[raybbr]

1. The team apparently believed it was a faulty reading — moving through the water at 30 mph, fathometer readings can be inaccurate — and the team kept hoping that perhaps the next reading would correlate with the chart.

2. In retrospect, it's clear that the readings were accurate, the water was shoaling, and the San Francisco was heading for what was nearly an underwater cliff.

Okay. So which is it? Are the readings accurate at 30knts or not?

The author writes as if he has information that fathometer readings are innacurate at that speed and then contradicts himself. Does he have a source that tells him this? I find it very hard to believe that they would driving the sub at that speed if soundings would be that erratic. Pretty sloppy writing.

[GATOR NAVY]

...fathometer readings can be inaccurate...

The operative word here is "can". The author doesn't say the soundings will always be accurate or that they will never be inaccurate. I don't know what kind of fathometer sunmarines have, but I know that I am doubtful of the ability of my fathometer to consistantly track at 30 kts with a water depth of 1000 fathoms. -USN surface navigator

[Doohickey]

I don't read the statements as contradictory. The QMOW hoped the soundings were inaccurate, when in fact they were. The prudent thing to do would have been to slow the ship to be sure.

[Bernard]

The whole thing sounds like, "Driving too fast for conditions." The basic concept is, unless you KNOW where you are and the charts match readings, slow down.