and there are no other navigational markers such as buoys or lights warning you off) then you have done all that you should have to do to ensure own ships safety.
 
2013-01-21 10:30:52 AM

Old_Chief_Scott: Warthog: Sad thing is the Captain's career is likely still over.  It sounds like he had three charts available to him, two of which were right and one of which was wrong.  They'll ding him for failing to follow the two that were correct.

I don't know. This situation is a little different as compared to the typical grounding, especially since the chart has been identified as defective.


I actually know a guy who put a destroyer on a sandbar, and it effectively ended his career (they didn't dishonorably discharge him or anything, but it was made clear he'd never be promoted).  The sandbar wasn't on the chart, because it had moved in a big recent storm, and the boat was fine (they towed it off at the next high tide), but it didn't matter.  Now that was a long time ago, and maybe this is different because reefs don't move and the regulation chart was wrong, but there are so few boats in the Navy for so many officers it is almost like they look for excuses to push people out.
 
2013-01-21 10:31:29 AM

Misch: According to TFA, the notice was sent on 18 January. The grounding happened on 17 January.


All that tells me is that, as per SOP the chart review (one of the first steps in investigating a grounding, if not the first step) showed that the ships crew was not at fault. They were just the unlucky ones who discovered the error the hard way.
 
2013-01-21 10:34:52 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Bring back Loran-C. Back in my Navy the Chief Navigator would actually confirm position celestially atleast once a night.

Not sure if he was really doing anything because he would always walk back onto the bridge "dead on course" without looking at the chart but it was cool to watch that old salty bastard out there with a brass sextant.


His position was not in question, the chart he was using put the reef 8 miles away. He had no reason to not trust the charts, and most skippers are not using the paper charts as ordered by the navy
 
2013-01-21 10:37:28 AM
while I can understand a bad chart, do they not have some sort of depth finders running on these boats, especially while operating in coastal waters?
 
2013-01-21 10:37:47 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Bring back Loran-C. Back in my Navy the Chief Navigator would actually confirm position celestially atleast once a night.

Not sure if he was really doing anything because he would always walk back onto the bridge "dead on course" without looking at the chart but it was cool to watch that old salty bastard out there with a brass sextant.


Apparently there's an island not far from the reef so they would have picked that up on radar and someone might have noticed something if they were looking at the paper chart, however, given that the digital chart was off by 8 miles, it's not something you'd typically be paying close attention to the paper charts since there wouldn't be any reason for concern. Not sure why they have to different kinds of electronic charts, one for harbors and another for open ocean. Are they trying to save memory or something?
 
2013-01-21 10:39:46 AM
Great: another org that doesn't know how to "mobilize" their site.

Someone post that xkcd again. I want to feel mocked.
 
2013-01-21 10:40:24 AM

Warthog: I actually know a guy who put a destroyer on a sandbar, and it effectively ended his career (they didn't dishonorably discharge him or anything, but it was made clear he'd never be promoted). The sandbar wasn't on the chart, because it had moved in a big recent storm, and the boat was fine (they towed it off at the next high tide), but it didn't matter. Now that was a long time ago, and maybe this is different because reefs don't move and the regulation chart was wrong, but there are so few boats in the Navy for so many officers it is almost like they look for excuses to push people out.


Mariners are supposed to be aware of shifting sandbars and adjust their practices accordingly when approaching areas known to have them. Those practices are sometimes a hit or miss roulette and the navy knows that (which is why your friend didn't get a huge ding on his record). The navy is also a bit superstitious when it comes to navigating (although they will never admit it) and so anyone who was unlucky enough to hit an uncharted sandbar will be seen as unlucky period. Plus, as you said, there are plenty of other people to rise up and fill the unlucky bastards position.
 
2013-01-21 10:40:25 AM

brandent: I like how no matter what goes wrong and why they always always fire the captain. Funny the rest of the world doesn't work that way.


DoBeDoBeDo: Call me crazy but if you're in charge of a few hundred million dollars of tax payer funded equipment and the lives of those aboard, you'd want to verify your course through at least 2 sources.


Thems the breaks; once you're a captain, you have a very good job and on the road to a big promotion and big retirement benefits. The downside is that the buck stops with you; something majorly wrong happens to your ship and it might be your ass on the line.
 
2013-01-21 10:42:42 AM
So, charts and a fancy map computer aside. He never looked at his depth finder? He must have known he was operating in shallow water.
 
2013-01-21 10:43:20 AM

kattana: while I can understand a bad chart, do they not have some sort of depth finders running on these boats, especially while operating in coastal waters?


From what I've read the reef was almost vertical in nature so a depth finder wouldn't have given them enough warning. They can't by design look ahead of you, they can only look directly underneath you.
 
2013-01-21 10:45:39 AM

Now I Is!: So, charts and a fancy map computer aside. He never looked at his depth finder? He must have known he was operating in shallow water.


From what I've read the reef was almost vertical in nature so a depth finder wouldn't have given them enough warning. They can't by design look ahead of you, they can only look directly underneath you.
 
2013-01-21 10:53:27 AM

kattana: while I can understand a bad chart, do they not have some sort of depth finders running on these boats, especially while operating in coastal waters?


When I worked as a deckhand on tow boats, it wasn't unusual during the flood season to have sandbars move and your depth could change from 40+ feet to 4 feet in less than 20 feet of distance traveled. Also, the mass of the vessel will keep you moving a LOT longer than you would prefer.

/lost a tow on the Ohio river in 94 to this. Broke every face wire and hawser line on the tow.
//the "sounder" as its called is on the front or "Head" of the tow and the empty tow draft was 4 feet, boat draft was 10. Sandbar was ~5 feet below the surface. Even with 200 feet of tow to turn we still grounded.
///end csb
 
2013-01-21 10:57:04 AM
It was a minesweeper. They have sonar that sweeps well in front of the ship to look for, you know, mines and stuff, don't they? Unless it wasn't powered up. But yeah, radar would have shown an island in the vicinity. Otherwise the board will ask why he was going so close to what amounts to a marine sanctuary.
 
2013-01-21 10:57:52 AM

beefoe: Not sure why they have to different kinds of electronic charts, one for harbors and another for open ocean. Are they trying to save memory or something?


Quite honestly. unless you're in a submarine anything over 150 feet might as well be fifteen hundred feet. Submarines do use different charts than surface ships and the depths of concern are different than what the surface navy has. 600 feet for example is a coastal number of importance to submarines that a surface ship blows past with little to no notice. That's because in general that depth is considered the minimum safe depth to be able submerge in and go beneath a surfaced contact if you must. Deep enough to not ground but not too deep that if there was a problem that you couldn't be rescued if needed.
 
2013-01-21 10:58:10 AM
Oh come on Navy, the reef has breakers on it. Are watch standers too old fashioned now too?
 
2013-01-21 11:00:50 AM
Was nobody manning the Big Eyes? Captain Clusterfark is going to be screaming BOHICA all the way to the end of his career.
 
2013-01-21 11:04:03 AM

mr intrepid: It was a minesweeper. They have sonar that sweeps well in front of the ship to look for, you know, mines and stuff, don't they? Unless it wasn't powered up. But yeah, radar would have shown an island in the vicinity. Otherwise the board will ask why he was going so close to what amounts to a marine sanctuary.


They don't sweep for mines all of the time that they are underway. The environmentalists would go crazy if they did.
 
2013-01-21 12:20:58 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: Call me crazy but if you're in charge of a few hundred million dollars of tax payer funded equipment and the lives of those aboard, you'd want to verify your course through at least 2 sources.


As far as I know, only the US and the UK currently issue charts for the entire world. That doesn't mean that they survey, or have surveyed everywhere, though. The UK HO (Hydrographic Office) licences data from other nations, and I'd expect the US to do the same. That means that even if you had, say, the US, UK and French charts for somewhere in Polynesia, they may well all be based on the same data and have the same errors. These errors have been known to include non-existent islands.

Here, to cheer you up, is a picture of the Royal Navy's newest, most expensive and technologically most advance submarine, HMS Astute, aground in very, very well charted waters off the west coast of Scotland. The captain was relieved of his command, but not prosecuted.

3.bp.blogspot.com

/hot like a plume of steam from a damaged nuclear sub
 
2013-01-21 12:22:36 PM

Radioactive Ass: That's the reason why no boat has an X stern configuration even though it has superior maneuverability over the more traditional cruciform configuration, it needs to rely upon a computer to properly move all four control surfaces while a manual system can't do that and when the fit hits the shan you need to be able to rely 100% on the manual system or 100+ people and a billion or so dollars worth of ship and equipment end up being a crushed mess over a mile underwater.


Isn't some form of mechanical mixer possible, as for the tail surfaces of V-tailed aircraft?
 
2013-01-21 12:24:57 PM

Radioactive Ass: From what I've read the reef was almost vertical in nature so a depth finder wouldn't have given them enough warning. They can't by design look ahead of you, they can only look directly underneath you.


Forward looking sonar is getting affordable for yachts these days. I expect the US Navy can afford it.
 
2013-01-21 12:29:14 PM
a sea of sulus


OH MY!
 
2013-01-21 12:38:12 PM

orbister: Radioactive Ass: From what I've read the reef was almost vertical in nature so a depth finder wouldn't have given them enough warning. They can't by design look ahead of you, they can only look directly underneath you.

Forward looking sonar is getting affordable for yachts these days. I expect the US Navy can afford it.


Yes, but your not legally aloud to just ping away at all times, and passive sonar isn't going to detect a reef. Remember all the law suits about them conducting ASW operations during actual training exercises? There is no way the Navy would want to replay all of that for simple navigation point A to point B type stuff.
 
2013-01-21 01:00:16 PM

Wicked Chinchilla: Yes, but your not legally aloud to just ping away at all times


Sez who? I've never seen anything to suggest that yachts are restricted in when they can use echo sounders or FLS, and all large ships have echo sounders running at all times after they have crossed the continental shelf.
 
2013-01-21 01:06:27 PM
Minesweeper? On an Apple?

it's not as uncommon as you think.

a586.phobos.apple.com
 
2013-01-21 01:14:03 PM
in 1983, the USS Enterprise became grounded in San Francisco bay. I remember a radio DJ trying to coordinate people around the bay to flush their toilets on cue believing the rush of water would help refloat the ship.

scifanatic.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

No, not that Enterprise.
 
2013-01-21 02:12:42 PM
[George Takei.jpg]
 
2013-01-21 02:21:44 PM

orbister: As far as I know, only the US and the UK currently issue charts for the entire world.


British Admiralty Charts have long been recognized as the best in the world.
 
2013-01-21 02:23:09 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: Bring back Loran-C.


Loran-C was not a global navigation system.

Pre-GPS you would have used OMEGA.
 
2013-01-21 04:25:03 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Great: another org that doesn't know how to "mobilize" their site.

Someone post that xkcd again. I want to feel mocked.


You couldn't find the article either? Linked to main page with no article about it.
 
2013-01-21 04:50:26 PM

brandent: Satanic_Hamster: Yep, Captain's career is a bit bjorked. Ship temporarily evacuated, a fleet gathering to recover the vessel, headed up by an admiral on an arleigh burke. Protests going on by the locals over the damage to the reef as well.

I like how no matter what goes wrong and why they always always fire the captain. Funny the rest of the world doesn't work that way.


Sure it does. The captain may be the leader of the vessel, but to the Navy, he's middle management. Tell me when they fire an Admiral.
 
2013-01-21 05:04:47 PM

Ishidan: Sure it does. The captain may be the leader of the vessel, but to the Navy, he's middle management. Tell me when they fire an Admiral.


Usually admirals aren't involved in the course and handling of a ship.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report