Once in a while we talk military here

"I would have thought there were safeguards"

I am sure that more experienced countries do this. Of course, "experience" is a euphemism for "been there, done that, got this lousy T-shirt". ;)

Just like raising a child, from time to time you need to remind them to close the refrigerator door...
 
Actually I was referring to built in systems as opposed to protocol. Geeze. We're talking about a serious investment here.
 
I was also. This was their first "home built" of the type.

Now, they understand the need for a "safety interlock". ( Or at least the warning system )

--edit --

To add:

https://maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/chap18.htm

Item "j" in figure 18.1

The "Christmas Tree".

After watching all of those old movies you would thought they knew this, but, I guess not.
 
According to one report this happened dockside. Interesting that could happen while tied up.

Edit: One report indicates the sub has no hatch in the aft area, as it is based on a Russian design. When it is time to refuel they cut the hull open and then reweld it.
 
Hey, the largest nuclear power in the world, the Soviet Union managed to blow up an "explosion proof" reactor and most recently the world's greatest commercial aircraft maker managed to screw up a simple anti-stall system by linking it to a single sensor. When it comes to engineering always remember the engineers usually design it for themselves, not for the user unless the user is intimately involved in the design.

That all said, CRM is not a strong suit of second and third world operations, which magnifies the threat of poor engineering of complex systems
 
Old programmer's maxim:

Build it foolproof, and they will invent an even bigger fool.
 
quote:
Originally posted by GeeBee

When it comes to engineering always remember the engineers usually design it for themselves, not for the user unless the user is intimately involved in the design.

Click to expand...


Engineers will solve a problem, and management will say it is too expensive, and THAT leads to a single sensor design.

Engineers know better but they are often ignored or otherwise given existential threats.
 
Well in this case the engineers who are FAA designees failed. Their independence is supposed to be a given. Just as Check Airman are independent of the company pressure. If any designee feels pressure from the company he is supposed to report it immediately to the FAA so they can step in. Sure they can fire the designee, but then they got to explain to the FAA why, and wait for a new designee to be approved which often sets them back further than capitulation.
 
Interesting.

But given the sub is laid up so long, and it failed at the dock, there is a lame excuse explaining why, it must be more serious than pipes. I would have thought sea water would have been cleaned up quickly enough to prevent the sort of corrosion that dictates replacement. Especially on a new sub.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top