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.
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.
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.
Is it possible that this seamont is a recent formation?