-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
USS Guardian (MCM-5) aground on reef in Sulu Sea
- Thread starter Fog
- Start date
I'm not current on electronic navcert ships, so I hope more current guys like skim or AA will chime in (if they're still around), but rumors I've heard is that ships certified on electronic nav aren't supported to get paper chart updates...part of NGA funding cutbacks for them to no longer print paper charts.
And one thing I do from install of VMS (electronic nav) was the CO no longer checks and signs paper charts...he checks the DNC's then digitally signs.
Wood ship with 1+ week on a coral reef, still stuck, with weather setting back in...yeah, done. I'd be happy to be wrong, but wouldn't bet on it.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Can't speak for the skimmer way but on electronic navigating subs, no one looks at paper charts when prepping a nav plan and official procedures say that ships using electronic navigation shall use DNCs as their data source with layers plotting data from message traffic detailing other navigational hazards in the area/track. It's explicitly stated in official guidance that there is no intent for the ship to verify DNC against paper charts or keep a paper chart along with VMS in order to keep the good idea fairy away.
EDIT: The San Francisco was using paper charts and didn't review all charts for the area when preparing the voyage plan, which apparently was the expectation at the time. This is something that VMS is supposed to automate with DNCs when the ship builds a track and alerts the user if the track goes over a navhazard, but the personnel involved in building and reviewing a nav plan are still responsible for analyzing all DNCs for navigational hazards. So even if there was a problem with the displayed DNC at the time of the grounding, VMS should have alerted and it should have been caught in the nav planning process if there were othr DNCs loaded that had the reef.
EDIT: The San Francisco was using paper charts and didn't review all charts for the area when preparing the voyage plan, which apparently was the expectation at the time. This is something that VMS is supposed to automate with DNCs when the ship builds a track and alerts the user if the track goes over a navhazard, but the personnel involved in building and reviewing a nav plan are still responsible for analyzing all DNCs for navigational hazards. So even if there was a problem with the displayed DNC at the time of the grounding, VMS should have alerted and it should have been caught in the nav planning process if there were othr DNCs loaded that had the reef.
I was a VMS admin on my Destroyer as it was going through the certification process. My understanding is that once you go digital, you don't go back. You basically have paper backups in case you lose electricity or the VMS system itself. If the CO was doing everything they were supposed to do, then I definitely hope that they don't suffer undue consequences from this incident.
There is no way this crew is not going to be gang-raped by whatever authority deals with groundings and such - even if they followed every rule and procedure. This thing has a lot of visibility and the ship is probably going to be stricken (or whatever the ship equivalent is).
Ask the CO of USS Cole (circa 2000)...Oh please, I know it's bad, but has it REALLY gotten to this point???
BzB
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Sadly, yes BzB.
Hardly a new phenomenon - I suspect even in your timeframe. I'd be curious to know the stats on groundings in the 60s, 70s and 80s - particularly the percentage of COs fired.Oh please, I know it's bad, but has it REALLY gotten to this point???
BzB
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
I thought it was one of the few things hard and fast in the Navy; You run aground, you're fired. Period.
I don't really have an opinion here as to good/bad, just an observation of consistency.
I don't really have an opinion here as to good/bad, just an observation of consistency.
Eh, not quite, the JAGMAN happens and they look to find the cause. Recent example: USS Barry in '08 went aground spinning around in a turning basin with a pilot onboard. No firing.
If it wasn't really your fault, you survive.
It just seems that way because the majority of these incidents that make headlines were in fact due to negligence/incompetence, and therefore result in firing.
Brett, it is highly doubtful that any COs would have been relieved 'back in my timeframe', under the circumstances you outlined in the first quote above. Your cite could be interpreted as "no culpability assigned to the CO or crew". What then would be the justification for firing the CO?
BR, I don't believe the USS Cole incident falls into the catagory cited above. There was a security breach involved.
BzB
With some exceptions, to wit: Ensign Chester W. Nimitz, USNA Class of 1905: The destroyer USS Decatur (DD-5) ran aground on a sand bar in the Philippines on 7 July 1908 while under the command of Ensign Nimitz. The ship was pulled free the next day, and Nimitz was court-martialed, found guilty of neglect of duty, and issued a letter of reprimand.
Thus, he transititioned to submarines, and one year later, was given command of the First Submarine Flotilla. He seems to have been reasonably successful and upwardly mobile after that.
You can be doing everything right and still run aground. If you run aground, you're almost always getting relieved. Not making a value judgement. That's just the way it is. Chalk it up to adherence to tradition.
Based on my post above about Nimitz, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
But I roger up that we live in different times, since, based on "other threads and comments", there are SOOO many good guys left standing around these days...