USN "Party Sub" Collision - $89m. iPODs Blamed....

#1
American taxpayers are on the hook for an $89 million repair bill after a crash involving a submarine
where the regulations apparently went overboard.


According to the Navy Times,
USS Hartford
that's the latest estimate to fix the USS Hartford, a nuclear-powered submarine that smashed into an amphibious ship last March in the mouth of the Persian Gulf while the sailors at the controls were playing games and listening to music.

The sub's commander, Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart, was relieved of duties after the Navy found that "an informal atmosphere, crew complacency, a 'weak' command and inferior submariner skills led to the 'avoidable' accident," the Navy Times reports. "Specifically, the navigator was listening to his iPod during a critical evolution, watchstanders were known to sleep on the job, and stereo speakers were rigged for music in the radio room."

The New London (Conn.) Day newspaper reported in November
Report
that the Navy investigation "paints a picture of submarine crew members falling asleep on the job, spending too much time away from their stations and chatting informally while working":

Those driving the ship would often slouch in their seats with one hand on the controls, and sometimes take their shoes off. Sonar operators and radiomen were missing from their stations for extended periods. Stereo speakers were added to the radio room to listen to music during work....

Investigators said that in the hour prior to the collision, about 30 tactical errors occurred onboard the Hartford.

Sonar operators, in charge of monitoring the ships near the submarine, were chatting informally for most of that hour. One of the sailors inserted a false sonar contact into the system so "he could use up all of his sonar trackers for amusement."

The sonar supervisor left his station frequently and the navigator was taking an exam while listening to his iPod in the wardroom. The officer in command did not look out of the periscope.

Repairs to the other ship cost $2.3 million.
 
#2
And you lot say things about the RN being lax!!!
 
#4
The navigator who was listening to his "i-pod" was not actually on watch at the time.

The crew members who were generally known to be "sleepers" were not proven to have been asleep at the time of the incident, and in any case, this is merely hearsay.

For a sedentary watchkeeper to not wear shoes does not preclude their ability to perform their duties correctly.

That being said, there does appear to have been a dreadful lack of awareness in the thirty minutes or so leading up to this, particularly as they were in an area of dense shipping, but to blame it on the use of an i-pod by someone who was not on watch diminishes the blame which should be apportioned to those who should carry the can, and smacks of media sensationalism.
 
#5
In the piccy, does anyone else think the bloke with bino's is all a little bit, "stable door/horse bolted"?
 
#6
Ouch, Entire sail is bent, port bow plane, hull needs repair. Safe to say Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart no longer has a career in the navy.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Have they handed it over to civies or is that he crew in a mish mash of kit?
 
#8
the_boy_syrup said:
Have they handed it over to civies or is that he crew in a mish mash of kit?
Looks to me like the crew with a marine standing guard in case someone were to swim up and steal secrets I suppose.
 
#9
the_boy_syrup said:
Have they handed it over to civies or is that he crew in a mish mash of kit?
I would imagine that the chap with the gun is 'Force Protection', and thus appropriately attired. The chap in the white shirt may well be a pilot, or alternatively may be the Captain. Either of these would mean that it is likely that he would be dressed differently from the others. So, not a mish-mash, but the correct rig for the job in hand.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Joe_Private said:
the_boy_syrup said:
Have they handed it over to civies or is that he crew in a mish mash of kit?
I would imagine that the chap with the gun is 'Force Protection', and thus appropriately attired. The chap in the white shirt may well be a pilot, or alternatively may be the Captain. Either of these would mean that it is likely that he would be dressed differently from the others. So, not a mish-mash, but the correct rig for the job in hand.

Thanks just wondered
 
#11
At least no iPods were harmed in the collision. :dance:
 
#13
That 'marine' looks on the swarthy side, comparable in fact to the chap in the white shirt who is probably the local pilot. What is that, an M14? I thought it was an AK at first. That helmet looks rather shiny too... could be a local guard to go with the pilot, in case there is an opportune USS Cole style action.
 
#14
ghost_us said:
the_boy_syrup said:
Have they handed it over to civies or is that he crew in a mish mash of kit?
Looks to me like the crew with a marine standing guard in case someone were to swim up and steal secrets I suppose.
Not a Marine, likely a MAA. Marines havent wonr Woodland BDU's in some time, navy still does(he's carrying an M-60E3 by the way, still a navy issue weapon) and after the USS Cole close in defences when in ports is de riguer.
 
#15
ghost_us said:
Ouch, Entire sail is bent, port bow plane, hull needs repair. Safe to say Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart no longer has a career in the navy.
The Sail is not only bent - look at the BFO crack where it meets the hull.

And is that a windsurf or yacht sail across the front of the sail?
 
#17
filthyphil said:
In defence of the septic navy, at least the sailors concerned are still in posession of their ipods.
poor beggars may have to give up having a fag on subs tho... :cry:

CNO: Smoking ban for subs in the works
/03/navy_smoking_subs_032810w/]No Fags on Subs
By Lance M. Bacon - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 6, 2010 21:42:25 EDT


The smoking lamp will soon be out aboard all subs, according to the Navy's top officer.

"We're going to stop smoking on submarines," Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told Navy Times on March 23.

The move is not yet official, so Lt. Cmdr. Mark Jones, a spokesman for Submarine Force, would say only that Vice Adm. John Donnelly "is examining the options of changing the policy of smoking in a submarine to improve the overall health of the entire crew."

Jones would not speculate on when a decision will be made, but a final order likely will come soon. The catalyst for change is the effect of secondhand smoke on crew members who remain submerged for months at a time.

"That atmosphere moves around the submarine," Roughead said. "You don't smell it, but the damaging things from the smoke are still present."

The pending decision is rooted in a 2009 environmental tobacco smoke study ordered by Donnelly that showed nonsmokers on submarines had measurable exposure to the harmful agents found in secondhand smoke.

Roughead addressed the findings, and the forthcoming ban, with half of the Navy's guided- and ballistic-missile sub skippers March 23 at a Submarine Group 10 leadership call at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay, Ga. Though these Ohio-class subs will soon include women in their crews - a move that has captured national headlines — the smoking ban proved to be the hot topic of discussion.

"Someone said in the course of the discussion after the [health] tests [that] they realized they might as well have just smoked," Roughead said.

The Navy said it would not share the details of the 2009 study until a decision on the ban is made. A 2004 study to determine whether the forward or aft smoking areas minimized nonsmokers' exposure to environmental tobacco smoke said "passive smoke exposure appears to be minimum." The current study is likely to be more critical.

"We are able to discern what the health effects are better than in the past," Roughead said, without specifying the latest findings.

A July 2002 survey published by Military Medicine, a journal of the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, provides insight into the attitudes of submariners about a possible ban. The anonymous Royal Navy survey, conducted on two of Britain's Trident submarines, found that nearly one-third of respondents were smokers; 45 percent of nonsmokers were ex-smokers. In response to the questionnaire, 55 percent said they felt a ban would be justifiable, 46 percent said it would be unfair and 42 percent said it was uncalled for.

Respondents to an anonymous survey of British ballistic-missile submariners in 2002 who said a smoking ban would be justifiable.
 
#20
ghost_us said:
Ouch, Entire sail is bent, port bow plane, hull needs repair. Safe to say Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart no longer has a career in the navy.
No doubt the next we hear of the ex Cmdr Ryan Brookhart is when he is hired to run motivational management courses for the NHS or the Cabinet Office.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads