|
|
20-01-2013, 11:28
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Cowichan Bay, BC (Maple Bay Marina)
Posts: 9,759
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
In the late 70s or 80s an aircraft carrier went aground right here in San Francisco Bay at the entrance to NAS Alameda.
__________________
Stu Jackson
Catalina 34 #224 (1986) C34IA Secretary
Mill Bay, BC, SR/FK, M25, Rocna 10 (22#) (NZ model)
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 11:46
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Huron, Ohio
Boat: Albin Coronado 35(1972)
Posts: 640
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Gotta keep in mind . . . that they HAD to know they were in the vicinity of a reef . . . "somewhere" . . . unless no one was keeping track of anything and if, additionally the charts were way . . . way off.
I don't know of anyone, who's the least bit responsible, who takes a boat into the vicinity of a reef or shoal without knowing something's nearby.
Obviously a little complatancy goes a long way.
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 11:54
|
#63
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Solent, England
Boat: Moody 31
Posts: 18,695
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
The thing is folk on this forum probably have more watching keeping hours than many of these professional navy officers. Cut backs in the Royal Navy are only making things worse. The lack of small cutters, mine counter measures craft and fleet tenders etc means that young officers simply don't have the sea time anymore before assuming command or OOW duties.
We now use this cock up to teach future crews:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...2-october-2010
Pete
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 12:29
|
#64
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Caribbean live aboard
Boat: Camper & Nicholson58 Ketch - ROXY Traverse City, Michigan No.668283
Posts: 6,641
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
Several years ago, the US Navy was still using RN charts from the early 19th century for some less travelled parts of the world. I don't know whether that is still the case today.
|
Still true. Many charts used behind your GPS were drawn by British seamen over a hundred years ago using a Sextant. Land masses and reefs are known to be off by miles in some places. Charts are only accurate where they have been verified by GPS and updated. Even many of our NOAA charts may be quite old. Always check to see the basis date for the chart you are using. The US is not in the business of producing charts for other nations.
There was a pilot program tried a few years ago where boaters participating in the program had special electronics that recorded GPS position, date and time along with depth. When the vessel entered an internet hot spot, the data was uploaded and used to update charts. The results appeared fantastic but NOAA refused the data. Since they didn't generate it, they wouldn't trust it. I think any data is better than no data or very old data. It could be used and noted as to source on the charts. The other bennefit was that the countour mapping in areas of high traffic was very high resolution due to thousands of data points close together.
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 12:30
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,570
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
never mind the chart stuff... why was the USS Guardian that close, period?
from the geogarage link:
Located within the Northern apex of the Coral Triangle, Tubbataha reef is often considered to be the best dive spot in the Philippines and this marine protected area is home to a staggering wealth of biodiversity. Ships are not allowed to go near the area since it is a protected site, according to Republic Act 10067 or the Tubbataha Reefs National Park Act of 2009.
The Tubbataha management office said the 68-meter ship entered these areas without permission and failed to coordinate with environmental officials.
The area is a Unesco World Heritage site. The Tubbataha Reefs National Park Act of 2009 spells out the location of the reef park in lat/lon, as well as specifying a 10 mile buffer area, also spelled out in lat/lon.(sec 5). Entry to the area without prior authorization is a crime (sec 19)
The chart discrepancy is alleged to be 8 miles. Given a 10 mile buffer zone, and navigating to one edge of the buffer, that would still have provided a 2-mile buffer around the reef itself, no?
So... chart error? really? or simple disregard for the park boundary?
Apparently not the first time the USN has displeased Filipinos.
* * *
I'm really not looking for a fight, just trying to point out that this seems more than an "oops, bad chart" issue.
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 12:39
|
#66
|
Armchair Bucketeer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,012
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete7
The lack of small cutters, mine counter measures craft and fleet tenders etc means that young officers simply don't have the sea time anymore before assuming command or OOW duties.
|
That makes sense, especially in an environment where folks are trained to accept what they are told (and Gizmos good at issuing "orders" or at least presenting a coherent picture) gotta have a way of unlearning some of that blind obediance. and no doubt also a generational thing where electronic gizmos are accepted as always good - because they usually are!
IMO important to have a lot of "oh sh#t!" moments as part of becoming a decent Skipper (of anything). Including those moments which don't get official .
No such thing as a bad chart (paper or digital) - only bad Navigators. and bad Skippers.
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 12:51
|
#67
|
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ohio
Boat: Now boatless :-(
Posts: 11,580
|
In reading the articles one may find it useful to try and separate the politics from the operation of the ship. I lived in Manila 6 years and was there for "People Power" and the closing of the bases. I love the average Filipino but many of them really are drama queens.
As to operation of the ship? They just left port of call Olongapo. There may have been no one "capable" of navigating except the ship's cat - LOL...
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:07
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Perros-Guirec, France
Boat: Jeanneau Sunshine 36
Posts: 999
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete7
|
No ECDIS available on that RN sub in late 2010...
A laptop with some app recommended as a stop-gap measure
I can hardly believe it...
Quote from Wikipedia
"The Astute-class is the latest class of nuclear-powered Fleet submarines in service with the Royal Navy. "
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:09
|
#69
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 8,570
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:26
|
#70
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Solent, England
Boat: Moody 31
Posts: 18,695
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorF54
No ECDIS available on that RN sub in late 2010...
A laptop with some app recommended as a stop-gap measure
I can hardly believe it...
|
Astonishing isn't it. Still dry docking a brand new sub and bolting on a new bottom piece to the rudder won't have cost more than 6 figures
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:42
|
#71
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Perros-Guirec, France
Boat: Jeanneau Sunshine 36
Posts: 999
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Re chart accuracy
On the CM93 charts some of us 'use', the light at the southern tip of Black Rock just south of the Tubbataha reef is located at 8°43.6 N 119°48,9 E from UK chart 2340.
Using the sat view from Bing (as Google Earth is hopeless), the location is roughly 8° 42 N 119° 56 E
a 7 to 8 NM discrepancy, mostly in longitude.
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:51
|
#72
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 726
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
With regard to Kettlewells remark about the QE2 running aground in Buzzards Bay. There was at least 20 ft of depth under her in that area,which she traveled on numerous times. The problem was an uncharted rock that stood about 12 ft proud of the bottom, and she was traveling at speed, which displaced the water under her keel and she squatted increasing her depth by 8 ft. This caused her to strike the rock. It was not a navigational error in this instance. The captain was not sighted. This was the finding from the U.S. Coast Guard review board. respectfully!!
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 14:25
|
#73
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philippines in the winters
Boat: It’s in French Polynesia now
Posts: 11,372
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
If this doesn't put the icing on the cake.................
Quote:
USS Guardian (MCM 5) Upgrades Sonar, Improves Mission Capability
Technical representatives from the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division assisted USS Guardian (MCM 5) with the installation of a new SQQ-32 Sonar on Saturday, January 14, 2012.
|
USS Guardian (MCM 5) Upgrades Sonar, Improves Mission Capability
Maybe they were practicing when Oooops!
__________________
Faithful are the Wounds of a Friend, but the Kisses of the Enemy are Deceitful! ........
The measure of a man is how he navigates to a proper shore in the midst of a storm!
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 14:29
|
#74
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Perros-Guirec, France
Boat: Jeanneau Sunshine 36
Posts: 999
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailorF54
from UK chart 2340.
|
Correction: underlying chart is NGD 10019
It agrees quite well with US 92033
(see red waypoint)
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 14:46
|
#75
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nicholasville, Kentucky
Boat: 15 foot Canoe
Posts: 14,191
|
Re: U.S. Navy ship goes aground due to bad charts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ram
I think because everyone is snug in there bunks & the boats on autopi lit
|
I can guarantee you that that does not happen on Navy ships. There would have been a port lookout, a starboard lookout, a stern lookout and at least 3 people on the bridge who were awake. Helmsman, OOW, and the navigator (Quartermaster of the Watch). 0230 would have been mid watch and they could have been tired but not asleep.
The blame has to go to the OOW and the CO but they may pin it on the Quartermaster or a Junior Officer of the Watch if there was one there.
It seems to me if that if all the other ships in the fleet can miss that reef then their ship could have missed it too. The U. S. Navy has been cruising that area since the Great White Fleet during Teddy Roosevelt's administration.
kind regards,
__________________
John
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Rate This Thread |
Linear Mode
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
Advertise Here
Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vendor Spotlight |
|
|
|
|
|