Posted on 02/13/2005 10:23:15 AM PST by NCSteve
The captain of a submarine that hit a seamount Jan. 8 in the western Pacific Ocean, killing one crewman and seriously injuring 23 others, has been found guilty of operating the submarine unsafely and has been issued a letter of reprimand, effectively ending his career.
Cmdr. Kevin Mooney, the captain of the USS San Francisco, was permanently relieved as skipper after an administrative proceeding known as an admiral's mast. The proceeding was convened by an order of the commander of the Seventh Fleet, Vice Adm. Jonathan Greenert.
Cmdr. Ike N. Skelton, a spokesman for the Seventh Fleet in Yokosuka, Japan, said late Friday night that Greenert determined during the investigation that Mooney failed to follow “several critical navigational and voyage planning” standards.
“By not ensuring those standards were followed, Mooney hazarded the vessel,” Skelton said, reading from a statement issued by Greenert.
The mast concluded that Mooney's crew had access to charts that showed there might have been an underwater obstruction in the area, and that a sounding taken just minutes before the accident did not correlate with the charts that were in use at the time, which should have prompted him to be more cautious.
The news stunned several Navy sources who have been following the accident investigation, particularly because Mooney's actions after the accident were characterized as heroic by everyone familiar with the situation. Despite extensive damage to the ship, he and his crew got it to the surface and kept it floating long enough to limp back to its homeport of Apra Harbor, Guam.
The San Francisco was heading to Australia when it came to periscope depth a little more than 400 miles southwest of Guam to fix its position accurately. Minutes after diving, and while traveling at a high rate of speed, the submarine slammed into a seamount in an area where official Navy charts list 6,000 feet of water.
Other charts of the area, however, show muddy water in the area, which normally indicates shallowness, and other government agency charts show evidence of the seamount less than 150 feet below the surface. The grounding destroyed three of the four ballast tanks in the submarine's bow, shattered the sonar dome and smashed the sonar sphere. In addition, a bulkhead at the front end of the ship was buckled.
Machinist Mate 3rd Class Joseph Ashley was killed when he was thrown more than 20 feet and struck his head on a large pump. Almost two-dozen others were injured so badly they could not perform their duties, though they have all since been treated and released from the hospital in Guam. Seventy-five others received less severe injuries.
The crew saved the ship by constantly running a low pressure blower meant for only intermittent use to force water out of the badly damaged forward ballast tanks, as well as using exhaust from the ship's diesel motor to augment the blower.
Despite the force of the blow, the nuclear reactor and the ship's turbine generators continued to operate normally, and even sensitive electronic and navigation gear continued to function.
On Jan. 20, Mooney was reassigned to Submarine Squadron 15 in Guam, pending the results of an investigation to determine the cause of the sub's grounding. Cmdr. Andrew Hale, the squadron's deputy commander, assumed duties as captain of the San Francisco.
The mast means that Mooney will not face a more serious proceeding known as a court martial, but the letter of reprimand and the decision to relieve him of command “for cause” means that his promising career is over, the Navy sources said.
In a related development, Lt. Cmdr. Jeff A. Davis, a spokesman for the Pacific submarine force commander, said late Friday night that assessment of the damage to the San Francisco is proceeding and that shipyard workers in Guam are planning to make temporary repairs to the bow of the ship so it can be moved under its own power to a shipyard where it can be repaired.
Although the location where it will be repaired has not been determined, Navy sources said it would likely be Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, or Bangor, Wash.
“These temporary repairs will be engineered to ensure a successful transit,” Davis said. “As part of having on-hand materials for potential use in these temporary repairs, a large steel dome about 20 feet high and 20 feet in diameter will be arriving at Guam in the next few days. As of now, no decisions have been made about when USS San Francisco will depart Guam, where it will go, or what her final disposition will be.”
Other Navy sources said that if the assessment determines it makes sense to repair rather than scrap the San Francisco, the Navy will likely use the entire bow section from the recently decommissioned USS Atlanta to replace the badly damaged bow of the San Francisco.
It is unfortunate, but absolute trust in the captain is critical to Navy ships and their crews. When the soundings didn't agree with the charts, it was time for extra effort and caution. Failing to do this, he let down his crew and cost one man his life. Even if the Admiral's mast had not come to this conclusion, it is doubtful he could have effectively functioned in a command position in the future.
This should not take away from his actions after the fact. He behaved in the finest traditions of the US Navy and is, no doubt, a brave man. However, he knew going in that the job does not, and cannot, suffer mistakes.
When in doubt, don't go there at 30 knots.
"I was shocked to see the Navy did anything. Must have been too much to cover up in case anyone went poking around."
The Navy always "does something" when a vessel is damaged.
I also thought that they were running silent. So was there a sounding really or no? If so, did the sounding really show anything?
I have not made my mind up about this, but it does not seem like it should end this guys career.
The unstated risk is that we create a bunch of risk averse general mcclellands when a war breaks out.
You said everything I was going to - To effectively end this guys career over this is simply wrong (and it encompasses a wrongheaded type philosophy).
Truly regrettable for the sailors loss of life, but:
The navy should be grateful it got all the technical information as to the real life viability of the severely damaged vessel and after action procedures taken for same.
That's not a "rocket science" question.
I understood that his career was over the minute I heard of this accident. There are no accidents in the Nuclear Navy. Someone has to pay.
The fact that he was going as fast as he was in an area without 100% accurate charts shows that he wasn't acting with proper caution.
However, the BS rationale provided by this verdict that, even though the Navy's official charts showed a 6,000 foot depth he should have ignored those and relied on other sources than official Navy charts is offensive.
I think the Navy senior command of the last 15 years (mostly Clintonoids view of "good" military commanders) has clear liability in this incident. This verdict is designed to put all of the blame on the skipper and not on their complete failure to organize systematic review of all of the Navy's survey data as each new bit of data is uncovered. We have the tools, they just don't think that they're sexy or grab enough PC accolades. They'd rather concentrate on deploying Global Warming sensor arrays or protecting cetaceans from sonar (that's a ridiculous exaggeration, but you should understand the sentiment if you know the community).
Based on his actions and the actions of his crew following the collision he obviously knows how to train a crew and maintain discipline. This man should be teaching at the 'trade school.' This verdict means that will never happen. I think that's a mistake.
Wow... A bow transplant... That's not the sorta thing that you see every day, is it (of course, neither is an out-of-position seamount)...
clarification. I had read that there to be no active sonar so as to avoid detection.
But then why would he be under these rules, if he were running above 8 knts?
I've been wondering myself why they were not using active sonar.
Is that common practice during peacetime? If so, why? Who are we hiding from?
/stupid questions
You could probably answer my question in 30.
Without getting nasty because you think I'm attacking the military.
Please. :-)
I had read that he was ordered not use sonar.
(active)
When one is the skipper, ultimate responsibility is automatically assumed. The verdict didn't put the blame on him - by virtue of being the captain/commander of a vessel, that is where the blame always lies.
The strategic strength of the submarine fleet depends on its ability to move around the globe undetected. Even in peacetime, submarines represent the front line of deterrence. It is the fact that submarines can be just about anywhere, anytime that keeps those who would wish us harm from attempting anything stupid.
An active sonar ping can be heard sometimes for hundreds of miles under water, depending on conditions. Even a single ping is like throwing up a beacon that says, "Here I am!"
Hope that explanation helps.
This boat was doing about 35 mph when it hit the mountain. At speeds like that you are deaf. You couldn't hear your own sonar.
There were several very good threads on this accident recently, and there were some respondents that actually have served on subs commenting on this very same issue.
Yep. Part of my point. The map is the map. Why was he told not to use sonar? How can the maps be wrong after 50 years of navigation, inlcuding running UNDER the north pole.
I am not neccesarily saying the captain is blame free, but a number of elements are not being examined-including subs running around under water - with some uncontrollable elements.
Yer right, send it back to Groton EB, we need the work here in Ct.
You cant ping active sonar all the time, the idea is to travel undetected.
When one is the skipper, ultimate responsibility is automatically assumed. The verdict didn't put the blame on him - by virtue of being the captain/commander of a vessel, that is where the blame always lies.
Understood, which is why my first paragraphs was:
I understood that his career was over the minute I heard of this accident. There are no accidents in the Nuclear Navy. Someone has to pay.
The point I was making was that the form of the verdict was structure to improperly absolve the rest of the Navy REMFs for having failed to provide the guys at the sharp end with accurate survey maps.
The Captain screwed up. He screwed up because he trusted the Navy to provide him with accurate charts. He should have been using NOAA surveys and ignoring what the Navy provided him as official documents. Of course that makes sense.
Not!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.