Unofficial transcript: Day 3, Session 8
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
SESSION 8 MARCH 7, 2001 3:40 p.m.
A Okay.
Q And I believe the other one, I have to check, Petty
Officer Harris. The chief of the watch.
A Okay.
Q I believe so.
And I'm not a hundred percent sure on that one but I
know Reyes is.
A Okay. I know I wasn't aware of that.
Q Sir, I'd like to turn your attention to enclosure 34 of
your preliminary inquiry.
A Okay.
Enclosure 34 is the document that determines maximum
periscope range.
A Yes.
VADM. NATHMAN: Counsel, I think we'll pull that
out so -- we'll help you with the lights. Go ahead and back
it up just a little bit here. Back up your display, please.
There you go. Go ahead.
I think everybody can read that.
BY MR. STONE:
Q This morning you talked about the height of the
periscope in a trough?
A Yes.
Q This is the equation that discusses that, is that not
true?
A It looks like it.
Q Okay.
A I don't have it memorized, but I assume it is.
Q Now, sir, you described -- your conclusions on enclosure
34 state that the maximum detection to be -- of the Ehime-Maru
to be roughly around two thousand yards?
A I recall that the -- for all these periations (sic.)
That would be the minimum of the maximum detection ranges,
yes. There's a large number of them here, and that's as low
as it gets.
Q Now, -- and you used this term that maximum detection
range of two thousand yards in your finding on 8D, the third
little dot and E to say that the periscope search was
inadequate due to the sea state, is that correct?
A I'm sorry, where is H, D and E and so forth.
Q Those are in your findings of fact?
A Okay. Hold on a second.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Is this enclosure 34?
MR. STONE: That's my diagram. We'll have to
mark that as the next exhibit.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I'm with you now.
MR. STONE: Okay.
Q Now, are you aware that there are a number of flaws and
assumptions in your chart that was prepared for you by about
it Commander Hutton?
A No.
Q Well, first the information that was provided you use
six, eight and 10 feet as --
A Yes.
Q -- the wave height. Now, you had testified earlier that
you got eight and 10 feet from watching -- from viewing
videos, is that correct?
A Eight to 10 feet actually was the range of the METOC
(phonetic) buoy two hundred miles away from the collision. I
also wanted to bring a lower wave height in to try to mess --
measure the METOC buoy data with estimates that were a little
lower than that from many of the witnesses. And then I
finally used the video displays that CNN provided and others
on NTV that we were able to see to a -- to become comfortable
at six to 10 feet as a logical boundary of what I was looking
at. So, it was kind of a include of all those sources, I
thought these were pretty good boundary conditions to make the
calculations from.
Q Okay.
Sir, I think it's easier if I just show you the part of
the enclosure that talks about, when you're dealing with swell
height with regards to this, it's this one.
A Okay.
Q If you could look at that. Is it true that that says
that the swell height for METOC buoy 003 at the time of the
collision was actually only 5.7. It's part of the enclosure,
34?
A This is actually part of the enclosure 35, I think. At
least this is marked as 35.
Q I stand corrected.
A This collision would have occurred on the 9th almost
midnight zulu going into the 10th, correct.
Q Yes, sir.
A We're talking roughly eight feet, the way I read this
graph. Looking up from here.
Q Does that not say about 5.75, sir?
A These are separated by less than an hour and this is up
here to over eight, so -- you know, it's pretty variable.
Q Yes, sir.
A I'd say that's six to eight is how I'd call that.
Q Okay.
A And of course that was not at the exact location of the
collision, so there's some subjectivity in how we make this
assessment. I looked to try to just bound reasonable amounts,
but if the height was less you would be able to see more for a
given scope exposure, and if the height was actually less than
the boundaries I've established in here, it would be less of
an impediment to the CO to see farther.
Q And with a less of a sea state it would be less for the
Executive Officer to be aware of how bad the sea state was, is
that also true?
If the sea state was less than the Executive Officer
would have no reason to question the Commanding Officer
looking through the scope, is that also true?
A I'd say there's matters of degree, less reason. But of
course his statement was he wished the CO has broached, and so
that's really what I was keying on, not the -- you know, when
I went through this table I was trying to explain how a good
skipper experienced on the scope would not see a target at two
thousand yards away. So I was looking for reasons to help try
to explain that.
When I dealt this table I was not trying to use it as a
metric to try to determine if the XO should have intervened.
To my mind when the -- not intervened, but when the XO said he
was uncomfortable with the CO not broaching, I took that at
face value, that the XO was uncomfortable.
Q And now since that time, sir, you have learned that
there's inconsistencies in the individuals that took -- that
wrote down the statements with regards to what exactly the
Executive Officer said regarding a broached look?
A Recognizing I've said I have faith in the people who
generated these statements doing a good job, I think the Court
should look at the rougher data, the raw data and perhaps
re-evaluate whether these statements are accurate.
Q Sir, and they -- they'll certainly be made exhibits.
Now, with regards to the data on your chart, sir, using
six, eight and 10 feet, and the fact that it was two hundred
nautical miles away from the collision site, are you aware
that LCDR Hutton did not use any scientific formula for
weather patterns to try to input swell length or wave height
back to the crash -- to the collision site?
A You mean get it scientifically transposed from two
hundred miles away?
Q Get his best guess. He did not do that, are you aware?
A No.
Q Okay.
But would you also admit that there are at least --
there are scientific formulas in which he could have done
that?
A I would not be surprised to know that.
And frankly, if there are more scientific ways to do all
of this analysis, that's good work for the Court to still look
at doing.
Q Also, sir, I -- I'd also like to make the point that --
that this formula that LCDR Hutton used came directly out of
the submarine publication, Submarine Tactics.
VADM. NATHMAN: Counsel, is this going to be an
exhibit?
MR. STONE: Yes, I do have a copy of it.
VADM. NATHMAN: Let's start cleaning up here.
Counsel and the Court, let's make sure we get these things
marked as an exhibit.
THE CLERK: This will be marked as Exhibit 45.
BY MR. STONE:
Q LCDR Hutton took this diagram, and this document using
this formula, knowing what you know, sir, about the height --
A Well, this says the divisor should be 2 L, not one half
L.
Q Correct, sir. But when you look at -- and that's my
point, he did the math wrong, sir, because if we're judging
the periscope here in the mid trough to determine the
(inaudible) an angle, you must bisect L in the half point, is
that correct?
A Yes.
Q And so all of this data on 34 is wrong because he
applied the wrong formula, is that correct?
A You're saying he did not -- he did not apply this
formula.
Q He applied that formula exactly, sir, which is 2 L
instead of one half L, which makes this -- the entire
enclosure 34, if it's accurate, off by a factor of 4, is that
not correct?
A Yes, if that was in fact the error made, that would be a
factor of four.
Q Thank you, sir.
A And again, I think the recalculation should be run
through.
VADM. NATHMAN: Counsel, are you done with the
overhead?
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
VADM. NATHMAN: Could you turn it off, please.
BY MR. STONE:
Q Also, one last question, sir, with regards to this
equation. It also assumed a nine second -- sir, did you have
any indications with regards to there not being any wave slap
or swell height prior to your writing your preliminary
inquiry?
A Wave slap, yes. There were statements that said
basically that this -- the optics were out of the waves, so
not being slapped over by water. Obscuring the vision.
Q If waves are not obscuring the vision then it would be
potentially or likely that periscope I may have been able to
see to the horizon?
A Yes, I thought about that. The -- there's two types of
obscuring; swells in the way of your line of sight, or
actually you're under water. And I'm more confident the
latter was not the case from the statements than the former
based on my reading of the interview statements.
So, you know, not having swells in the way with these
depth order and the swells that were reported, you know, it's
not logical that they wouldn't occasionally be in the way.
But the being under water I don't think was a problem
based on the interviews that I've heard.
VADM. NATHMAN: Counsel, have you finished this
discussion on the formula?
MR. STONE: Yes, I have.
VADM. NATHMAN: Because I'm interested in
something. You made the point that it's a factor of four off.
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
VADM. NATHMAN: Is what I assume. Let me ask
Admiral Griffiths a point, then.
Q How does that affect the enclosure when you have got a
factor of four now, does that go to the ranges that we're
going to talk were in the enclosure?
A It implies you can see farther than the table shows, and
therefore the -- the efforts the ship went through were less
hampered by these considerations than the table shows.
Q Okay.
A So that's something for the Court to resolve.
Q Just based on the formula alone, we've got a factor of
four in terms of a range calculation that we've showed, we'd
expect the ship to be able to see that day?
A Yes.
Q I just want to make sure that's clear.
A That's clear. And that needs to be resolved. There may
be a problem in that enclosure.
BY MR. STONE:
Q And sir, if the scope was above the swell, none of this
discussion would even apply because you'd have an unobstructed
view?
A Right.
Q Okay.
And if you have an unobstructed view of a 71 foot mast
head sail, you're looking at roughly about 18 thousand yards
off the line of sight?
A Yes, although my experience is you don't see small
contacts that far away, so that's the theoretical answer.
Q And if you brought down, as you did, sir, to about 50
feet down the mast head, you're looking still at about eight,
little over eight nautical miles?
A Yeah. I think I used 55.4 feet is the assessment. I
didn't have this exact information earlier today. From this
table we used 55.4 feet from the water line to the top of the
mast, and 32 feet to the top of the black striped stack, and
23.4 feet to the top of the bridge, and that was just based on
scaling from what we saw from the diagram and a kind of an
input from the -- I believe from the master on the water line
where the ship would be -- what the ship's laying condition.
Q Sir, I'm not going to ask you to guess any more, and
actually attached to the enclosure that the members will have
there's actually the line of sight, distance to the horizon
diagram.
A Okay.
Q So we don't even have to --
VADM. NATHMAN: Help me out here, we've been
talking about 25 feet. We've been talking about making sure
there was something you could see. I think there was a
discussion earlier about a mast and being able to see the mast
and we -- Admiral Griffiths took us into a discussion of
getting down to the top of the bridge and the structure that
you're more likely to see, so based on that height what kind
of distance are you talking about?
MR. STONE: Sir, as the nautical mile distance
at 70 feet is 9.8 miles, or a 50 foot is 8.3 miles. For 30
feet it's 6.4 nautical miles. For 20 feet is 5.2 nautical
miles. For 10 feet it is 3.7 nautical miles.
VADM. NATHMAN: I got it.
THE WITNESS: You know, we have to kind of come
back to ground truth though. The ship was a mile away, we
know that, approximately a mile away at this point in time and
it wasn't seen, we know at least, one, it was somewhere in the
optical view, theoretically, from where the scope was looking.
We know the scope wasn't broken and we know we had a good
periscope operator.
So, in looking at additional factors of why the ship did
not detect the Ehime-Maru visually, what I was trying to do is
show the Court in the preliminary report all the factors that
could hinder the ability of the CO to see that ship, and sea
state and swell height may have been incorrectly calculated
but it is a factor when you're operating with your head window
within four feet of the surface of six to eight foot swells.
And the haze and so forth. So, --
BY MR. STONE:
Q Would you agree with me then, sir, it's a factor for
those individuals that look through the scope, and not for
those that did not look through the scope?
A No. I think it's an also -- I think an issue of general
ship safety, and I know the Executive Officer is also worried
about ship safety. I don't think he said, gee, I wish we had
broached if he didn't really mean that, and I know the reason
he said that is it gives you a higher look. I can tell you in
my career, I've never done this emergency blow evolution
without broaching first, ever, because that gives you your
best look.
RDML STONE: Point for the Commander Stone. For
clarification you were making commentary concerning the
assessment of what the actual swell and sea state was at this
time.
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
RDML STONE: Very shortly after the collision
the Greeneville was on the surface and was able to get a very
good look at what that sea state was like, and in fact it was
to the extent that the boat was unable to open the forward
hatch and put people on up there. Was there some confusion
you believe on what that sea state was actually like? It
seems they had an eyeball view on that, that reenforces how
bad it was.
MR. STONE: Sir, I certainly have a theory. I
don't know if I'm allowed to say it in the point that I'll now
be testifying. But submarines are round, swells roll up
submarines much easier than they do destroyers, and little
waves can actually cause the forward hatches not to be opened.
So, I guess I just testified.
RDML STONE: I was looking at trying to capture
the point you were trying to make. I realize where you were
going with that and we'll be able to look at what the records
show for the sea state as evaluated by the Commanding Officer
after the boat was on the surface and what was recorded in the
log to ascertain what those were. Thank you.
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
Q Sir, on your very first day of testimony you had stated
that this position of the Executive Officer is pursuant to the
sar. Could you elaborate a little bit on that, please?
A Well, actually I'm not sure you'll find this diagram in
print anywhere other than where you're looking at it. We drew
from the (inaudible) an experience to create the diagram. It
was intended to be a simplified functional diagram to show the
full audience here of how the submarine watch bill really
works. And so we put the XO in there, who have course is not
on watch, per se, ever, unless the CO makes him a command duty
officer which is not the case here. But the dotted line shows
that it's less than a formal watch responsibility that is
being indicated here, unlike all the others. Of course the CO
is obviously not technically on watch either, but all the
other individuals here they're lines -- they are
watchstanders, the CO and XO are unique in that -- in their
relationship to watchstanders.
Q And I guess my only point on this is that as a non
watchstander, he's not automatically in the chain of reporting
from potentially ship's control, contact management,
navigations that go to the Officer of the Deck and then up to
the Commanding Officer?
A You're right, he's not automatically in that.
Q I'm not saying that he's still not Executive Officer,
which --
A Me neither.
Q -- which carries something of its own.
A I'm with you so far here.
Q Sure.
MR. STONE: If I could have just a minute, sir.
VADM. NATHMAN: Certainly.
Counsel, you're going to have to turn the lights down.
BY MR. STONE:
Q Sir, when you first looked and said that this six degree
bearing rate was very noticeable, and your --
A It was noticeable to me in hindsight.
Q And this is based on a previously unrefined sonar band,
the initial closure rate?
A Yes.
Q Now, what's been put up here as was alluded to in the
court today is we're going to have a new expanded time bearing
chart that's going to look very similar to this, what do these
green lines here, if the course changes, have changed, doesn't
it obscure this line, the ability to read this six degree
bearing rate change?
A I'm not overly familiar with solder (phonetic)
recording systems, so I'm not aware of whether or not they
truly visually blank out the bearings, and so you're not able
to see what the bearings are during this turn.
If this is a -- if this is a contact evaluation plot
type of annotation, this shaded area would indicate a period
where the ship is changing course.
Q Yes, sir.
A And you would not physically lose an ability to track
where the varies are, they would just be less reliable during
the turn, but you would still see them. So is that what
you're trying to show here?
Q But you would not necessarily lose your measure bearing
rate?
A Correct. You would not measure during the term because
the formulas don't work.
Q Officer, could we have this exhibit marked next in
order.
A If your point is there's even less data than life is
even shorter than what I thought it was I would grant you that
from what this appears to be, that it is an even shorter data
leg that looks like a minute, which makes it a less useful TMA
leg and gives it less time to see that high bearing rate.
VADM. NATHMAN: Excuse me, before we proceed.
Do you have a paper copy?
THE WITNESS: And my point -- we'll use this as
a substitute, it's not completely colored right.
CAPT. MACDONALD: If it isn't exact, when you're
done we'll mark this as the next exhibit in order.
THE CLERK: Exhibit 27.
CAPT. MACDONALD: Please provide the Court a
copy.
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: If I can, see, the point I would
like to make, the shorter this bearing -- the shorter this leg
gets the worse the story is on how the ship conducted TMA,
because although they had less chance to see the high bearing
rate, I'm sure they didn't see it.l I know they would have
reacted if they did, but again the whole point I was trying to
make along with my testimony is the legs were not sufficient
in duration or length or numbers to be good TMA. And this
would indicate that case even more strongly.
Q This also from those individuals that are using trip
fliers potentially come to a different conclusion regarding
this high bearing rate, is that not true?
A I don't know what you mean by that.
Q I'll probably save that for argument.
A I don't think anybody recognized the high bearing rate
situation, sonar, fire control, officers, period, because I'm
sure any of them or all of them would have used that
information to great good, had they recognized it.
VADM. NATHMAN: Before you turn that off,
counsel, let me make sure I understand this.
You show a cross hatched area that, unlike this previous
diagram we've been using the implication to me is that how the
crossed hatch area eliminates the ability to view contact
data, sonar contact data? Or is that correct?
MR. STONE: So, it does not eliminate what's
coming in, but because of the submarine (inaudible) the
ability of people in sonar necessarily judge exactly what it
is.
VADM. NATHMAN: That's my conclusion too. I
just wanted to make sure it's clear. You showed the cross
hatch over that data now so you can't see it.
MR. STONE: No, sir.
VADM. NATHMAN: It's not reliable in terms of
evaluation of a drift rate, and therefore ability to see what
the contact is actually doing in terms of potential course and
speed.
MR. STONE: That is also my understanding. That
might --
VADM. NATHMAN: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I'll just refer back to the XO's
initial interview statement. He was -- he implied discomfort
with the amount of time on legs, the amount of TMA, and this
would be an example of why I could see why he felt that way.
CAPT. MACDONALD: Are you done with the power
point slide?
MR. STONE: Yes, sir.
Sir, may I have just a minute? I think I have a lot of
duplicate from this morning.
Q Sir, I just have a couple more questions. Did you have
LCDR Harrison or Captain Byus question anybody regarding the
professional competency of LCDR Pfeifer?
A No. Not that I'm aware of.
Q Did you happen --
A I don't -- I'm not aware of anybody doing that.
Q Did you happen to review his fitness reports?
A Certainly not.
Q Would it surprise you that LCDR Pfeifer was the top rank
Executive Officer in squadron one last year?
A Certainly would not surprise me.
VADM. NATHMAN: Could I ask a question on that?
I want to make sure I understand. What I'm saying is that
does the squadron rank XOs?
THE WITNESS: For administrative boards,
Admiral, it's common practice in the submarine
waterfront to formally rank and then provide that to the COs
to put in the fitness reports of the officers so that admin
boards see that and it's --
VADM. NATHMAN: So it's reflected in their
fitness report.
THE WITNESS: Sure. I have absolutely no reason
to be surprised by that.
BY MR. STONE:
Q Did you consider, or were you aware that the Executive
Officer actually pushed lunch up 15 minutes to account for
time? Was that discovered?
A Not by me.
MR. STONE: Sir, I have no further questions.
Thank you, sir.
VADM. NATHMAN: All right. Well, it's 12 after
4:00, and I'm not sure, counsel for Mr. Coen, what you feel --
I don't mind proceeding here. I'd like to conclude exactly at
1630. I don't know how that would help you in terms of
maintaining your coherency of where you want to go on
cross-examination. So I'll give you the opportunity to make a
recommendation to me whether or not you want to proceed right
into your cross, or do you want to now go ahead and recess the
Court and wait until tomorrow morning? What would you like to
do?
MR. STONE: I think it would be best if we
recessed at this point and started again tomorrow morning.
VADM. NATHMAN: Okay. Counsel for the Court,
any comments?
CAPT. MACDONALD: Yes, sir. Bailiff -- if you
would mark the following exhibits as next Court exhibits in
order, the first exhibit is COMSUB (inaudible) thousand slash
201 and (inaudible) public affairs, five pages.
What exhibit number is that?
THE CLERK: That would be Exhibit 48.
CAPT. MACDONALD: Next exhibit is 5720 dated 30
May, 1997, entitled duties of squadron public affairs
officers, six pages.
THE CLERK: That would be 49.
CAPT. MACDONALD: The next exhibit is CINCPAC
Fleet, and COM SUBPAC embark reports for 1999 and 2000.
Fifty-two pages.
THE CLERK: That will be marked as (inaudible).
CAPT. MACDONALD: The next exhibit is
information prepared by come SUBPAC PAO relating to USS
Greeneville tours and embarks for 1999 and 2000, seven pages.
THE CLERK: That will be marked as (inaudible).
CAPT. MACDONALD: The final exhibits,
information prepared by COMSUBPAC PAO related to USS
Greeneville (inaudible) of 9 February, 2001, 41 pages.
THE CLERK: (Inaudible).
CAPT. MACDONALD: Mr. President, that's all we
have.
VADM. NATHMAN: I want to make a comment here.
I will make the bailiff available to counsels for your
exhibits to move stuff around, to provide for your
efficiencies. Now, that's true for all the counsels,
including the counsel for the Court, so don't hesitate to use
the bailiff to do that for you, to make this so we do this
with a certain amount of efficiency.
I understand, certainly understand this is important to
the parties, so you need to make sure that your questions are
well-developed. I think there's been sufficient preparation
time for some of that, and so those are my expectations.
So, let's make sure that we are trying -- we're trying
to use the court and the assistance of the court to get
through these type of matters in a manner that seems
organized. That's not a criticism, but I'm just pointing out
to everyone those opportunities are available to you.
CAPT. MACDONALD: I think it came up a little
bit earlier about the resources of the government not being
available to all parties. As we've said from the outset, when
all of us were assigned, if the parties have anything that
they want blown up, made charts, any supplies, I think you got
your first group of supplies about two weeks ago. You tell us
what you need to have done and we'll get it done, okay? We
want this to be an absolutely fair process for everybody, and
CINCPAC Fleet has made those resources available to all
parties. Okay.
VADM. NATHMAN: Thank you. This Court is
recessed until 0800 tomorrow morning.
(Proceedings adjourned at 4:20 p.m.)
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
|
