Aircraft carrier USS George Washington fire

[trekz 7]

Navy cites smoking as likely cause of carrier fire By CHELSEA J. CARTER, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 54 minutes ago

 

SAN DIEGO - Smoking appears to have sparked a fire that caused $70 million in damage to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington, Naval officials said Wednesday.

 

The announcement by the Navy came as Adm. Robert F. Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, relieved the carrier's commanding officer, Capt. David C. Dykhoff, and the executive officer of duty, Capt. David M. Dober.

 

Willard cited lost confidence in the commanding officer and his failure to meet mission standards after the investigation found unauthorized smoking by a crew member appeared to have ignited flammable liquids and other combustible material that were improperly stored. The other officer was relieved of duty for substandard performance.

 

"The fire and the subsequent magnitude of the fire were the result of a series of human acts that could have been prevented," according to a statement released by the Naval Air Forces in San Diego.

 

The Norfolk, Va.-based carrier was en route from Chile to San Diego when the fire began on May 22.

 

"The smoking was happening in an unauthorized space and the evidence points to it probably was a lit cigarette that ignited the oil," said Capt. Scott Gureck, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Fleet. He said the investigation did not reveal who was smoking.

 

Flames were initially spotted near the auxiliary boiler room and air conditioning and refrigeration space in the rear of the ship. The safety of the ship's nuclear reactor wasn't threatened.

 

Naval officials now say it took about 12 hours to put out the fire because of the location and size. Fire and heat damaged electrical cabling and components running through 80 of the 3,800 compartments across several decks of the carrier.

 

The crew of the carrier has been temporarily assigned to shore duty in San Diego since shortly after the fire.

 

Capt. J.R. Haley, who previously commanded the nuclear-powered carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, has taken command of the carrier, replacing Dykhoff. Capt. Karl O. Thomas has replaced Dober. Dykhoff and Dober have been temporarily assigned to shore duty with the Pacific Fleet, Walker said.

 

The Navy also revised the number of sailors injured during the fire from 23 to 37, saying 36 sailors were treated for minor injuries suffered while fighting the fire and one sailor suffered minor burns. All were returned to duty shortly afterward.

 

Gureck would not comment on whether the Navy was considering further disciplinary action against the two officers or possibly other people.

 

He said Rear Adm. Richard B. Wren, currently the USS Kitty Hawk carrier strike group commander, will decide what additional administrative and disciplinary measures, if any, will be taken when he becomes the USS George Washington strike group commander.

 

The carrier was initially expected to arrive in Japan in early August to replace the USS Kitty Hawk, which is being decommissioned. The George Washington, which is now scheduled to depart San Diego in late August, is due to be stationed at the U.S. naval base in Yokosuka.

 

The USS George Washington, the fourth Navy ship to bear the name, was commissioned July 4, 1992. It is a Nimitz class nuclear-powered supercarrier with a crew of 3,000 but can carry up to 5,000.

___

 

Associated Press writer Audrey McAvoy in Hawaii contributed to this report.

[Odie 0]

I have so many fix feelings about that happen on the GW. I am very disappointed that this very preventable fire happen. I was on USS Harry S Truman, and they where, hoping they are still, very strict about smoking and hazmat. Everything is strict in Norfolk, VA including hazmat. I just wonder what happen on that ship to cause someone or that group to smoke where they shouldn't. :P I am just glad no one got killed.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

What irritates me is the military's constant need to find a high ranking scapegoat. Some E-1 or E-2 (or E-6/E-7) smokes where he or she isn't supposed to and causes a bad accident so fire the Captain... Sure the Captain is responsible for everything on the ship but at the same time he shouldn't be held accountable for every single action that every single sailor does.

[Gary Phaserman 0]

So goes life in the military, however. And I'd say it's a good bet that if the sailor responsible is identified, he or she will probably be facing some harsh punishment too. I'm a smoker, I understand sometimes the urge gets strong, but it isn't so strong as to overcome common sense, or at least for me it isn't. Then again, you know what they say about common sense....

Edited July 31, 2008 by Mr. Phaserman

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

All right, Gary, fess up. It was you, wasn't it?

[Odie 0]

What irritates me is the military's constant need to find a high ranking scapegoat. Some E-1 or E-2 (or E-6/E-7) smokes where he or she isn't supposed to and causes a bad accident so fire the Captain... Sure the Captain is responsible for everything on the ship but at the same time he shouldn't be held accountable for every single action that every single sailor does.

In the Navy he is responsible for every action for every single sailor that is assign to his or her ship. Actually, I am not surprised that the CO got fired. The damages where over $70 million dollars. Actually the fires, there was two since coming to San Diego for repairs, has caused the ship to have more problems for them when they get to Yokosuka, Japan. The Navy needs to save face with the ship in Japan.

 

They do not want the carrier homeported in Japan, and this fires are not helping matters. The Japanese, not the government, has made their feelings on the matter very clear longer before I was living in Japan. I still remember the monthly protests they had about the propects, which at that time both US Navy and Japanese government where denying it, about a Nimtiz class carrier homeported in Yokosuka, Japan.

 

GW hazmat program was under Navy's standards, and that was prime reason for GW's CO getting fired. If the hazmat program was within standards, which is higher than OSHA, the fire would not have happen. The fires caused the Navy to have a safety stand down for all the ships worldwide to make sure all of them are inline with the Navy's standards with HAZMAT. I will bet in the near future if other ships are below that standard COs' will get fired.

 

There is a smoking area, not the only one, is aft of the ship off the hanger bay. The sailors had no excuse not to smoke in that area! :P

 

On more personal note: Those fires effected my holiday weekend. Everyone else in the Navy, except for deployed ships and for my command and maybe GW's, got the July 3rd off so everyone can enjoy the rare 4 day weekend. Since my command is repairing the ship everyone had work on the third in support of the GW. Hello, we did not cause the fires on that ship. My division is so far from production it is not funny.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Odie

[VaBeachGuy 12]

What irritates me is the military's constant need to find a high ranking scapegoat. Some E-1 or E-2 (or E-6/E-7) smokes where he or she isn't supposed to and causes a bad accident so fire the Captain... Sure the Captain is responsible for everything on the ship but at the same time he shouldn't be held accountable for every single action that every single sailor does.

In the Navy he is responsible for every action for every single sailor that is assign to his or her ship.

Responsible yes, but he shouldn't be accountable. That's like if a child steals something from the store and the parent is thrown in jail for it. The parent is responsible for the child but not accountable.

 

It's like Admiral Kimmel and General Short being blamed for Pearl Harbor. Don't get me wrong, I'm ex-Army and 100% pro military. But the top brass (both military and civilian) always have to have a scapegoat so they can make people think that they've "taken care of the problem".

 

In this case it's totally possible that the Captain of the ship was totally at fault, I have my doubts there though. The Captain can't be accountable for what an E-1 at the rear of the ship does when he violates the rules. Now if it was the policy of the ship and the Captain allowed it then by all means the Captain must be held accountable for ship policy.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I understand what Kevin is saying and there always is a scapegoat when there is an "investigation" - not just in military but government in general. I seldom believe we get the true story.

 

However, in this case there was an indication that flamable materials were improperly stored - if that is the case then maybe the CO is at fault.

 

It is frustrating to think of all the taxpayer dollars wasted because of someone's personal addiction.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I understand what Kevin is saying and there always is a scapegoat when there is an "investigation" - not just in military but government in general. I seldom believe we get the true story.

 

However, in this case there was an indication that flamable materials were improperly stored - if that is the case then maybe the CO is at fault.

 

It is frustrating to think of all the taxpayer dollars wasted because of someone's personal addiction.

I agree, if there were procedural violations with the storage of HazMat then that's something that the Captain should have had inspections for (not him personally necessarily but inspection teams) and if those things didn't happen then I agree. But if this was just some E-1 smoking in a place that he or she shouldn't have been and that was the only violation then I don't think the Captain should be held accountable.

 

In my analogy of the parent/child situation, if the child steals from a store the parent shouldn't be accountable but if the parent took the child to the store, explained how to do it without getting caught then the parent should be accountable.

[Odie 0]

I agree, if there were procedural violations with the storage of HazMat then that's something that the Captain should have had inspections for (not him personally necessarily but inspection teams) and if those things didn't happen then I agree. But if this was just some E-1 smoking in a place that he or she shouldn't have been and that was the only violation then I don't think the Captain should be held accountable.

 

In my analogy of the parent/child situation, if the child steals from a store the parent shouldn't be accountable but if the parent took the child to the store, explained how to do it without getting caught then the parent should be accountable.

 

This was a HAZMAT fire. The fire burn for days causing sailor to get second and third degree burns, go portions of the aft section was damage that caused $70 million dollars in damages, and harmed the reputation of George Washington within the Navy and their new homeport, and caused the Navy to have safety stand down fleetwide. What happen on GW was very serious. Their HAZMAT program was a failure. The investigation through NCIS found if the HAZMAT was not stored properly through the Navy's HAZMAT program the fire would have never happen. PERIOD. The CO is responsible for the overall safety of the ship. He failed in keeping his ship safe through a failed HAZMAT program.

 

Since GW had a fire where good portion of ship got damaged with a sailor getting second and third degree burns they had no choice in firing the CO. The CO failed in protecting his crew by laxing HAZMAT standards. The sailor who smoked might face criminal charges. This is far from over. The CO didn't get fired because a sailor smoked in the wrong place. If that was no fire the CO would have not gotten fired, and sailor if found out would have been disciplined by him. He got fired because the HAZMAT was not stored properly that caused other events to happen.

 

You analogy does not apply to the situation. The CO agree upon taking orders that he is completely responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on the ship. It might not sound far, but that is life in the Navy and military in general. The responsibility is heavy, but the rewards are great for anyone want their own command in the Navy. If they did not want the responsibility that comes with a command then they should have never taken the orders. There are many COs in the last few years that have fired for less than what happen on GW. This time I agree with the firing of the CO on the GW.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I agree, if there were procedural violations with the storage of HazMat then that's something that the Captain should have had inspections for (not him personally necessarily but inspection teams) and if those things didn't happen then I agree. But if this was just some E-1 smoking in a place that he or she shouldn't have been and that was the only violation then I don't think the Captain should be held accountable.

 

In my analogy of the parent/child situation, if the child steals from a store the parent shouldn't be accountable but if the parent took the child to the store, explained how to do it without getting caught then the parent should be accountable.

 

This was a HAZMAT fire. The fire burn for days causing sailor to get second and third degree burns, go portions of the aft section was damage that caused $70 million dollars in damages, and harmed the reputation of George Washington within the Navy and their new homeport, and caused the Navy to have safety stand down fleetwide. What happen on GW was very serious. Their HAZMAT program was a failure. The investigation through NCIS found if the HAZMAT was not stored properly through the Navy's HAZMAT program the fire would have never happen. PERIOD. The CO is responsible for the overall safety of the ship. He failed in keeping his ship safe through a failed HAZMAT program.

 

Since GW had a fire where good portion of ship got damaged with a sailor getting second and third degree burns they had no choice in firing the CO. The CO failed in protecting his crew by laxing HAZMAT standards. The sailor who smoked might face criminal charges. This is far from over. The CO didn't get fired because a sailor smoked in the wrong place. If that was no fire the CO would have not gotten fired, and sailor if found out would have been disciplined by him. He got fired because the HAZMAT was not stored properly that caused other events to happen.

 

You analogy does not apply to the situation. The CO agree upon taking orders that he is completely responsible for EVERYTHING that happens on the ship. It might not sound far, but that is life in the Navy and military in general. The responsibility is heavy, but the rewards are great for anyone want their own command in the Navy. If they did not want the responsibility that comes with a command then they should have never taken the orders. There are many COs in the last few years that have fired for less than what happen on GW. This time I agree with the firing of the CO on the GW.

 

 

You're missing my point, I didn't say he wasn't responsible for the ship. I said he shouldn't be held accountable, or punishable (if no violations were committed). Meaning that if everything on the ship was by the book and some E-1 broke the rules and caused this accident then in my Opinion the Captain shouldn't be held accountable. I also said that if there was some dereliction of duty on his (the Captains) part then they are right in removing him. That's not always the case though with the military.

 

I believe the analogy does fit, if a parent doesn't supervise their teen at all times but does not violate any laws (break any rules or procedures) and that teen gets drunk and kills someone do you believe the parent should be held accountable (punishable) under the law? In this instance the Parent is the Captain and the teen is the sailor. Also in this case the HAZMAT would be properly stored and no procedures violated. I understand that this isn't the case here in reality but it's my belief that even if this was the case the Captain would still be punished by the brass.

 

Now if the parent gave the teen the beer that got him or her drunk and/or allowed them to drive a friend home while they were drunk and the teen killed someone then by all means the parent is accountable under the law.

 

As it is, if as you say there were violations of Navy code on HAZMAT storage then the right thing was done. The Captain is both responsible AND accountable. I'm in full agreement.

[Odie 0]

As it is, if as you say there were violations of Navy code on HAZMAT storage then the right thing was done. The Captain is both responsible AND accountable. I'm in full agreement.

 

That is what has boiled down to it. Since the HAZMAT was not stored within regulations he bears the responsibility. Any spark on a steal ship, turning on the light, could have started the fire let alone a cigarette. I know there are have been fires on ships where sailors have smoked where they shouldn't and CO did not get fired. This something that you will never read in the newspapers. The sailor smoking is not reason why the CO got fired. If the HAZMAT was stored according Navy and OHSA regulations and the fire happen because some sailor smoked where he shouldn't he was not have gotten fired. Also there a lot more going for the Navy to fire a CO on a carrier than they are saying.

[Gary Phaserman 0]

The sailor who smoked there and the Captain of the ship both bear responsibility, the sailor for smoking in an area not designated as a smoking area, and the Captain for failure to follow Navy and OSHA procedures. The Captain, as I understand it, put his ship and crew at unneccisary risk by failing to follow the regs. And, as Odie points out, the fire could have just as easily have been caused by any spark, and alot of things make sparks on Carriers. Fire is the number one danger all ships face. In the Marines, every Marine is a Rifleman. in the Navy, every officer and sailor is a firefighter. The Skipper of an Aircraft carrier has a tough job. He manages a nuclear reactor, is essentially mayor of a small town, and on top of that operates an airport that is as busy as many civilian airports. When the Captain fails to take proper safety precautions, his job gets alot tougher, oh and did I mention that if he makes the wrong decisions, people get killed? Not something many mayors have to deal with.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Mr. Phaserman

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Actually, parents are held accountable for their children's actions - not criminal but in civil actions such as releasing the emergency brake on the car and rolling into a neighbors house. So, if you have children you want to have good liability insurance.

[Odie 0]

I found out today that it was 2 sailors not one, which confessed that they did it. Charges have been bought against the two sailors. The executive officer also got fired. I was also right there is more to the story than what the Navy released to the public. I don't have the full story, but it is not good news at all and it is not surprising. The moral on the GW is really low right now.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Odie

[Gary Phaserman 0]

Call in 3 Doors Down to do another concert for them. I heard that went really well.