Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] FW: sub ops

[Jon Wallace <jonw@psubs.org>]

Not exactly the way I intended to spend my day today, but ok.  I didn't 
know that the incident with bionic guppy was festering in the minds of 
people so let's go ahead and discuss it.

SUMMARY
In Ft. Pierce, the BIONIC GUPPY took on water through an open hatch and 
foundered.  The BG holds a pilot and two passengers.  During the course 
of our submarine diving operations that day, the support ship which was 
provided to us free-of-charge developed operating problems in both 
engines.  The Captain of the support ship requested that the submarine 
be contacted immediately to hook back up to the support ship so that we 
could head back into the boat yard.  The BG was currently diving 
underwater in about 15 feet of water approximately 100 feet from the 
support vessel with pilot and two passengers and did not have 
operational underwater communication.  I ordered Ben Fritz (support 
diver) to immediately swim to the BG, bang on the hull for an immediate 
surface (previously agreed upon at our pre-dive meeting), and then order 
the BG to come back to the support vessel.  A small two-man dingy was 
sent with Ben for support.  Just as Ben reached the submarine, the 
Captain of the support vessel made a decision to immediately return to 
the boat yard due to the condition of the ships engines.  While the 
support vessel did tow the BG out to the dive site, the boat yard was 
also within operational distance of the BG and the BG could easily 
return to the boat yard under its own power.  That is my direct 
observation since I was located on the support vessel at the time.  
Since we were now headed back to the boat yard, the rest of this 
incident AS I KNOW IT is based upon statements provided to me by those 
who were there.  None of us on the support vessel witnessed the 
foundering of the BG.  The individual statements by those who were with 
the BG differ rather significantly in various ways.  However, general 
consensus shows that the BG began making it's way back to the boat yard 
under its own power with Ben Fritz following behind it.  The water was 
shallow, no deeper than 15 feet, and very warm under the July sun.  The 
combination of the water temperature and three occupants resulted in 
uncomfortable high temps within the sealed submarine.  One or both 
occupants requested that the BG pilot stop and let them get out to ride 
in the dingy where it would be cooler.  The pilot obliged and during 
disembarkation of the passengers the balance of BG shifted aft causing 
the vessel to pitch down by the aft, enough that the conning tower (now 
open to let the passengers out) lowered to the point that water began to 
enter the cabin.  While the pilot hurried the last passenger to get off 
the submarine, enough water had collected within the cabin to cause it 
to become negatively buoyant.  The pilot was outside the submarine at 
the time to make room for the passengers to get out, and tried to hold 
the hatch shut but as the sub descended due to the weight of the water 
in the cabin the pilot could not hang on and had to let go.  The hatch 
opened again underwater allowing complete flooding of the vessel.  The 
vessel rested in approximately 8-10 feet of water depending on the tide, 
approximately 25 feet from shore.

Recovery was achieved by renting an air pump, opening some vents on the 
underside of BIONIC GUPPY, and pumping in air to displace the water 
inside.  The hatch did not have a mechanism to secure it from outside, 
so numerous vice grips were used to keep the hatch shut.  The recovery 
was severely hampered by some loose rags within the sub that were used 
to wipe condensation off the viewports.  Unknown to us, as the water was 
being pumped out the rags were dragged by the outgoing water and heavily 
wedged within a vent that prevented water from escaping.  Due to the 
angle of the sub on the bottom and the position of the vent, it was 
impossible to unclog even with appropriate tools.  A decision was made 
by the divers to open the hatch and enter the vessel removing the rags 
and any other loose material.  Once that was accomplished, the recovery 
was near text book and the sub was raised within a short time.  Recovery 
started at about 10am that morning and took the entire day (about 8pm or 
so) due to the issue with the rags.  Had the rags not been in the sub, 
or stowed away, the recovery likely would have been completed by noon at 
the latest.



Now, let me address some of the non-event related statements made in 
David's email.

1) David said, "It was put out that a club only forum discussion of this 
mishap so as to determine what exactly led to this event would take 
place by years end. I may have missed this discussion but have thus far 
heard nothing."

I do not recall any such discussion.  However, on 7/26/10, David wrote 
me personally asking, "What if you were to make use of a psub member 
only forum to openly discuss the events of the past convention?"

Because we already had a member-only forum there was no need for me to 
create a new one, so I responded back to David on the same day saying, 
"There's no rule prohibiting anyone from discussing the events of the 
convention, however I won't be participating in those discussions.  I am 
still gathering statements from various people so I can publish a list 
of recommendations and requirements for future conventions based upon 
the information and suggestions I receive.  Once that is published I 
think there will be lots to discuss."

I felt my response was obvious enough that if David wanted to start a 
discussion on the incident he was free to do so.  I also stated the same 
to others who had queried me about what we as-a-club were going to 
publish, if anything.   I said I would not be participating in the 
discussion because at the time I was collecting statements from the 
direct participants of the incident, as well as many observers, via 
private email so that we could piece together an incident report for 
release at some point in the future and wanted to remain a neutral so as 
to not influence any responses that I got back from these people.


2) David said, "To me it is disappointing to see that rather than be 
transparent that some mistakes and laps of safety may have taken place 
at this event, we as a group would rather completely forget it happened 
and hence learn and share nothing. The next time we may not be so 
fortunate. History has a way of repeating itself...it's best not to 
ignore it."

As described above in #1, there was no attempt to hide anything or keep 
anything from anyone.  Not one person was ever directed by myself to not 
discuss this topic or raise it on the mailing list.  I personally did 
not see a need to do so myself, and so I did not.  As I described on 
7/26 to David privately, my intent was to produce a list of 
recommendations and requirements for future conventions and that those 
documents would naturally lead to a discussion of the incident when they 
were released.

David is correct that mistakes were made.  Based upon the BG incident 
and suggestions from many participants at Ft Pierce, I did take 
immediate action.  On 7/29 I sent a lengthy email to the member-only 
mailing list detailing the difficulties of planning remote conventions 
from NH.  Most of you have no clue how close the Vancouver convention 
came to becoming nothing more than agreeing to meet on some street 
corner and then deciding what to do when we got there.  Those kind of 
plans may be fine for a impromptu weekend together with a couple of your 
sub-diving buddies, but is not appropriate when people are traveling 
thousands of miles and spending thousands of dollars to participate in 
an event.  I was more than hesitant to entertain plans for Ft. Pierce 
based upon the difficulties encountered with Vancouver, but I was 
assured that I would have to do nothing except provide high level 
guidance.  Well, that didn't happen.  The primary coordinator did some 
initial investigations and then became severely ill.  That left me to 
once again plan a remote convention alone from NH.  In April/May 
time-frame, I came within a keystroke of canceling Ft. Pierce because 
the difficulty of planning it surpassed Vancouver.  There was much less 
information available online regarding potential facilities and there 
was a huge runaround regarding diving.  In retrospect, canceling Ft. 
Pierce is exactly what I should have done but I continued on, thinking 
that something was better than nothing.  The result was probably the 
worst planned event I have done and the blame for that rests squarely on 
my shoulders and I apologize to those whom attended.  This is why I have 
committed to not repeating the same in the future.

Additionally, I reviewed all the follow-ups and suggestions that were 
sent to me privately by Ft. Pierce participants who were a witness to 
the BG incident and created two documents for future sub-diving events.  
The first is a "prelaunch checklist" which describes the minimum 
condition and equipment a submarine must meet at any PSUBS sponsored 
event before it is even allowed in the water.  The second document is a 
"predive checklist" which describes the minimum requirements a submarine 
must meet at any PSUBS sponsored event, after the sub has entered the 
water but before it is allowed to dive.  I sent both of these documents 
to the PSUBS Council for review before publishing, on 10/15/10.  I did 
receive feedback on the documents by the end of October, but then got 
busy myself with work and other issues.  While I intended for these 
documents to go out to members by the end of year, I simply did not meet 
my own deadline.

Those documents will definitely be published and all submarines in the 
future will have to comply with those requirements.  We will take input 
from our members on the contents of the documents and potential changes, 
but not sacrifice safety over convenience.  Furthermore, my hope is that 
in the future we will have "event officers" who will have the authority 
to prevent a sub from diving as part of a PSUBS sponsored event if it 
does not meet minimum requirements.

I think those of us in Ft. Pierce all recognized that we need to make 
changes in the way we operate.  There was no disagreement about that.  
However, we also need to recognize that such change takes time.  This is 
a volunteer led organization and we cannot force people we are not 
paying to produce answers for us in a specific time frame.  Most of us 
have jobs and/or other commitments that also vie for our time.  We have 
many consumers and less than a handful of contributors in terms of 
leadership.  If you want to see things happen faster, better, then 
transition from a consumer to a contributor.

Jon




************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 53
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************