Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 491011121314
Results 131 to 135 of 135
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SW Scotland
    Posts
    18,479

    Default Re: RN submarine seamanship strikes (almost) again.

    Quote Originally Posted by BelleSerene View Post
    ... you're just claiming that 'Them Wot No are Qualified to No and You're Not, so they must be right innit'. Any legitimate defence of their actions would be most interesting, but you've provided none and I'm afraid the 'armchair admirals' retort doesn't wash.
    No only "doesn't wash" but also "is the most perfect example of unaware irony I have seen this year".
    "Seamen are always wanting to do things the proper way; and I like to do them my way."

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife
    Posts
    6,001

    Default Re: RN submarine seamanship strikes (almost) again.

    Quote Originally Posted by BelleSerene View Post
    Would have been trained? Or were trained? And regardless of their training, was what they did competent?

    Let's set aside, if you wish, the 'unfortunate' logistics officer who, despite having been in charge, failed to delegate the task to someone actually competent in it, and then sent the nav officer as far out of reach of the bridge as was possible and without a radio. After all, the logs officer is only one of several on the team.

    The Tactical Systems Officer took charge of the execution of the navigation - but, ahem, without getting out a chart, without turning on the radar or the depth sounder, and no, neither was tactically required to be silent. Was that competent?

    The Officer of the Watch Below was ineffective in his supervision. Was that competent?

    The CO, having delegated the task to an inappropriately trained officer (a logistics man), was not in the control room or anywhere else where he could hear the team's communications. Was that competent?

    The Navigation Officer took no means of communication with him to the casing so he could actually use the judgment he was employed for, during a manoeuvre that clearly required it. Was that competent?

    The entire ship control team was unaware of a procedure upon grounding. If you were captain of a crewed vessel, would you consider that competent on your part while navigating in shallows?

    Look, it's a natural response to dismiss criticism of the standard of naval seamanship when you take pride in the organisation. But the facts are not on your side, and I suggest it is telling that you haven't claimed any reason why such behaviour was not incompetent. Just to say that those outside the organisation cannot know, despite the investigation report stating all the facts, is what's called an 'argument from authority': you're just claiming that 'Them Wot No are Qualified to No and You're Not, so they must be right innit'. Any legitimate defence of their actions would be most interesting, but you've provided none and I'm afraid the 'armchair admirals' retort doesn't wash.
    I didn't dismiss the criticism, but some of the comments are a bit over the top. The CO not having a radio, he could shout at the OOW on the bridge, which certainly in my day was the normal means of communicating from the casing to the bridge. Equally not having a radio on the bridge we certainly had more than one means of communicating from the bridge to the control room. Overall it was an accumulation of minor errors each on it's own not likely to cause serious problems but together act like an accumulator bet.
    Peter

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,047

    Default Re: RN submarine seamanship strikes (almost) again.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxi77 View Post
    I didn't dismiss the criticism, but some of the comments are a bit over the top. The CO not having a radio, he could shout at the OOW on the bridge, which certainly in my day was the normal means of communicating from the casing to the bridge. Equally not having a radio on the bridge we certainly had more than one means of communicating from the bridge to the control room. Overall it was an accumulation of minor errors each on it's own not likely to cause serious problems but together act like an accumulator bet.
    Indeed, I think BelleSerene described the process well in Post #73.

    Re over the top comments, totally agree; I guess it's to some extent a natural response to the "In the know" Joe 90 brigade. Unfair to treat this as a credible RN defence.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,353

    Default Re: RN submarine seamanship strikes (almost) again.


  5. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kingdom of Fife
    Posts
    6,001

    Default Re: RN submarine seamanship strikes (almost) again.

    I suspect you will find the same problems in many Navies. I member the submarine I served in being 'unfit to dive' for six months because Harold Wilson refusing to pay for the replacement of our stern glands by a commercial yard. When we finally got time in dock we had big corks to put in the stern tubes if the dock was needed for a Polaris boat and we had to be floated out mid job.
    Peter

Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 491011121314

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Latest YBW News

Find Boats For Sale

to
to