Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Submariner sent home as not fit for duty.

ships have one navigating officer. Normal jogging on the bridge is the OOW, QM and BM (lookouts to you). If the Navs is off watch then the Navs isn't there. The Navs will also be in the watch bill so you can have the Navs as OOW but not all OOW are Navs.

Being of a non nautical persuasion, t’was this ↓↓↓

During the middle of Lt Stanley's watch she noticed the Jan Cornelis was around 1400 yards away and reported this to her navigator before returning behind the curtain.

that led me to think the navigating officer was on the bridge whilst Lt. Doris got her head down got on with something completely unrelated to OOW duties...


This radar screen behind the curtain... can it get Netflix?
 

Oyibo

LE
Snipped...


Drawing the curtain/s cost her £4k, earned her a ‘severe reprimand’ and possibly as a brucie bonus, a permanently stalled career. Mind you, you’d wonder why the navigating officer and bridge lookouts (whatever they are called) allowed the ship to get so close to another vessel without alerting the O.O.W. Stitch up perhaps?

Many years ago I got chatting with some RN officers in a BR buffet car (drinking rather than eating). The had just passed whatever training it was to be submariners and on leave before being posted to their boats.

They said their greatest fear was pissing off people under their command not hence not being given help to learn and do a very technical job. Apparently it was known as "The stoppage of knowledge."
 
Being of a non nautical persuasion, t’was this ↓↓↓



that led me to think the navigating officer was on the bridge whilst Lt. Doris got her head down got on with something completely unrelated to OOW duties...


This radar screen behind the curtain... can it get Netflix?
I must confess that having had a look at the reporting I'm not really clear on what was going on. for a start, the top 2 reports (BBC and Daily Mail) are presumably cribbing one off the other as both have got the length of a middle watch wrong (2359-0400 rather than the quoted 0100-0400) and also have the name of at least one of the other officers mentioned wrong.

In the circumstances reported, I can see why she might have told the *captain* about the CPA with the fishing boat (because waking them up to tell them that sort of thing would be in the Standing Orders and completely what they're there for), but not the Navs. Unless the Navs was on the bridge, but even then given that they wouldn't have the ship (because the OOW has it) then it would be more of a comment/observation than a report. Unless the Navs had the watch, which they quite obviously didn't, otherwise it would have been the Navs in the dock.

Basically I'm guessing that it wasn't the Navs she told, because (and bearing in mind I wasn't there and I've been outside for 14 years so I might be missing something) I can't see why she would have told the Navs. There's a direct line to the CO from the bridge for reporting this sort of thing, you don't faff about shaking other members of the ship's company.

Either there's more to this than has made the press, or the press have got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
Many years ago I got chatting with some RN officers in a BR buffet car (drinking rather than eating). The had just passed whatever training it was to be submariners and on leave before being posted to their boats.

They said their greatest fear was pissing off people under their command not hence not being given help to learn and do a very technical job. Apparently it was known as "The stoppage of knowledge."
It's a fairly high stakes game to play in the middle of the night with everyone else on board asleep though - there are quicker and safer ways of ending the career of someone you don't have confidence in (allegedly).

If you don't like the officer of the watch, regardless of reason, then actively trying to get them sacked in the Middle Watch with 3 people awake on the bridge, a slack handful in the Ops Room, and a tiny number in the engine spaces (and 200 people asleep and entirely dependent on a few people doing their jobs) then you're a bigger d*ckhead than the OOW can ever have been.

Hence why I'm always more of a fan of cock up over conspiracy until there's evidence otherwise.
 
Isn't it traditional to consume said meal, immediately after the pub and in civvies ? then grab a couple of hours kip, before a full english and visit to toilet..... Turning up for duty with the meal, means he must have gone out again dressed in uniform, already reeking of booze and then returned to his duty raises so many questions and surely someone must have noticed he was hammered when leaving the ship again.

Quick point here... didn’t the original piece state it was barbecued chicken, not fried chicken.
 

philc

LE
I must confess that having had a look at the reporting I'm not really clear on what was going on. for a start, the top 2 reports (BBC and Daily Mail) are presumably cribbing one off the other as both have got the length of a middle watch wrong (1200-0400 rather than the quoted 0100-0400) and also have the name of at least one of the other officers mentioned wrong.

In the circumstances reported, I can see why she might have told the *captain* about the CPA with the fishing boat (because waking them up to tell them that sort of thing would be in the Standing Orders and completely what they're there for), but not the Navs. Unless the Navs was on the bridge, but even then given that they wouldn't have the ship (because the OOW has it) then it would be more of a comment/observation than a report. Unless the Navs had the watch, which they quite obviously didn't, otherwise it would have been the Navs in the dock.

Basically I'm guessing that it wasn't the Navs she told, because (and bearing in mind I wasn't there and I've been outside for 14 years so I might be missing something) I can't see why she would have told the Navs. There's a direct line to the CO from the bridge for reporting this sort of thing, you don't faff about shaking other members of the ship's company.

Either there's more to this than has made the press, or the press have got it wrong.

I am wondering maybe Navs Yeoman was on watch and she consulted him if they still have them. For Info Navs Yeoman helps the Navigating Officer with chart updates etc etc etc, he or she has a or should have a good understanding of Navigation, Rules of the Road etc.

The Press reports are guff though.
 
She was on watch, she reported the FV to the CO, but then didn't monitor it and it closed the ship significantly.

I imagine she told the QM and Tac Op to "look out the window", but neither of them are trained to monitor ranges/bearings, nor should they expected to be.

It's a pretty sad case, and one that should be studied by putative COs, about how "perceived" workload will drive people to do extra-ordinary things...
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
The Senior Service seem to be a trifle over represented in the press this week ( must be a slow news week)
Commander Sally Ann Bagnall was cleared of Harrasment
she wears sensible shoes I gather ! before you say I would
 

Latest Threads

Top