Unofficial transcript: Day 3, Session 1
Choose a session: Day 1, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 2, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Day 3, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 4, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Day 5, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
CAPT MACDONALD: This court is now
in session. Let the record reflect that all members
parties and counsel are present. Petty Officer
Second Class Wright is again present as court
reporter, in addition to Petty Officer Leder.
I would like to remind everyone that when you
speak, I would ask that you talk as slowly as
possible, and please speak into the microphones to
allow the interpreter's to provide the best possible
simultaneous translation. Mr. President.
VADM NATHMAN: Mr. Gittins,
yesterday you raised an objection to the CNN's
transcription of the events of the court. This was
done at the remote site.
We have reviewed that with the convening
authority. The convening authority will allow the
notes that they are taking at the remote site because
of the access of the press. They have been warned
and we have been assured that it will contain the
header that is an unofficial transcript.
MR. GITTINS: Thank you, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: I might say something
to the court here. We had some fairly significant
events yesterday, in terms of our visit. We also
heard Adm Griffiths for several days, and today I am
sure we will get into the opportunities for
cross-examination by the counsels for the parties.
But I think it's kind of important for people
to understand that we've heard a lot today, and I
think all of the members feel that this is by no
means kind of our concluding period. I think we
heard a lot of things yesterday that give us a strong
indication that there is lots of areas that we need
to examine. I think some of those areas are going to
be examined in the cross-examination and in the
redirect. I also think that we are seeing several
areas that we need to examine further.
There is -- I just don't want anyone arriving
at the conclusion or in some cases jumping to a
conclusion that somehow we've set our course in one
way or the other. I think what we see more than
anything else is that there are many areas that we
have to go and examine.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for the
court.
CAPT MACDONALD: I have one
procedural matter I would like the Court of Inquiry
Library which is the reference library that the
members have been reviewing both prior to the
convening of the court and during the court marked as
the next court exhibit in order, copies of which, the
updated copies, will be given to counsel and the
parties.
CAPT MACDONALD: Sir, I have no
further procedural matters.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for the
parties, any procedural matters?
LCDR YOUNG: On Exhibit J --
CAPT MACDONALD: We're labeling that
under the evidentiary exhibit. That will be the next
evidentiary exhibit in order.
MR. GITTINS: Exhibit 18?
CAPT MACDONALD: Exhibit 18.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for
Lieutenant Commander Pfeifer?
LCDR PFEIFER: No, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: Counsel for Cmdr
Coen?
THE WITNESS: No, sir.
VADM NATHMAN: We recall Adm
Griffiths to the stand, please.
CAPT MACDONALD: Sir, the court
recalls Adm Griffiths.
CAPT MACDONALD: Sir, I would remind
you you are still under oath, and also ask you, sir,
to speak slowly and clearly into the microphone to
aid in the simultaneous interpretation.
Mr. President.
VADM NATHMAN: Radm Sullivan do you
have any questions?
EXAMINATION BY RADM SULLIVAN:
Q I had two areas I would like to follow up on
your testimony. One area would be the discussion
about other contacts, sonar contacts, that were held
by the Greenville during her periscope depth
evolution.
I'd like to go back and talk a little bit more
about the operation at periscope depth and get a read
as a senior submarineer on some of those matters.
Turning to the first, Admiral, you testified
earlier that Greenville had approximately two or
three contacts during the hour before the collision.
In your investigation did you have at any time
-- did you at any time review or reconstruct the
tracks of the other contact held by Greenville?
A No, sir. I did not have the opportunity to do
that.
Q Did you review Greenville's contact evolution
plot for the afternoon of February?
A Yes, I did.
Q And what can you tell me about that plot in the
contacts on that plot?
A In the hour before the collision there was a
paucity of information on the contact evaluation
plot, and it did not prove to be very helpful in the
reconstruction.
Q Did you review the CEP or the Contact
Evaluation Plot reconstruction that was done by the
staff of the submarine force of the Pacific?
A I am not aware of a reconstruction of the
Contact Evaluation Plot by the staff. I did not
review that, if they did one.
Q Okay. In your opinion, could the Greenville
have confused Sierra with one of the other
contacts she held?
A That is possible. However, in order to become
confused the logical sequence would be that contacts
would be on near coincident bearings and the sonar
operator and the rest of the crew would have
difficulty in differentiating in which of more than
one contact in a similar bearing was creating the
energy that they were tracking and therefore
developing solutions on.
In this case, there was enough bearing
separation between the other contacts integrating all
the other contacts that the interviews regenerated,
there was enough bearing separation between the
various contacts so that it would be unlikely that
the ship would be confusing which was which on the
day in question, in the hour before the collision.
Q If there was confusion, how would you, as the
senior submariner -- what would you expect to see to
resolve the confusion or to resolve the ambiguity
between contacts?
A I would expect to say significant attention
paid by the officer of the deck and the senior
watchstanders, including the fire control technician,
the sonar operators and the captain -- to see what
the fire control system and the sonar system and
control maneuvers of the ship could do to sort out
the confusion -- deliberate attempts to take the time
to conduct the Target Motion Analysis maneuvers and
analysis of the contact data to sort the confusion
out.
Q So in other words, you expected to hear longer
TMA legs or additional TMA legs that would be the
expected action to take to resolve the confusion?
A We are speaking generically now, that would be
what I would expect this ship or any ship to do to
resolve confusion generically when there were
interfering contacts and you were having trouble
sorting them out.
I am not sure that was the case on this hour in
question. However, Admiral, because again I don't
think there were enough contacts, nor were they
coincident enough in bearing to create that kind of
confusion.
Q Okay, thank you. I'd like to turn to my second
area. First, Cmdr Harrison, could you put up the
exhibit that has the depth profile during the
periscope depth evolution?
Adm Griffiths, I would like to ask some more
questions about the performance of Greenville during
the periscope depth evolution.
What still perplexes me as a submariner is why
no one on the ship, including the individuals who
actually used the periscope, did not see the Ehime
Maru.
And I look at this and say, regardless of the
accuracy of the periscope baffle clear, sonar search,
that coming to periscope depth and seeing the contact
would have prevented this collision. And we've --
you have testified about the lack of time or the time
that was done at periscope depth of 80 seconds.
But when I look at it the accuracy of a
periscope depth search or a search at periscope depth
there are certainly other things that go into the
equation and I would like to review those with you.
The time we've discussed -- again your opinion
80 seconds to do this is -- appeared to be
inadequate, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q The material condition of the periscope during
your investigation, was there anything found that
would cause you to think the periscope was not
performing to standards?
A The short answer is no. I do want to stress
there was a material issue with the Number
Periscope. I just don't think it relevant to that
period of time. The material condition problem with
the periscope which was recognized by the ship was in
a -- in the use of a special feature that it has
which is called an auto stabilization gyro.
What it allows the ship to do is to
artificially dampen out while gyrations of the
periscope which is of course attached to the ship and
swinging around in high seas, so in high seas, if
it's not stable enough to get a good optical view you
use this circuit to artificially stabilize the view
to the periscope operator even as the ship continues
to swing, and that was out of commission. In that it
was at least in a reduced status and that it caused
the optics to skew in the wrong direction or take a
while to get back to the correct elevation and
azimuth.
All that said, I don't believe this circuit was
used on the day in question because the seas were not
such that the ship would feel compelled to use it.
I don't believe it was in use and further
testimony could help elaborate that, and I don't
think it was germane to this hour before the
collision. Otherwise, the periscope was in excellent
health.
Q You discussed that the periscope television
system Para-vis was in operation. Does that have a
effect on the ability to observe a contact? Does it
cut down on the light that is received through the
periscope?
A It does have a deleterious effect on the amount
of light that the periscope operator can use to see
objects. There is a trade-off, in other words, to
use the Para-vis. The value you gave from it is that
other watchstanders can also see what you are seeing,
but the price you pay in daylight is that it cuts
down -- and I believe it's approximately 40
percent of the light available in the optics to use
to see contacts. So there is a trade-off in its
use.
However, the net analysis would be in daylight,
it's better to use it than not because you get so
many more eyes on the problem.
Q But you would expect in this situation that
Greenville would have had Para-vis energized going to
periscope depth in this situation during daytime?
A Yes, sir. If I were in their shoes, I would
have used it.
Q Thank you. I'd like to discuss magnification
scope.
What effect does magnification have and with
are the different magnifications that can be used and
how would you employ them?
A There are three basic magnifications on this
periscope, kind of a low, medium and high power.
One times magnification, six times
multiplication and twelve times multiplication.
Additionally, there is a doubler that can be used to
double those magnifications when you want to get an
extremely fine view of an object.
Now, there is a price to pay. Each time you
increase the multiplication, you are getting a
smaller field of view in the scope. And so, you have
to take into account that you will see a smaller
sector visually, both horizontally and vertically
when you increase the magnification. So that's why
the safety sweeps, for example, on the periscope are
performed in low power, because your trying to get
around in about seconds, and you wouldn't see
anything in high power in that speed, because the eye
would not be able to adjust quickly enough to see
objects in high power that quickly.
So the higher the magnification, the slower you
must train the scope in order to see with the same
acuity, and the smaller your field of vision, so the
longer it takes to cover a given sector, the higher
the magnification, and that's basically I think what
you were asking.
Q Yes. Will you comment on operator skills.
During the normal course of events there are a large
number of people will use periscope for periscope
watch. Does that have a large effect on the skills
of the operator, on his ability to view contacts?
A I think it's fair to say that experience and
proficiency is a significant factor in how well
someone would use a periscope. By the time you are a
commanding officer, you are probably the best
periscope operator on the ship because of the years
of practice, and the experience level that builds on
proficiency, a newly qualified individual would
probably be on the lower end of proficiency in
general, because of the lack of the experience of
learning to use the periscope in stressful mission
related training and operations.
Q Will you comment on the time of day or night
where you are relative looking into the sun -- those
types of effects has on your ability to see through a
periscope?
A You see much more in day than you do at night,
because the periscope requires light in order to
clearly see objects. It's much more difficult to see
objects at night. If you have a target that is a
darkened ship on a dark night, that is a very
challenging thing to see, because in effect it's a
blacker shade of black against a black back drop.
Now at night in peace time, the international
rules of the road require ships to illuminate certain
navigation lights, and those are fairly distinctly
seen because they stand out in the black backdrop.
If you have a moon at night, you would have more
opportunity because of the additional light present
to see targets even if they are not lighted or if
they are.
In daylight, the range is fairly significant
even though it is daytime an overcast day or a hazy
day significantly reduces your ability to see through
the periscope, all other things being equal, because
of the reduced amount of light. If you have a very
bright object such as the sun or even the moon on a
bright moon night, and you look directly into that
sector, it can temporarily blind you, it could
actually be harmful to your eye to stare at the sun
even very briefly, so we're trained not to train the
periscope optically on the sun.
The sun on this day in question was not a major
issue because it was overcast, and I think that --
the only other point to make is you have
light-intensifier modes on the scope where you have
a, in effect, a night vision capability to use at
night, and you have to -- there are certain
limitations on how to use that, or else you can
actually reduce your ability to see.
But that's not your main on the day in
question, and you don't use that in daylight.
VADM NATHMAN: Next, sir, I would
like to reiterate and talk some more about the sea
conditions both weather and actual wave heights.
When they are at periscope depth -- and I
understand the officer of the deck did a sweep and
then the commanding officer did a sweep. When he
used the Para-vis, is there a requirement for
specific watchstanders to use -- to look at the
Para-vis while the officer of the deck or the
commanding officer were using the periscope? Are
there duties assigned in that respect?
THE WITNESS: Not formally.
However, custom and practice provide emphasis for
ships watchstanders, particularly those that would
routinely be able to oversee that to assist the
officer of the deck in looking at Para-vis. On
missions you can have much more strict regimens in
that regard. On daily operations, it would be -- a
ship's normal practice to not have a formal
assignment of observing that, but that in general
backing up watchstanders, as a principle, would make
the people like the fire control technician of the
watch, the quarter master, other officers to try to
view those screens to back up the OD.
And frankly, I don't know if this ship had a
policy written or otherwise. And that is something
perhaps for you to investigate.
VADM NATHMAN: Well yesterday, when
we went into control on Greenville, there were
monitors prepared on both the starboard and port
sides slightly forward of the CON section or the
stand for the periscope as I recall. I believe that
is accurate.
Now when the officer of the deck swept the
horizon, do you know if the commanding officer took
that opportunity to look at the Para-vis where the
officer of the deck was in terms of his maybe
preparing himself for his periscope sweep, I mean,
because there -- to me, there is a limited
opportunity to look outside the submarine, and was
the ship taking what you would expect -- every
prudent opportunity to use some visual search that it
was conducting with the periscope?
THE WITNESS: My assumption is that
the captain certainly looked at the Para-vis when he
wasn't personally on the scope. I can't imagine the
captain being in control and not observing the
Para-vis when the ship is consented go to periscope
depth because that is such a vital source of
information, as you say.
I don't specifically know if Capt Waddle was
looking at it, but I -- I am confident that he was.
VADM NATHMAN: Including the after
they arrived at periscope depth in addition to the
transition from depth to periscope depth?
THE WITNESS: That whole period. I
am sure when he was not on the scope, he was looking
at Para-vis because that's what captains do.
VADM NATHMAN: Thank you.
EXAMINATION RADM SULLIVAN:
Q I would like to ask about sea conditions, what
influence that has -- both weather conditions and sea
conditions.
A Well, starting with the seas. Whenever the
optics are under physical water you are not seeing
anything. And then, once the water leaves the
optics, a wave washing over the scope head, for
example, you don't instantly regain vision.
There is a short period of time, perhaps a
second or less, while the water drains off the
optics, and then you can regain your ability to see.
There is treatments we put on that head window
optical cover that enhanced the ability to drain
quickly, once you are out of the water, and restore
that vision. And there is a variable there as that
degrades, and it takes longer and longer to drain.
My guess, though, because this was the first
day at sea for Greenville, it was draining very
quickly so you quickly recover your ability to see
once the wave is gone, in less than a second, so when
the water is washing over the head window, you would
not see, and then once it was clear, you would
again. That's the first effect to note.
Asecond effect is a little more subtle. When
you have large troughs, and you have a wave and then
it goes down into the dip of the trough, and then up
into the next wave, and the periscope is situated
between the two wave heights in that trough your
distance to the horizon can be theoretically reduced
because there is a wave in the way of where you are
trying to look.
So even though the head window is out of the
water, there is a wave in the way of the direct line
of sight to the horizon and you have to look up a
little bit to see beyond that wave. So you have that
proportional reduction in distance to the horizon
based on the wave troughs and waves.
Now, the lower your head window is to be below
the water, the more effect that has, and it's a
variable, and over time, it becomes less apparent.
So in that condition if you were worried about
stealth, you would have to learn to be patient, use
more time, keep your head window close to the
surface, intermittently have your sight interrupted,
but over time integrate to where you can see in a
given direction.
If you raise your periscope higher, for
example, when your stealth is not an issue, you
greatly reduce that interference and overcome it.
You basically stay above the top of the waves
all the time. And that would be a prudent thing to
do in fairly significant seas such as or foot
seas, if safety wasn't an issue and you wanted to see
a distance to the horizon.
On the issue of weather, it's a significant
effect to have a hazy day. And as I have testified
before, this was a hazy day by all accounts. It was
overcast and hazy, and I have several statements that
would indicate that. It was particularly difficult
to see light-colored objects against the sky or
horizon on this day because of this haze.
And I am sure that was a factor that precluded
the ship from seeing the Ehime Maru, a white-painted
ship on that hazy day.
Q To follow up on that, once the ship did
surface, was there any indication of what the
visibility was once they were on the surface were
they limited in visibility?
A Other than a haze effect which would reduce
their overall acuity as you go farther in distance, I
believe they had a relatively distant horizon. I
don't have good firm information on the actual
visibility as a pilot would report it of x miles. I
just don't know what their visibility was, but I have
a sense it was not an unlimited distance that they
could see, but that the haze reduced distinguishing
objects.
And so, I am giving you an ambiguous answer,
because I don't have a good solid factual answer.
Q Well, it's something we will follow-up on but
to me to see if it visibility was at least three or
four miles. We should be able to figure that out
from some source.
The final area dealing with the accuracy of
periscope depth observations that I'd like to explore
is the height of eye. You already alluded a number
of times to this, but let's take it from this point
of view.
Theoretically if we were in a flat sea, calm
conditions, and you brought the ship up to a broached
depth, which for this ship I believe is 50 feet; is
that correct?
A Oh, broach depth? Yes, sir. Fifty feet,
approximately.
Q What, theoretically, is the greatest distance
that you could see through the periscope on a clear
day, a flat sea?
A The way that I would calculate that would be to
use the thumb rule, whatever the distance above the
water line that the periscope head window is in feet
I would take the square root of that distance and
multiply that by 1.14 and that would be the range to
the horizon in nautical miles just for that
periscopes height alone.
And so if I used the feet, that this would
give me from 50 to 64 and some change in a flat sea,
it would be approximately four and-a-half miles.
Q And what about at 58 feet keel depth?
A At 58 feet, you are now looking at the square
root of times 1.14. And so we're talking maybe
three miles.
Q Three miles?
A Approximately.
Q Now that's to the --
A -- actually, it would be a little less than
three miles.
Q That's to the surface of the ocean, correct?
A That's to the curvataure of the earth going
over the horizon, so that is with no height of eye of
the target if a wood chip was floating on the sea,
you would see it if it was big enough, with no height
you would see it at that distance.
Q For a ship similar to the Ehime Maru which is
mass head is probably -- probably about fifty feet or
so -- I don't know exactly what it is -- do you know
what it is?
A I -- I remember including that in my matrix as
an enclosure, and I used several heights, because I
did not assume that the very top of the masthead was
a good target. It was white, it was against a haze,
so I brought it down to where the deck and the bridge
and the black band around the smokestack top were,
and my recollection is that we're now down to -- well
I don't want to hazard a guess, it was the difference
between feet 55 feet or something like that when
you illuminate the tiny mass as the real reasonable
target for them to see and come down to the bridge
area. My recollection is you are talking about mid
20's above the keel, but the enclosure should be
referred to to get the facts.
Q While Capt MacDonald is looking that up, we'll
go back to that.
Are there any effects of the aspect of the
target or the contact that you're viewing -- "aspect"
meaning if it's pointing you directly or is it broad
looking at its side -- does that have affect?
A Yes, sir. It does. Now the longer the length
of the target, left to right if you will in your
optics, the more likely you'll see it. If it's bow
on, and you have just the bow on silhouette of zero
angle on the bow, as we would say, that is a more
challenging target. As it starts to pivot left or
right to a broadside view, you start to see the full
length.
If you look at the overall tracks of the
Greenville and the Ehime Maru over that hour or so,
as they ended up approaching to the point of
collision, and you integrate the Greenville's general
direction over that time, you would see a fairly
constant and fairly narrow angle on the bow view of
the Ehime Maru for that whole approach, generally, 30
degrees on her starboard side or less. So starboard
30 or less angle on the bow, and that would tend to
show one-half of the length of Ehime Maru to the
person observing through the periscope, or less.
And that would be a factor that would reduce
the ship's ability to see it in general.
CAPT MACDONALD: Admiral, we have
that section of the enclosure that we can show to the
witness.
This is the part of Enclosure 1, this is the
unclassed binder provided to the court and the
parties. Enclosure 24.
THE WITNESS: 20.2 meters. Is that
the way I read it? Okay.
I am looking at the general arrangement
drawing, a sideview of the Ehime Maru, and it shows
that the height -- and I don't know if this is from
the waterline or the keel -- I believe it's from the
keel to the top of the mast -- is 20.2 meters. And
it's very small print, but that's what I believe I
see.
And when you have to -- that's really longer
than the actual, because we measure from the
waterline and not the keel.
So I would expect that's as I recollect, 55
feet is what we attributed from the waterline to the
top of the mast.
Q Now to address the lower height of the
bridge --
CAPT MACDONALD: Admiral, if it
would assist you, we have a blowup of the diagram.
Could you hand it to the witness, please? Please
show counsel.
THE WITNESS: Initially, I was
looking at this measurement to the very top of the
main mast, the tallest mast of Ehime Maru, and that
would be down to the keel. I don't see the numbers I
am looking for.
My recollection of the manner in which we
created the matrix was we took this, and then used a
scale factor to get the lower heights. Just as a
rule of thumb, it looks like the top of the bridge is
about half again the distance that it would take to
get up to the top of the mast, so I am estimating
about to 30 feet is the top of the bridge, and the
smokestack from the waterline. So let's say feet
is the top of the bridge. That's convenient for
arithmetic. That's a square root of is 5. And
so, you would add that contribution to the horizon to
the height of the periscope, as two separate parts of
the equation, and you would end up with about five
and-a-half or miles contributed by the ship, and
two and-a-half to three miles contributed by the
periscope, so a theoretical maximum range flat calm
to visibility for a 58 foot keel depth of the
submarine of about miles or 16,000.
Q Afollow-up. You mentioned that you eliminated
the mast as a configure. Because of its
configuration, it's small it doesn't present much of
a side area, so you said I'll eliminate that from a
opportunity to see it. What I will use then is a
configuration of what we saw in the picture of the
Ehime Maru where you had the outline of the
superstructure and particularly the top deck on the
bridge with the windows, and some of those
configuration changes, as well as some contrast
changes -- that's what you used then for the feet?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
EXAMINATION VADM NATHMAN:
Q I tried to look at a reasonable target for a
trained eye and a periscope to see on this kind of
day and backdrop, and I came to that compromise
judgment.
And when you used that compromise height of
eye of the Ehime Maru with the height of eye to the
periscope -- that the Greenville periscope -- that's
when you arrived at 8, miles around miles?
A As the maximum theoretical range to see the
ship, yes, sir. That's before you start reducing
that range for all these factors.
Choose a session: Day 1, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 2, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Day 3, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
Day 4, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Day 5, Session 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
|
