Article

2013-07-29 Government

Geospatial Agency Map Was Wrong By 8 Miles when Minesweeper Grounded on Reef

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Pappy 2013-07-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 IF memory serves, this is the same agency responsible for theoutdated maps used by the marines when their EA-6B slashed the cablecar line in Italy sending many to their deaths and the aircrew was professionally ruined, not to emtnion the witch hunt that charged them with dereliction of duty (among others).

Posted by USN, Ret. 2013-07-29 01:10|| 2013-07-29 01:10|| Front Page Top

#2 As I recall, this grounding cost the Captain his job, Now that they KNOW give him his job back with an apology, (I Think he was also fined the repairs)

(Yeah sure, the Navy doesn't make mistakes, now does it)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2013-07-29 02:02|| 2013-07-29 02:02|| Front Page Top

#3 You can't live by GPS. Someone on the bridge should have noted the charts were wrong and noted that there was a damn big reef right over there. Granted, the grounding happened at night so maybe that was not possible. Still, the photographs from the scene show white water over the reef.

Also: the hull panks on that ship were gorgeous. Some shipyard still knows the secrets evidently.

Posted by Shipman 2013-07-29 05:39|| 2013-07-29 05:39|| Front Page Top

#4 I found nothing in the NGA 2013 press releases but agency accolades, how shocking.

Posted by Besoeker 2013-07-29 07:30|| 2013-07-29 07:30|| Front Page Top

#5 Then there was the sub making a high speed run and bumping into an undersea mountain. Only one guy killed and the boat could be repaired.
At some point, the captain has to substitute his judgment for the map. You don't plan the map, you plan the terrain, they told us at Bennning. Still, if the Navy tells you there's nothing there, and if it doesn't show as you approach....
But there are those other charts mentioned.

Posted by Richard Aubrey 2013-07-29 08:51|| 2013-07-29 08:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Tragically, the two other maps to which the crew had access -- but did not use -- presented the correct information, Phillips said.

Career killer part.

Unlike too many other federal agencies, DoD occasionally holds people accountable with consequences. The "pour encouragement de les autres" practice, rightly or wrongly, does get people's attention.

Posted by Procopius2k 2013-07-29 10:38|| 2013-07-29 10:38|| Front Page Top

#7 Okay all you old salts. Serious question here.

A captain has two maps, one says the reef (or mountain) is here; one says the reef (or mountain) is there. What should he do? Is there a protocol for him to decide or should he stop completely and go in a whole nother direction?

Posted by AlanC 2013-07-29 12:39|| 2013-07-29 12:39|| Front Page Top

#8 A captain has two maps, one says the reef (or mountain) is here; one says the reef (or mountain) is there. What should he do?

You err on the side of caution. Which chart has the newer revisions? Which has the hazard closer to you? In this case, there were three charts. The navigator and his team should have reviewed them sometime prior.

If you're in doubt while underway and you come to your scenario, you figure out where you're at. There is GPS, but if you're smart, you back that up with more traditional methods. The ship is equipped with a depth finder. If it's shallow enough, an MCM can use its sonar. Providing on how close the ship is to land, one can take radar fixes and/or visual fixes. Even something as basic as looking at the color of the water.

At worst, you stop. Ascertain the situation. Changing course is not a career killer.

Posted by Pappy 2013-07-29 14:46|| 2013-07-29 14:46|| Front Page Top

#9 Thank you Pappy. I'm a great fan of the Patrick O'Brien novels. Their detailed descriptions of navigation circa 1812 are fascinating but I thought that there were no such issues today.

Guess I was wrong.

Posted by AlanC 2013-07-29 15:57|| 2013-07-29 15:57|| Front Page Top

#10 Don't laugh, but in some parts of the world, the survey data is from the 19th century.

Posted by Pappy 2013-07-29 16:59|| 2013-07-29 16:59|| Front Page Top

#11 It does seem like an unfortunate series of events. Being more familiar with Army stuff, how often would the bridge crew check their heading, depth, and position against the reference chart? I doubt the bad chart was bad in only that one spot.

Posted by rammer 2013-07-29 19:06|| 2013-07-29 19:06|| Front Page Top

#12 how often would the bridge crew check their heading, depth, and position against the reference chart?

Depends on a lot of factors. Whether the ship is in open or restricted waters, visibility, weather conditions, CO's standing orders, etc.

Thing is, the ship's Combat Information Center (or equivalent) is supposed to be backing up the bridge. The Officer of the Deck is also supposed to be running checks of the ship's position based on what the quartermaster(s) produce for position data.

Most of all, it depends on the crew's sailing experience. If I had to hazard an opinion, I'd day that they had experience - in Japanese and perhaps Korean waters. Places they operated in on a regular basis.

I guess we'll have to wait until the inquiry is completed. Suffice it to say, even if the chart was wrong, and it was an "unfortunate chain of events", the CO is still at fault. Tough, but that comes with accepting the position.

Posted by Pappy 2013-07-29 20:47|| 2013-07-29 20:47|| Front Page Top

23:11 Woodrow Guelph8541
23:10 SteveS
22:17 Frank G
22:01 Rambler in Virginia
21:58 Barbara
21:00 SteveS
20:57 Mike N.
20:50 SteveS
20:47 Pappy
20:29 Barbara
20:28 Pappy
20:15 Airandee
19:57 JosephMendiola
19:48 JosephMendiola
19:27 junkiron
19:06 rammer
19:03 RandomJD
18:54 Besoeker
18:51 Thing From Snowy Mountain
18:42 Besoeker
18:39 CrazyFool
18:35 Zenobia Floger6220
18:30 Paul D
18:26 Frank G