HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}

[Navalsnpr]

Courtesy of BBC NEWS Scotland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4170811.stm

Fire-hit submarine heading home

The vessel carrying the Chicoutimi makes its way out of Faslane
A stricken Canadian submarine has left the Faslane naval base at the start of its journey home.
HMCS Chicoutimi was towed to Scotland in October after a fire on board killed one crew member, Lieutenant Chris Saunders, and injured others.

The former Royal Navy vessel is making the crossing of the Atlantic on board a Norwegian transport ship.

A spokesman said: "The submarine will take around six or seven hours to get through the Clyde Estuary.

"The weather conditions were what stopped the captain from setting off earlier this week but they seem fine now."

The voyage to Halifax in Nova Scotia is expected to take a fortnight.

The Chicoutimi drifted for three days off Ireland after the fire, which broke out during the submarine's maiden voyage under the Canadian flag


Lt Saunders died after the incident on HMCS Chicoutimi

An investigation found the blaze started in the commanding officer's cabin and a smaller one started in an oxygen generator.

Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin paid tribute to Lt Saunders, 32, a married father of two, saying he "gave his life serving his country and we owe his family our deepest condolences".

The Chicoutimi was decommissioned by the Royal Navy in the early 1990s. It was then refitted by BAE Systems before being recommissioned for service in the Canadian Navy.

The fire prompted Canadian opposition parties to accuse their government of buying "inferior submarines" on the cheap.

But UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the vessel had been brought up to Royal Navy standards.

 

[big bad john]

Chicoutimi hearing postponed as skipper, two officers seek legal advice
 
Murray Brewster
Canadian Press


Saturday, February 19, 2005


HALIFAX (CP) - The renewed investigation into the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi has been put off until next month while the submarine's captain and two officers seek legal advice, The Canadian Press has learned.

Closed-door hearings that were supposed to take place next week in Ottawa have been postponed until March 1 as Cmdr. Luc Pelletier, Lieut. Sebastian LaTullipe and Lieut. Brendan Ryan talk to lawyers, military sources say.

All three were slated to testify about a decision to leave a hatch open as the British-built warship plowed through rough seas on Oct. 5, off the coast of Ireland.

The opening of the hatch is believed to be a key link in a series of events that led to the electrical fire, which claimed the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders of Halifax, and injured eight other crew.

The prevailing opinion among Canadian submariners is that Pelletier and the officers are being set up as scapegoats, said a military source.

The intent is to "deflect attention away" from the British, who failed to inform the Canadian navy about the warship's electrical faults, the source added.

"It's now a witchhunt," he said. "Pelletier is getting a raw deal."

A second military source said the navy is anxious to avoid a diplomatic row with Britain.

As a result, questions about why the British failed to repair certain electrical defects on Chicoutimi are getting lost "in the call for somebody's head," said the second source.

The military board of inquiry, which completed its initial investigation in December, was re-opened on Feb. 1 to look into why a hatch was left open while sailors tried to repair a conning tower vent.

A spokeswoman for the board of inquiry would not confirm who had been asked to testify.

But Lieut. Diane Grover confirmed that under military regulations those asked to appear have the right seek legal counsel.

Grover said she understood why navy personnel were concerned about the fate of the captain and officers.

"I can appreciate where they're coming from," she said in an interview from Ottawa. "These people are concerned about their shipmates. However, I would like to say that the board of inquiry is nothing more than a fact-finding tool."

Grover then made a direct appeal to Canada's sailors: "Have some faith in the process," she said.

The inquiry has heard that a rogue wave swept over the warship, pushing sea water through the open hatch and into the control room, submerging an electrical junction box in the captain's cabin.

That caused a short-circuit, a shower of sparks and a major fire.

The Victoria-class submarines have two conning tower hatches, one of which is usually sealed when the boat travels on the surface.

The decision to leave that hatch open could have only been made by the captain.

The two officers, Ryan and LaTullipe, are being questioned because they were the designated officers of the watch, which means they were on the bridge at separate times during the repair operation, said the second source.

Current and former Royal Navy submariners have said the practice of "running open" in rough seas is considered unsafe.

But Canadian submarine crews dispute that claim, saying the practice is common on Chicoutimi's three sister ships, all of which were acquired from Britain in an $897-million lease-to-purchase deal.

"I've sailed on the old (Oberon) boats opened up and I'd do it again," said one source.

It remains unclear whether the Canadian navy officially endorses the practice.

An ex-submariner, who now teaches at Nova Scotia's Dalhousie university, said there is no clear-cut answer.

"It depends upon the class of submarine, its design and construction," said retired commander Peter Haydon. "Running a submarine on the surface is complex.

"You have to get air into them and some submarines are built with a separate air induction system that they can draw air in from the conning tower. Older boats did not have that separate induction valve and just drew it through the hatch."

Haydon declined to comment on the Chicoutimi case, saying he wasn't familiar with the design.

Meanwhile, serving members of Canada's submarine community say the questions surrounding the hatch are just a distraction. The key question, they say, is why the British did not waterproof the junction box on the floor of the captain's cabin.

"Submarines are susceptible to water," said one source. "They're designed to get wet a lot and we still go about our business."

The Canadian investigation has revealed that engineers in Britain had raised concerns about the integrity of specific, high-voltage junction boxes throughout HMS Upholder, the submarine that would later be renamed HMCS Chicoutimi.

The problem was fixed on the three other Victoria-class submarines by applying vulcanized rubber and shrink-wrap plastic, members of the navy's SubSafe program confirmed during a briefing in Ottawa last fall.

But the junction box in the captain's cabin of Chicoutimi was not touched.

The Canadian navy found out about the repair job as it sifted through technical papers in the aftermath of Chicoutimi tragedy, the briefing revealed.

© The Canadian Press 2005

 

[big bad john]

Sub commander won't be scapegoat, lawyer vows
'I won't allow it'
 
Chris Wattie
National Post


February 22, 2005


The lawyer for the commander of HMCS Chicoutimi said yesterday that he is not about to allow his client to be made the scapegoat for a deadly fire aboard the ill-fated Canadian navy submarine.

David Bright, a prominent Halifax lawyer, said he expects the naval board of inquiry looking into the fire on board the submarine to be fair to Commander Luc Pelletier, the Chicoutimi's captain for its maiden voyage from a Scottish shipyard last October.

"Let's give it a chance," he said. "To date, they've tried to be fair and reasonable. [But] I'm sitting there representing one of these people and if they're not, then I'll do something about it."

Cmdr. Pelletier is one of three Chicoutimi officers notified by the four-member board of inquiry last week that they were "likely to be adversely affected by the evidence" at the probe into the fire aboard their submarine.

Lieutenant (Navy) Chris Saunders died of smoke inhalation and eight other crewmen were injured after an electrical fire crippled the submarine.

Lieutenant Sebastian LaTullipe and Lieutenant Brendan Ryan were also notified and are expected to hire lawyers as well, naval sources say.

Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, the head of the navy, asked the board to hold further hearings into the fire after reading its initial report last December.

The board was ordered to look into the decision to leave a hatch open as the sub ran through rough seas on the surface. That hatch is believed to have let a flood of seawater into the sub, which may have caused the electrical fire.

Many officers in the Canadian navy have concluded that Cmdr. Pelletier is being set up to take the blame for the high-profile accident, distracting attention from systemic problems with the submarines and government delays in purchasing the British-built boats.

But Mr. Bright said he is prepared to give the board the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

"There's a potential for everything ... [including] that they'd hang him out to dry. I know that's run around the submarine squadron," he said.

"But let's give these guys a chance to do ... what's honourable."

But he said that even if the inquiry does not recommend a court martial for Cmdr. Pelletier, its report could effectively kill his military career.

"Even if there's a letter saying 'You acted improperly,' there's no disciplinary action but it still goes to a person's reputation," Mr. Bright said.

© National Post 2005

 

[043]

Can't help but feel for these guys but lets be honest, if a mistake does cause an accident then it can't go unanswered either.

Go Navy!

 

[x-grunt]

From today's Toronto Star

May 5, 2005. 12:35 PM

MURRAY BREWSTER
CANADIAN PRESS

HALIFAX - A young submariner who died following last fall's electrical fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a naval board of inquiry has concluded.

An investigation report, released today in Halifax, found that Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, was the closest one to a lower-deck electrical space that exploded in a shower of golf ball-sized sparks and flames on Oct. 5, 2004.

Saunders, a combat systems engineer, was observing a damage control party as it tried to isolate a ground fault in the submarine's electrical system when a massive short circuit in the captain's cabin melted two holes in the thick steel deck above him.

"The board finds that neither Lieut. Saunders nor any other person was responsible" for his death, said the 700-page report that was eight months in the making.

The young officer, who had just transferred to Chicoutimi two weeks prior to the fire, "suffered internal burns and smoke inhalation injuries in the release of hot gases."

The report also said the medical care given to Saunders aboard the submarine in the aftermath of the accident "was adequate given the difficult circumstances, the available equipment and the limited facilities."

His presence outside the electrical space at the outbreak of the fire was an "unfortunate circumstance."

As the passage way filled with acrid, black smoke, Saunders groped his way 10 metres to a ladder and climbed up one deck into the control room â ” his post in an emergency.

"In the smoke and darkness, Lieut. Saunders and others did not locate (emergency breathing) masks," said the report.

Once in the control room, Saunders, still unable to locate a mask, called out for assistance, but passed out near the captain's chair as crewmembers struggled to fight the fire, which had broken out on both decks simultaneously.

Investigators confirmed earlier leaked reports that the short circuit and fire were the result of sea water splashing on high-voltage wires.

About 2,000 litres of water flooded into the control room after a rogue wave washed over the conning tower and down through two open hatchways.

It was enough to be "over the toes of people's boots" and "was sloshing from side to side," the report states.

The water flooded into the nearby captain's cabin, washing over eight cables and seeping into an three-centimetre area between the bulkhead and waterproof insulation on the wires.

Electrical arcing â ” or sparks â ” between the wires began to occur, alerting crewmembers to a problem.

After two hours of sparking, the cables separated from the bulkhead and exploded, melting two holes in the deck and causing the fire to spread downwards to the electrical room below.

The report recommends the navy install "splash-proof" insulation on electrical wires. It also suggests changes to operating procedures that would keep conning tower hatches closed while submarines are on the surface.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Good! Maybe now we can concentrate on getting the things up and running and get back to our jobs.

 

[buckahed]

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/boi_chicoutimi/intro_e.asp

Terrific. The investigation of the wiring insulation will take another six months. What little information is in the report on the wiring is glossed over or classified. At least they are replacing the insulation on the boats. Maybe now we won't have to listen to armchair experts whine about the hatches being open anymore.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Nah the armchair admirals will find something else now....

 

[Whiskey_Dan]

You have to be kidding me, an investigation on the wire insulation!? THAT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIOUS TO DO!!
They could easily bring in civi ship builders to see what went wrong with it. Im done my electrician apprentiship myself and even I could
probly find what was wrong. I can't believe they'd waste our money on that kind of stuff.
Just my 2 cents.

Dan

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You have to be kidding me, an investigation on the wire insulation!? THAT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIOUS TO DO!!
They could easily bring in civi ship builders to see what went wrong with it. Im done my electrician apprentiship myself and even I could
probly find what was wrong. I can't believe they'd waste our money on that kind of stuff.
Just my 2 cents.

Dan

So you have got extensive naval and bnaval engineering experience as a cadet then?

 

[muskrat89]

Done your apprenticeship at 16?  Sorry, I don't buy that. I'm a journeyman level tradesman, and take issue with that.

 

[childs56]

He is correct though. They could hire a civie Navel electrician and have them determine the reasons. No need to go into a multi million dollar investigation only to conclude it was old and out of repair.

 

[FastEddy]

He is correct though. They could hire a civie Navel electrician and have them determine the reasons. No need to go into a multi million dollar investigation only to conclude it was old and out of repair.

Of course we all know the AF's do not work that way. But maybe CTD's post bears merit and a totally
independent and unbiased report might not be a bad idea.

Knowing the Grit, Training and Experience of the Crew, that they have been found blameless, does not come
as any great surprise.

I can't imagine the pounding that WWII Subs must have taken on both sides and still were combat ready, but Venting and Battery charging in the middle of the storm tossed North Alantic, ever result in a major fire ?

My Heart and Hat goes off to the Lads that have to go down in those Boats, but maybe by the time they are ready, they'll be obsolete.

As far as Whiskey_Dan goes, give the Lad a break, extract his idea on the subject, not what you might think his qualifications might or might not be. Whether you like it or not, his idea of Civilian Contractors has merit and probally would have been a lot cheaper.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

His idea might be a lot cheaper but have you ever dealt with civillian contractors onboard a warship?
"Why is this hatch so heavy?"
"To prevent the ingress of water or to slow down fire and smoke"
"They have fires at sea?"

hence my reaction to civillian contractors. No clue and my opinion stands.

 

[childs56]

Well you have to look at most of the civie contractors that the military uses. They are ex military so they know the game real well. and such take advantage of their position. What i am saying is go down to a well known Navel dock yard, be it here in Canada or else where, The Bremerton ship yard in Washington State comes to mind. Ensure they are a impartial third party and have them conduct the inquiry into why it failed and the steps to be taken to rectify the situation. They have lots of experience building subs and doing the maintenance on them. So lets have the experts do the job. Get away from the bureaucratic red tape and lets get the problem foxed and be done with with it. Enough is enough with the incessant wasting of the taxpayers money, on investigating this and that. When i use to ask my civie boss how he wanted the job finished. HE would yell out "I want it done" money generally wasn't a factor nor was placing blame if something got messed up. We need to refocus this situation and use it as a learning curve for future situations.
I will just restate... hire a professional whom is familiar with this type of equipment, have them reccomend the changes and lets carry them out. Lets not waste the money on any more enquiry as to why, lets just get it done and limit the risk in the future.

Just my 2 cents worth, if i have offended any person's then My apologies. The fact is we need to get these Subs working and in a timely and efficient manner.  cut the red tape and get on with it.

 

[FastEddy]

His idea might be a lot cheaper but have you ever dealt with civillian contractors onboard a warship?
"Why is this hatch so heavy?"
"To prevent the ingress of water or to slow down fire and smoke"
"They have fires at sea?"

hence my reaction to civillian contractors. No clue and my opinion stands.

Unless things have changed a whole lot, regard for Civilian intervention or participation in Military concerns
has always been "Oh! Yeah" and with one eye closed.

In case you have missed the fact, its Civilian Designers, Engineers and Craftsmen who have and will
Design and Build every thing we use. Admittedly, there has to be design flaws in the  persuit of Perfection,
but again its these same Civilians that investigate and correct them. It is with great sadness that sometimes this process results in the loss of life of the brave Men and Women who they were designed for.

Again I say, who better qualified to investigate a fault or problem, than those who conceived it and built
the equipment. They are not there to fix blame, but to correct or re-design.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion and reactions, but based on the argument you have put forward,  I'll leave that to the Readers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Then with the arguments you guys are putting forth then Joe Blow from the local garage should be able to fix or discover whats wrong with an AFV in our inventory.

 

[FastEddy]

Then with the arguments you guys are putting forth then Joe Blow from the local garage should be able to fix or discover whats wrong with an AFV in our inventory.

Once again you wonder, in the case of a Major design fault or problem, let us say a AFV manufactured by
the Ford Co.. Who better to solve it than the Designers and Engineers from Ford. Of course you would'nt
think of calling up the local gas station mechanic.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Of course you would'nt
think of calling up the local gas station mechanic.

Then why would you think Whiskey Dan who just did his electrician apprenticeship could find the electrical prolems on a submarine or any other warship?

They could easily bring in civi ship builders to see what went wrong with it. Im done my electrician apprentiship myself and even I could
probly find what was wrong

That is my issue with what you guys are arguing.

 

[FastEddy]

Then why would you think Whiskey Dan who just did his electrician apprenticeship could find the electrical prolems on a submarine or any other warship?
That is my issue with what you guys are arguing.

I think you might be confusing our suggestions for the incorporated use of Civilian Investigators and Contractors, to encompass Whiskey_Dan's  suggestion that even he could have done the investigation.

I can assure you that this was not our intent. Our Posts clearly indicate the respective areas of
Cost reduction and by Qualified Personnel only. As for Whiskey_Dan's personal boast, that could have been added for emphasis on his part to support his suggestions.

I'm sure we all agree that your local mechanic or electrician would not be qualified in these highly
technical cases.