- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Ex-Dragoon said:
I'd still take the C-17's....
Matthew.
HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
- Thread starter Bograt
- Start date
I'd still take the C-17's....
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
In light of recent news about our tragic loss, I think some of you are missing to ask some vital questions. If rescue units can pluck persons out of the stormy Atlantic why on earth can we NOT pluck a submariner with substantial smoke inhalation off for proper medical care? I am at a loss as to why it took so long to rescue these injured persons. The delay was unacceptable and the death is something that should not have happened. Did the light not go on in someones cranium, contained environment, smoke, burning plastic, toxic, inquiry. hmmmm something to ponder about.
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Gord, there is no light that goes on, it's just something that happens. Firefighters try to be prepared and watch for symptoms but one can never know for sure. It's so easy to state things like you just did, not so easy to actually live through the situation, please try to remember that.
Substantial smoke inhalation, no such thing, it's all bad, just affects people differently.
Substantial smoke inhalation, no such thing, it's all bad, just affects people differently.
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Points
- 1,060
Gord, lets wait and see what comes to light in the next few weeks. If you are suggesting the competency of the crew might have something to do with the event and it's aftermath, I think that is unwarranted at this point. I simply cannot believe that the skipper of the sub, the SQN CO or even the chain of command would approve of the mission without being satisfied (1) that the boat was safe, (2) the crew were well trained and competent, (3) emergency recovery procedures, including medevac, are in place.
The Navy may be deficient in a lot of things, but not in any of those areas, especially with a submarine.
Cheers.
The Navy may be deficient in a lot of things, but not in any of those areas, especially with a submarine.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I have heard on the news that the skipper has crewed the other 3 subs at some time, as well as other subs, and is one of if not the most experienced sub skipper in the fleet. (the news report).
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Rgr k, valid respones, but the question remains unanswered, rescue attempt, the delay...you seem to have no comment on that one. How about some response. Agree, disagree?
Seems to me that someone dropped the buoy on that one. Now I'm not pointing the blame on this one but, if this was 200 miles off the coast of B.C or New Foundland I can bet top dollar that this person would have been picked up long before he was in critical condition and as it turns out too late.
BTW.
Impressed with the rapid responses on this one.
Seems to me that someone dropped the buoy on that one. Now I'm not pointing the blame on this one but, if this was 200 miles off the coast of B.C or New Foundland I can bet top dollar that this person would have been picked up long before he was in critical condition and as it turns out too late.
BTW.
Impressed with the rapid responses on this one.
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Gord,
Originally you sated that we were incapable of picking up a sailor with substantial smoke inhalation (Not quoted verbatim) I thought that was your point. There may be a million reasons why there was a slow response time. How do we know it was slow in the first place?
When I taught firefighting for the offshore (Sable) we instructed the students that their craft is the most important thing, an injured mate is not. Sounds harsh but how can you help the downed roustabout if you're all bobbing in the north Atlantic clinging to the same piece of driftwood. 911 doesn't work out there and that's why mariners are trained very highly (So I am told and have seen with the offshore) in damage control. You don't have many choices out there and no one wants to board life rafts.
I am not so much disagreeing with your point, it may be valid, only time will tell, just trying to put a different spin on it, one that is relevant to my background
Originally you sated that we were incapable of picking up a sailor with substantial smoke inhalation (Not quoted verbatim) I thought that was your point. There may be a million reasons why there was a slow response time. How do we know it was slow in the first place?
When I taught firefighting for the offshore (Sable) we instructed the students that their craft is the most important thing, an injured mate is not. Sounds harsh but how can you help the downed roustabout if you're all bobbing in the north Atlantic clinging to the same piece of driftwood. 911 doesn't work out there and that's why mariners are trained very highly (So I am told and have seen with the offshore) in damage control. You don't have many choices out there and no one wants to board life rafts.
I am not so much disagreeing with your point, it may be valid, only time will tell, just trying to put a different spin on it, one that is relevant to my background
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Points
- 1,060
Spr.Earl said:
How did they overcome roto static electrical discharge? Where's Inch when we need him?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Don't they use something like a grounding pole?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
whiskey 601 said:
Here I am!
To be honest, I haven't done hoisting yet and SAR isn't my bag. If Sam is reading this he may have an answer with respect to that.
In response to Gord. They're 200nm off the coast of Ireland, by helo (and the Merlin is a pretty quick helo) that trip would have taken about and hour and a half. That's provided they were able to launch from the British Frigate, I don't know the limits for launching a helo off British ships, but maybe the sea state was such that launching from the ship wasn't possible. We don't even know where the helo was launched from. If it was launched from land it wouldn't have come from Ireland so the trip there could have taken in excess of 2 hours, then an hour and a half back and now we're looking at 4hrs round trip. As stated by the Doc in that article, they can take a turn for the worst in a few hours, like 4 maybe?
With respect to the same thing happening off the coast of BC or Nfld, we could get there and back in 4hours, but if the skipper doesn't send out the message that they need an evac, how are you supposed to know? All reports state that the casualties were assessed as having smoke inhalation and none of them seemed to be serious. Maybe they should have requested the evac sooner, but again, none of us were there and given the info avail at the time, maybe an evac wasn't considered necessary. Hindsight is 20/20 right?
Cheers
*edit, the more I think about it, the more I think even 4hrs is not possible. I don't know endurance figures off hand, but you tend to be pretty slow when you're getting maximum endurance, and speed really burns the fuel quickly. I'd be inclined to say that 3.5 hrs of flight time is more realistic for a Merlin. If this was off the coast of Nfld, we would have to refuel at Hybernia. So this just adds another dimension to why there may have been a delay and if they could have evac'd the injured crew any sooner.
S
Sam69
Guest
whiskey 601 said:
The normal Canadian procedure is to use a grounding wand to grab the cable initially and discharge the shock. In the little bit of video of the medevac that I saw on the news, they already had the cable on board and were using a guideline to assist the hoist (so I am not sure if they used a grounding wand or not). You can also let the cable touch the deck and ground itself but that is almost impossible to do when hoisting from the sail of a sub because of the tiny area involved. In this case,I suspect they used a grounding wand to initially ground the cable and then just used the guideline from there on in.
Having conducted sub transfers myself - in much more benign weather conditions - I can say that I am in awe of the job the RAF rescue pilots did. Hoisting from the sail of a sub at sea is difficult under ideal conditions; they made it look fairly easy in some pretty nasty weather. You have to realize that, when the helo is over the sail, the pilots can't see any part of the sub. They have to maintain a stable hover using reference to a rolling sea and adjust their position using conning from the back. As well, you have to let the boat move and come back to its upright position without giving in to the urge to try and chase it while it is rolling and heaving. It is clear to me that they accepted a difficult mission and executed it masterfully while doing everything they could to save Chris and the two other submariners. Well done to them.
Sam
- Reaction score
- 1,122
- Points
- 1,060
Thanks for the tech info Sam, and thanks also for the comments on the RAF pilots, their efforts have been much underappreciated in this whole episode!!!
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think (I may be wrong here) but in the movie the Hunt For Red October used something similar to a grounding wand. Also thanks for giving us a perspective of how difficult the RAF's job is. Also I have read that an American ship is now taken over towing duties and have increased the speed double. Its good to see all the allies helping each other in the time of need. I think the overall job the CN navy does on the high sea's is also overlooked with our public.
S
Sam69
Guest
CFL said:
I think you are right but I think this assertion also applies to most of the work done by CF members. I am constantly in awe of the amazing things done by our people in uniform; often in spite of the system that is supposed to be there to support, train, and equip them. It is too bad that it is only in times of tragedy like this that people seem to stand and take notice. Sadly, this attention lasts too short of a time in consideration of the great cost we have paid.
- Reaction score
- 3,797
- Points
- 1,140
Good article today it the Toronto Star (as unlikely as that sounds):
Dispelling myths about Canada's subs
We got four excellent subs for what it cost the British to build one boat, says Allan Dunlop
There have been many complaints about the purchase of the Victoria (ex-Upholder) class submarines from the Royal Navy. The criticisms reached a crescendo after HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire in the Atlantic last week, resulting in the death of Navy Lt. Chris Saunders. I am amazed how people love to provide commentary with few facts at their disposal. I would like to provide some facts and to dispel a few myths.
Myth #1 â †We got a raw deal.
Balderdash. We got an outstanding deal. We got four excellent submarines and the entire training infrastructure that goes with them for what it cost the British to build one boat. We would have trouble building one new boat in Canada with twice the amount we paid for the four Upholders.
We are talking about savings in the vicinity of $3 billion, and the money we spent was spent wisely. Submariners were excited. These submarines were no stranger to us. Canadians on exchange had sailed in them and spoke highly of their capabilities. We couldn't wait to get our hands on them.
Myth #2 â †The RN wanted to dump a lemon.
Many people wonder why the British would sell these boats if they are so fantastic. It's very simple: Money. In the early 1980s, the Royal Navy was looking for a new diesel-electric submarine to replace the Oberon class that was nearing the end of its life expectancy. The Upholder class, a very bold and forward-thinking design, was created and 12 hulls were ordered. Partway through the building program, the Royal Navy decided it could no longer afford to support both nuclear and diesel-electric submarines, and, like the United States, adopted a purely nuclear sub-surface fleet.
The Upholder building program was halted after the first four hulls were completed. They were mothballed in the hope a buyer could be found.
Myth #3 â †We bought damaged goods
What nonsense. Defects get a lot of attention and so they should, but there always will be defects. Submarines are technically extremely complex â †things break. So, fix them. The process of identifying and rectifying defects is far more important than the fact they exist. The purchase process for the Victoria class subs left responsibility with the Royal Navy for ensuring that these boats met all the original technical specifications of the class. Canadian observers were present at all times and each technical trial required Canadian approval.
The British workers and Canadian observers were supported by technical and legal advisers to guarantee that each item was dealt with. There are still some issues being resolved, but resolved they will be. The defects people keep talking about â †welding, rust, a dent, air purification, a leaky fuel tank â †are all things that have happened before. They go with the territory.
Myth #4 â †They're overdue, something must be seriously wrong
Of course, people get impatient. They want to know why it has taken so long to bring these submarines into service. They jump to the conclusion that something is terribly wrong. It is not.
It has taken longer than hoped for, but people were dealing with a lot of unknowns. Nobody had ever mothballed and recommissioned submarines before, so when it came time to recommission the four boats, delivery estimates were made with no empirical data and they were too optimistic. The British had to spend more time recommissioning and Canadians had to be patient; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Myth #5 â †They're not safe
On the contrary, the submarines are very safe. They are technically sound. Engineering teams have examined every detail with painstaking care. Safety has never been compromised. Crews are well trained to respond to a wide variety of emergencies, something that is practised every day at sea. Accidents can still happen and tragedies like the fire in HMCS Chicoutimi have a salutary effect, but such accidents are rare. We must deal with them and learn from them. Somebody asked me recently if our sailors would continue to have confidence in the Victoria class submarines. The answer is a resounding Yes. Our sailors are tough and resilient and they love their new boats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Dunlop is a retired captain who spent 33 years in the navy and commanded two submarines, a destroyer and the First Canadian Submarine Squadron. He retired in 1997. He was part of the lead group that launched negotiations for the purchase of four Victoria class submarines from Britain.
Dispelling myths about Canada's subs
We got four excellent subs for what it cost the British to build one boat, says Allan Dunlop
There have been many complaints about the purchase of the Victoria (ex-Upholder) class submarines from the Royal Navy. The criticisms reached a crescendo after HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire in the Atlantic last week, resulting in the death of Navy Lt. Chris Saunders. I am amazed how people love to provide commentary with few facts at their disposal. I would like to provide some facts and to dispel a few myths.
Myth #1 â †We got a raw deal.
Balderdash. We got an outstanding deal. We got four excellent submarines and the entire training infrastructure that goes with them for what it cost the British to build one boat. We would have trouble building one new boat in Canada with twice the amount we paid for the four Upholders.
We are talking about savings in the vicinity of $3 billion, and the money we spent was spent wisely. Submariners were excited. These submarines were no stranger to us. Canadians on exchange had sailed in them and spoke highly of their capabilities. We couldn't wait to get our hands on them.
Myth #2 â †The RN wanted to dump a lemon.
Many people wonder why the British would sell these boats if they are so fantastic. It's very simple: Money. In the early 1980s, the Royal Navy was looking for a new diesel-electric submarine to replace the Oberon class that was nearing the end of its life expectancy. The Upholder class, a very bold and forward-thinking design, was created and 12 hulls were ordered. Partway through the building program, the Royal Navy decided it could no longer afford to support both nuclear and diesel-electric submarines, and, like the United States, adopted a purely nuclear sub-surface fleet.
The Upholder building program was halted after the first four hulls were completed. They were mothballed in the hope a buyer could be found.
Myth #3 â †We bought damaged goods
What nonsense. Defects get a lot of attention and so they should, but there always will be defects. Submarines are technically extremely complex â †things break. So, fix them. The process of identifying and rectifying defects is far more important than the fact they exist. The purchase process for the Victoria class subs left responsibility with the Royal Navy for ensuring that these boats met all the original technical specifications of the class. Canadian observers were present at all times and each technical trial required Canadian approval.
The British workers and Canadian observers were supported by technical and legal advisers to guarantee that each item was dealt with. There are still some issues being resolved, but resolved they will be. The defects people keep talking about â †welding, rust, a dent, air purification, a leaky fuel tank â †are all things that have happened before. They go with the territory.
Myth #4 â †They're overdue, something must be seriously wrong
Of course, people get impatient. They want to know why it has taken so long to bring these submarines into service. They jump to the conclusion that something is terribly wrong. It is not.
It has taken longer than hoped for, but people were dealing with a lot of unknowns. Nobody had ever mothballed and recommissioned submarines before, so when it came time to recommission the four boats, delivery estimates were made with no empirical data and they were too optimistic. The British had to spend more time recommissioning and Canadians had to be patient; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well.
Myth #5 â †They're not safe
On the contrary, the submarines are very safe. They are technically sound. Engineering teams have examined every detail with painstaking care. Safety has never been compromised. Crews are well trained to respond to a wide variety of emergencies, something that is practised every day at sea. Accidents can still happen and tragedies like the fire in HMCS Chicoutimi have a salutary effect, but such accidents are rare. We must deal with them and learn from them. Somebody asked me recently if our sailors would continue to have confidence in the Victoria class submarines. The answer is a resounding Yes. Our sailors are tough and resilient and they love their new boats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Dunlop is a retired captain who spent 33 years in the navy and commanded two submarines, a destroyer and the First Canadian Submarine Squadron. He retired in 1997. He was part of the lead group that launched negotiations for the purchase of four Victoria class submarines from Britain.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Bravo.
Similar threads
- jollyjacktar
- Ships & Vessels