4 ms·

> running against a stationary obstacle (a seamount) in a submarine is nothing that should happen to an experienced crew Why not?

by ethbr0 5y ago

anotherhue 5y ago
Maps
- jeffwass 5y ago
  From the CNN article : When it comes to knowing the terrain beneath them, even astronauts might have it easier than submariners, according to Shugart. "Basically, the surface of the moon is better charted than the bottom of the ocean is," he said.
- pas 5y ago
  The seafloor is not mapped 100% to a sufficient resolution. Underwater navigation is not that simple (no GPS). Plus even if this big underwater mountain were on a map, maps are not perfect.
danbruc 5y ago
[...] sound judgement, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident [...]
- ethbr0 5y ago
  That doesn't fill me with confidence that it's definitively the boat's fault. How many companies have you known who threw engineers under the bus when {insert same quote}? While at the same time the de facto daily operation procedures throughout the entire company were to constantly ignore or skip those same safeguards? I'm not saying it's not the crew's fault, but I am saying that a statement like that doesn't prove it's reasonably the crew's fault. Ultimately though, it's leadership's decision who to place in command or particular roles, so it's their right to reassign or remove commands at whim.
berkut 5y ago
Yeah, I'd like to know what the officers could/should have done differently... And why wasn't the Navigator dismissed? If it was an unknown seamount, surely the only way they could have known about it to avoid it would be using active sonar, which would almost certainly be a no-no in the area of sea they were in (active sonar from other vessels can be heard passively quite a bit further than the range the active sonar's being emitted for as it only has to go one way, not there and back like it does with the response from active sonar), along with the fact they'd want to stay hidden. Maybe it was something else they hit which was more embarrising? (don't know what though)
- losvedir 5y ago
  Probably about knowing what you don't know, and acting accordingly. Like, I'm guessing that if you don't have a part of the sea mapped, and you can't use active radar, then you probably shouldn't be going through there.
  - einnhverr 5y ago
    And if you really have to be stealthy there with this submarine, send another crew with mapping capabilities using a decoy mission in which you don't have to hide that you are passing by.
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  >Yeah, I'd like to know what the officers could/should have done differently... To copy the same excerpt as a comment below: [...] sound judgement, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident [...] >And why wasn't the Navigator dismissed? That is probably still in the works. There's more due process involved in firing someone further down the chain of command. >If it was an unknown seamount, surely the only way they could have known about it to avoid it would be using active sonar While this is true, you don't need to know where the seamounts are to avoid hitting them. When driving on a highway, I can go very fast because there are not people walking around because the environment is pedestrian-hostile to the point of extinction. Driving through a dense urban core, I have to be much slower because there are people everywhere and I might be in a city where crossing mid-block is normal.

> running against a stationary obstacle (a seamount) in a submarine is nothing that should happen to an experienced crew Why not?

by ethbr0 5y ago

> running against a stationary obstacle (a seamount) in a submarine is nothing that should happen to an experienced crew Why not?

anotherhue 5y ago

Maps

jeffwass 5y ago
From the CNN article : When it comes to knowing the terrain beneath them, even astronauts might have it easier than submariners, according to Shugart. "Basically, the surface of the moon is better charted than the bottom of the ocean is," he said.
pas 5y ago
The seafloor is not mapped 100% to a sufficient resolution. Underwater navigation is not that simple (no GPS). Plus even if this big underwater mountain were on a map, maps are not perfect.

danbruc 5y ago

[...] sound judgement, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident [...]

ethbr0 5y ago
That doesn't fill me with confidence that it's definitively the boat's fault. How many companies have you known who threw engineers under the bus when {insert same quote}? While at the same time the de facto daily operation procedures throughout the entire company were to constantly ignore or skip those same safeguards? I'm not saying it's not the crew's fault, but I am saying that a statement like that doesn't prove it's reasonably the crew's fault. Ultimately though, it's leadership's decision who to place in command or particular roles, so it's their right to reassign or remove commands at whim.

berkut 5y ago

Yeah, I'd like to know what the officers could/should have done differently... And why wasn't the Navigator dismissed? If it was an unknown seamount, surely the only way they could have known about it to avoid it would be using active sonar, which would almost certainly be a no-no in the area of sea they were in (active sonar from other vessels can be heard passively quite a bit further than the range the active sonar's being emitted for as it only has to go one way, not there and back like it does with the response from active sonar), along with the fact they'd want to stay hidden. Maybe it was something else they hit which was more embarrising? (don't know what though)

losvedir 5y ago
Probably about knowing what you don't know, and acting accordingly. Like, I'm guessing that if you don't have a part of the sea mapped, and you can't use active radar, then you probably shouldn't be going through there.
- einnhverr 5y ago
  And if you really have to be stealthy there with this submarine, send another crew with mapping capabilities using a decoy mission in which you don't have to hide that you are passing by.
QuarterReptile 5y ago
>Yeah, I'd like to know what the officers could/should have done differently... To copy the same excerpt as a comment below: [...] sound judgement, prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in navigation planning, watch team execution and risk management could have prevented the incident [...] >And why wasn't the Navigator dismissed? That is probably still in the works. There's more due process involved in firing someone further down the chain of command. >If it was an unknown seamount, surely the only way they could have known about it to avoid it would be using active sonar While this is true, you don't need to know where the seamounts are to avoid hitting them. When driving on a highway, I can go very fast because there are not people walking around because the environment is pedestrian-hostile to the point of extinction. Driving through a dense urban core, I have to be much slower because there are people everywhere and I might be in a city where crossing mid-block is normal.