SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for guy_
A former commander of the USS John S. McCain pleaded guilty Friday to dereliction of duty when the destroyer collided with a commercial tanker, killing 10 people and injuring five in the Straits of Singapore last August.
Cmdr. Alfredo Sanchez, who has served in the Navy for more than 20 years, testified during a special court-martial at the Washington Navy Yard, Stars and Stripes reported.
“I am ultimately responsible and stand accountable,” Sanchez said. “I will forever question my decisions that contributed to this tragic event.”
Per disciplinary proceedings, Sanchez agreed to retire from service, forfeit $6,000 in wages, and was issued a letter of reprimand.
Sanchez claimed responsibility for the deadly collision. He said had failed to put a well-rested, well-trained crew in place to steer the destroyer into the Straits.
The former commander, who was immediately reassigned after the collision, initially faced negligent homicide charges, CBS News reported.
According to Sanchez, an 18-year-old undertrained helmsman had been navigating the destroyer, known as "Big Bad John," leading up to the collision.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 28 2018, @06:47AM (3 children)
That gets a little deep. Ultimately, the captain does that to himself. There are a lot of contributing factors, of course, but it all comes back to that commanding officer.
First, I have to say a word in the captain's defense. Before going to his cabin, the captain did tell the OOD (officer on deck or officer of the deck) to set the special sea and anchor detail during passage through the restricted water way. The OOD FAILED to do so. That is, he disobeyed a direct order. The sea and anchor detail consists of the ship's best trained, and most experienced hands, at all navigation stations. The Old Man stated his wishes, and those wishes were not carried out.
Moving beyond that one point in the Captain's defense - all hands should be moderately competent in whatever station they are assigned to. As a lowly supply puke, I was able to stand a watch at the helm. Granted, I was only permitted to do so in open seas, with a real helmsman standing by to take over at any time. But, all hands should be competent to stand any and all watches. Any deck hand should be more competent than I ever was, which is apparently more competent than the men under discussion.
How does a crew get competent? The XO and the CO should be reviewing the skill sets, and the competencies of all hands, routinely. Department heads and division chiefs play a big part in all of that, but those two top officers should be aware of the training level of their crew.
For a commanding officer to permit less than competent personnel to assume a watch - any watch - is a display of complacency, and incompetence on the commander's part.
Boot camp and advanced training schools may or may not be producing men and women who are up to snuff - but it is the captain's responsibility to determine who among his crew is competent, and who is not. Then, it is his responsibility to remedy any problem with those levels of training.
I've not read that the OOD was punished, disciplined, resigned, or booted out of the Navy. But, I can tell you with certainty that the OOD bears as much responsibility as the Old Man. He disobeyed at least one direct order, and a standing order. That standing order would have been, "Wake the captain!"
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday May 28 2018, @08:05AM (2 children)
"Boot camp and advanced training schools may or may not be producing men and women who are up to snuff - but it is the captain's responsibility to determine who among his crew is competent, and who is not. Then, it is his responsibility to remedy any problem with those levels of training."
First off, I appreciate your comments as an ex-Navy type - thanks for putting your experience up.
I do wonder if there isn't a more systemic problem. I'm not Navy, I'm ex-Air Force. Still, we heard tales about the Navy transforming into the biggest child-care organization in the country. Lots of single moms signing up, who would then "accidentally" get pregnant again, just before they were supposed to be off on a long tour. Mind you, the Air Force was much the same: there was a lot of emphasis on tailoring assignments to people's personal situation (and single parents got a *lot* of slack), and too little on doing what you (supposedly) signed up to do.
That's just one example of the more general problem: attracting and keeping enough good people in the military. What kind of people sign up to be a soldier or sailor today? To what extent are the Navy's problems the result of lowered standards?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 28 2018, @09:04AM (1 child)
Agreed. As much as it hurts to go along with the child-care bit, that is what I've heard.
During my day, there were rotation schedules for the various ratings. My own rating said that I was supposed to do 2 years of sea duty, for one year of shore duty. I actually did 1 year of isolated duty, and five years of sea duty, for one year of shore duty. That didn't bother me, but it bothered a lot of shipmates. The reason was women in the military. The women flocked in, and because they weren't permitted to serve in combat roles, they automatically got shore duty, and preferred overseas duty billets - leaving the men to fill at-sea and potential combat roles. It was much worse for some of the other ratings, such as gunner's mates. Some chick joined up, got gunnery training (missiles, guns, control, whatever) then sat on her pretty little tush somewhere that guns would never be used. What an absolute waste! Real gunner's mates, many of them Viet vets, simply had no shore duty available. Resent women in the military? That's putting it mildly!
Every bit of that kind of nonsense can be laid on the shoulders of congress. They want to run their social experiments, fine - but they shouldn't be doing it in the military. When all is said and done, on the day that we are called on to perform the job we are paid for, people are going to die. Congress, liberals, and people in general have lost sight of our primary purpose. Kill, or be killed.
I'm not gullible enough to believe that mankind is changing, or that future warfare will be more humane, or that we are so very powerful that no one will challenge us.
Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and Vietnam before that. A bunch of virtually untrained, poorly equipped people with shoddy equipment and substandard arms fought us in all three places. Vietnam was a loss for us, Afghanistan is still up for grabs, and Iraq remains contested grounds among several different players. ISIS/DAESH actually took part of Iraq away from us, and our puppets!
Collectively, we have lost sight of our goals. We hardly even understand what military superiority means, anymore.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 28 2018, @01:52PM
Nope, it was the DoD's 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Exclusion_Policy) that kept those women out of combat roles.