Ferry doesn't collide with submarine

[GHA]

Think they got confused by the navy's sloppy use of lat/long format

 

[cherod]

Hiya, I'm not going to get drawn into an argument here with the rights and wrongs of the risk of collision that didn't happen! But I'm fairly sure that twenty months ago there were some very uncomfortable moments in a senior officers office ashore back at CSB and the miscreants got the bollocking they deserved for stupid. The emergency go deep procedure is regularly excercised. No idea why they didn't, even after reading the report.

Not sure what you mean by a one compartment standard. The pressure hull is divided into watertight compartments. The forward one, whose watertight door is permanently manned, could be flooded, probably, without loss of the boat. Mebbe. Problem is the ballast tanks outside the pressure hull. Once badly damaged, you are cream crackered.

All I can add is that from what I saw sat in the Ship Control seat for gawd knows how long dived, is that such mistakes are rare and the standard of professionalism through the the control room and sound room is very high. Others may read newspapers and think otherwise.

in industrial environment " a collision that didnt happen " is classed as a " near miss " , the case is studied and hopefully lessons are learned and acted upon , not dismissed because there is no excuse available .

 

[capnsensible]

in industrial environment " a collision that didnt happen " is classed as a " near miss " , the case is studied and hopefully lessons are learned and acted upon , not dismissed because there is no excuse available .

Did you read the MAIB report? ? I can't see where it says oopsadaisey.

 

[capnsensible]

A very astute post, if I may say so. Were you in the vanguard of sub drivers?

Well actually I was told to dread naught so I valiantly went tirelessly forward and became superb.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Why not? At the end of the day it’s a piece of government IT...

It‘s only as good as the data fed into it, and according to the report the only range input was the periscope watchkeeper’s guess. Radar not being used, passive sonar only gave a bearing, and AIS only received very intermittently (although it’s not clear why that should be, even from a low-lying antenna, when the ferry was so close).

Pete

I honestly couldn't even hazard a guess why not but would have thought that a tactical system would be a little more robust than manually inputing someones guess. It would be staggeringly inept if the system was not taking data continually from other processes, even if data could be manually entered. It's not a position you want to be in, defending your nuclear deterrent, when the only shot in the book capable of knocking out the enemy misses because the periscope man miss-entered the range. Guess time: in passive mode it is not transmitting only receiving, hence the noise from the surface vessel and a range finder device in the periscope would be silent data feeding into a tactical computer, or even submarine propellor noise retruning from the vessel being used to passively listen and estimate a range. I don't believe that they were running that blind. Can it not be calculated based on vessels noise, as the vessel moves, submarine moves, both on courses, time and transit time of sound waves, differences, geometry gives distance off calculation?

Anyway, maybe there is a big auto / manual button on the tactical computer

 

[SaltIre]

Could somebody who knows about these things, explain this part of the MAIB report?

1.4.1
The submarine’s OOW was a qualified submarine officer and this was his first period at sea in the OOW role. The periscope watchkeeper was the navigating officer who was a qualified and experienced submarine watchkeeper. Although initially supervising a trainee, the navigating officer took over the periscope watch when the ferry was reportedly at about 6000yds.

So the OOW "had the ship (boat)". The Navigator was supervising, and was periscope watchkeeper. In what way did the Navigator then "take over the periscope watch"? I thought he was already doing it.
Or did MAIB get this wrong and the Navigator "took the ship/boat" from the OOW?

Edit:
I think I've worked it out - the Navigator was supervising a trainee who wasn't the OOW, as periscope watchkeeper.

 

[SaltIre]

Think they got confused by the navy's sloppy use of lat/long format

It seems submariners still use yards.
I wonder if they still use fathoms and ride about on penny-farthings.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Bit boaty innit?
Almost a colregs thread

 

[Old Harry]

It seems submariners still use yards.
I wonder if they still use fathoms and ride about on penny-farthings.

"Yards" most are tied up in them as floating "spares" departments

 

[Kukri]

Hiya, I'm not going to get drawn into an argument here with the rights and wrongs of the risk of collision that didn't happen! But I'm fairly sure that twenty months ago there were some very uncomfortable moments in a senior officers office ashore back at CSB and the miscreants got the bollocking they deserved for stupid. The emergency go deep procedure is regularly excercised. No idea why they didn't, even after reading the report.

Not sure what you mean by a one compartment standard. The pressure hull is divided into watertight compartments. The forward one, whose watertight door is permanently manned, could be flooded, probably, without loss of the boat. Mebbe. Problem is the ballast tanks outside the pressure hull. Once badly damaged, you are cream crackered.

All I can add is that from what I saw sat in the Ship Control seat for gawd knows how long dived, is that such mistakes are rare and the standard of professionalism through the the control room and sound room is very high. Others may read newspapers and think otherwise.

I didn’t express myself well. What I meant was, as you have stated more clearly, that if a ballast tank is ruptured in a collision the outlook for the submarine is not good.

 

[Quandary]

Bit boaty innit?
Almost a colregs thread

It was originally started by Awol in Scuttlebut where it would be a lot more relevant, the OP is more than slightly annoyed that his thread has beenmoved to fantasy land where many will not see it.
Sounds like a Boris type cover up? Are the Mods ex RN?

 

[prv]

I honestly couldn't even hazard a guess why not but would have thought that a tactical system would be a little more robust than manually inputing someones guess.

I‘m going by what it says in the report, rather than by what I “would have thought”. Have you read it?

The report might be wrong - the Navy might have misled the MAIB about the capabilities of their kit - but for those of us who aren’t submariners it’s the best information we have available.

The system did apparently take an estimated range from the sonar system, but since passive sonar range is reportedly very rough, it was programmed to ignore it in favour of a visually estimated range if one was entered. There were no other systems in use.

Pete

 

[Alfie168]

I'm surpised Nicola Sturgeon and her one party state SNP Government hasn't been blamed yet.

Could have been a Grayling day out though . He can't even get elected on a rigged ballot

 

[mjcoon]

The Americans on the Clyde used to be even worse. I had one of the bastards approach on the surface at some speed, dive under me and resurface on the other side. I gave the keel bolts some welly with a hammer and hope it hurt someone.

I knew having a bolted-on keel had some advantage... ;-)

 

[mjcoon]

CHIRP Maritime wishes to highlight a recent and unusual report issued by the UK MAIB 13-2020 on a near miss incident between a submerged submarine at periscope depth and a fast ferry.

Most importantly, this report demonstrates the importance of effective watchkeeping and teamwork on the part of the ferry.

Synopsis... [See more]

 

[jamie N]

Just a thought, but in the RN, this is probably a 'Bad for career' event.
Had it been a govt event, the man responsible (it's got to be Grayling) would've been lauded for his adventurous attitude in determinedly testing maritime watchkeeping skills.

 

[SaltIre]

Just a thought, but in the RN, this is probably a 'Bad for career' event.
Had it been a govt event, the man responsible (it's got to be Grayling) would've been lauded for his adventurous attitude in determinedly testing maritime watchkeeping skills.

For which of the three Naval Officers do you think it was 'Bad for Career'?
- OOW?
- Navigating Officer?
- Captain?
Or do you think whoever fed them the fake info about the ferry's range was at fault?
Or all four?

 

[Kukri]

I think the Commanding Officer’s failure to report a “near miss” event was pretty serious.

Given the love and affection that exists between the RN and British merchant shipping, it ought to have occurred to him that the ferry, whose watchkeepers had had a nasty shock, was likely to file an MAIB report. ?

 

[GTom]

I believe that’s in the “attack periscope”. At least, in the days of optical perisopes, it was. All digital, now.

Bloody lucky that the Falklands happened 38 years ago...

 

[SaltIre]

Bloody lucky that the Falklands happened 38 years ago...

In what way?