Guzz pilots

Can't comment about the pilot issue, although I'm sure the USN has the same access to weather forecasts as the rest of us.

As far as the incident involving one of our own SSNs last year, the circumstances were different but involved a significant error of judgement by those in charge at the time....

Sounds like 'press onitis' and the urge to meet sailing dates was the main factor here ( a bit like the Chicoutimi accident a couple of years ago)


War Hero
tlamdweeb wrote
Sounds like 'press onitis' and the urge to meet sailing dates was the main factor here ( a bit like the Chicoutimi accident a couple of years ago)
October 2004.

I suspect you know nothing of Chicoumiti's accident or the reasons for it and are just hinting at the same sh1t spouted by 'experts' ashore while others were at sea getting our Canadian brothers out of a very unpleasant situation. For starters, read the RCN's report into the incident. Nothing to do with haste.

Can't comment about the pilot issue,
Nor can you comment on the Chicoumiti issue.

1. I know lots about the Chicoutimi incident, discussed the incident with those who were put onboard (known personally by me) and those who stood by in the vicinity while we helped them out. I then read the BOI report. The problem with that BOI was the way it was constituted. Accidents like this rarely occur because of one single factor - many factors add up and contribute to incidents such as these. If you do not look at ALL the issues you won't learn ALL the lessons and minimise the chances of these things happening again. Don't automatically accept every pronouncement from officialdom; the initial BOI report was sent round the buoy again before being published. Those of us who read that BOI with the background knowledge we had found the logic behind some of the conclusions flawed.

2. According to the second linked article, the UK incident is the subject of a court case so further comment is not appropriate. It certainly wasn't hushed up.

3. Accepting that we only have the media reports that suggest the RN and the pilot come in for criticism and we don't have access to what the USN actually said, there are mechanisms by which lessons are passed to and from our USN counterparts, and indeed the Canadians and the Australians, we all exchange info about serious incidents. The US were very forthcoming about the shortcomings they found both onboard and ashore following the San Francisco accident. Similarly, the lessons of the Traf accident were passed on to them by the RN.

4. They must have had the weather forecast before they sailed, otherwise that would have come out as another point of critcism in the press. That should have informed them, or prompted them to seek local advice, about the conditions inside and outside the breakwater.

5. An eyewitness onshore at the time told me that he couldn't believe that they had elected to sail in the conditions that they did - what pressure were they under to sail when they did? If they did have an overriding operational reason to sail, fair enough. However, once they had got past Devil's Point (conditions North of that would have been different) it shouldn't have needed the pilot to point out the sea conditions - everyone on the bridge would have seen them for themselves. Why didn't they slow down, get everyone off the casing and then go on their way? Haste, probably.

6. Do you always react so negatively to posters?


War Hero
My connection to Chicoumiti is more direct than yours tlamdweeb. I will however read the report again in light of what you posted.

PM inbound.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
FISO The Fleet 15
Jenny_Dabber The Quarterdeck 4
clanky Bases / Shore Est 13

Similar threads

Latest Threads