Submarines Accident was like a Fender-Bender - SA Navy |
Publication |
shippingscene |
Date | 2012-09-14 |
Web Link | shippingscene.blogspot.com |
The accident to the SA Navy submarine SAS QUEEN
MODJADJI on 17 July, when the boat hit the
seabed during a training exercise, has been
passed off by the navy and others as the
equivalent of a ‘fender-bender’ collision
between cars.
This surprising appraisal of an incident that
could under other circumstances have had tragic
results, may make for a neat deflection but
hasn’t escaped the attention of a Freedom Front
politician, Pieter Groenewald who asked some
searching questions of the Minister of Defence
and Military Veterans. The minister responded
that a board of enquiry had been appointed and
would be looking into the affair.
Meanwhile, the minister continued, the submarine
has been repaired and will be available to take
part in the forthcoming Operation Atlasur IX and
IBSAMAR involving the navies of several South
American nations (Atlasur) and later Brazil and
India (IBSAMAR).
The accident happened during a
routine diving
safety drill off the KZN coast but the
submarine struck the bottom of the seabed,
resulting in a 1.5 x 1.5m dent in the boat’s
outer hull opposite the area of the main ballast
tank. Fortunately the seabed was mud and sand.
There were no injuries to crew on board at the
time and the submarine was able to resurface and
proceed to Durban where an inspection by divers
could be carried out. Once it was ascertained
that there was no immediate risk to the
submarine, SAS Queen Modjadji resumed her voyage
and returned to Simon’s Town where she was taken
out of the water for a full inspection and
repairs.
Hydraulic oil
pressure failure was offered as the reason for
the accident.
Groenewald was having none of this and
said he wanted to see disciplinary action being
taken. “The reply of the Minister confirms my
allegations that there had been
negligence and poor
training. The exercise was carried out
precisely to imitate such a situation where the
hydraulic pressure in the submarine should be
stopped. Such exercises have strict security
measures that have to be followed and it is
clear that these measures were not implemented.
The outcome of the Board of Inquiry is being
awaited and disciplinary steps should be taken.”
Naval apologists
have tried to pass off the accident as something
that just happened, giving examples of
other navies that have experienced similar
accidents. While the inquiry will hopefully
reveal the full facts, the accidents in other
navies offers little reason for feeling
complacent with what happens in this country’s
navy and a full public explanation of the
inquiry’s findings must be made available.
With acknowledgement to shippingscene.
The naval apologist
of note and of relevance is their man on the
outside and the inside, Helmoed-Romer Heitman.
There are only two explanation for this
accident.
1.
Therefore there was insufficient headroom to
plane out of the dive caused by the simulated
plane failure caused by cutting hydraulic power
to the diving planes.
The captain is guilty of recklessness and
negligence.
2.
The sea bottom saved the boat.
The captain and his crew are guilty of
ineptitude.
Real hydraulic oil pressure failure is highly
unlikely.
Even still, if there was real hydraulic oil
pressure failure, this is a very easy situation
from which to recover.
The submarines motors simply get switch to
neutral and then to reverse.
The submarine cannot sink on its own to below
its preset depth.
So it stops diving under forward motor and plane
control and then reverses back to it preset
depth.
Then the planes are unjammed or the hydraulic
pressure rectified and then the submarine
returns to the surface - or dives again for the
gungho or in wartime.
This is a matter of inexperience and poor
training as well as possibly negligence - not
system failure.
Keelhaul them and the bullshitters who protect
them.