PDA

View Full Version : Death and Disaster: The RAN Accident Prone?


kookaburra
23-08-2009, 04:37
I fear some may not entirely thank me for posting this, but it's a little cursory reseach I was doing for something else, and thought I would share it for discussion.


In the decades after WW11 the RAN began to acquire a reputation as a somewhat mishap-prone Navy, with a litany of fatal and/or serious accidents culminating in the February 10, 1964 collision between HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Voyager - the Navy's worst peacetime disaster.


The press began to do some adding up, and it became a broader public perception.

Was it fair? Operating high performance military equipment, simulating war and testing ships and aircraft their limits, always involves risk. In the scale of total naval operations, I'm not sure it is that unusual compared to experience elsewhere ... but here's a preliminary list of fatal and serious RAN accidents to ponder:


* Sept 13, 1947: Minesweeper corvette HMAS Warrnambool lost in minesweeping operations near Cockburn Reef north of Cairns Queensland. Four lives lost.

* Jan 25, 1950: HMAS Tarakan, LST refrigeration unit gas explosion and fire alongside at Garden Island. Eight lives lost.

* Sept 1960: Destroyer HMAS Tobruk holed by sister ship Anzac in mis-directed gunnery exercise. No casulaties but Tobruk's operational life foreshortened.

* Oct 11, 1960: HMAS Woomera, sunk by explosion and fire while dumping obsolete ammunition at sea off Sydney. Caused by ignition of an obsolete aircraft flare. Two lives lost.

* Oct 22-25, 1963: Midshipmen from carrier HMAS Sydney lost in a whaleboat exercise when bad weather struck, and - ignoring local advice -a search went in the wrong direction. Four lives lost.


* Feb 10 1964, the Melbourne- Voyager collision. 82 lives lost.


* Numerous aircraft lost in carrier operations, a fact of life taken as a given in inherently risky operations, but not assisted by a mid-air collision of two sea venom jets over Sydney Harbour c1961 during a public flying demonstration.

It may have been press talk, and I've never seen an actual statistical comparison, but for a time Australian newspapers began to talk of the RAN as - hull-for-hull - the world's most accident-prone Navy. After Voyager [and excluding the 1974 Melbourne-USS Evans collision, the USN ship's error] the bad luck mercifully abated. But it still re-appeared occasionally.

*Dec 14, 1981: An Army cadet died aboard the then recently commissioned Landing Ship Heavy HMAS Tobruk [11] in another sullage gases leak.

*October 22, 1985: Escort maintenance ship HMAS Stalwart 11 suffered a sullage gases leak 200 miles out of Darwin. Three lives lost, 60 hospitalized.

*May 5, 1998: Engineroom fire aboard the amphibious warfare ship HMAS Westralia [11]. Four lives lost.

This is not comprehensive, but I think it covers the main and best-known incidents. I would be interested to hear if other Navy forumers find this level of incidence over 51 years [Warrnambool 1947 to Westralia, 1998] particularly striking or unusual - accepting, of course, that Voyager's loss was a major tragedy, and that the Melbourne-Evans collision heightened Melbourne's 'jinx ship' reputation, although the carrier was not at fault.


Excluding aicraft crew losses, of which there were a number, this list appears to indicate at least 109 peacetime deaths in
eight major RAN postwar naval incidents, 1947-1998, again, dominated by Voyager's loss. I am aware, however, from passing references that there have been other single-life losses in various accidents, but for which I don't have the details.

Blaydon
23-08-2009, 11:17
That does not seem to be a particularly bad run of things to me. I would think that they would be roughly comparable to any naval force over the same period.

astraltrader
23-08-2009, 14:59
I would think you are way off with that assertion!!

Blaydon
23-08-2009, 15:13
Have you looked at the casualty lists for the RN postwar? Plenty of accidental deaths including for example a torpedo explosion on HMS/m Sidon in 1955 which killed 13.

astraltrader
23-08-2009, 15:26
Yes I have and whilst I agree that their record would not be far behind the total "mishaps" listed by Jeff for the RAN, when one takes into account that the size of the RN in this period was on average over 6 times larger [sadly not the case today:(] then your argument does not really stack up!
Even more so your assertion that ANY navy would have a comparable record!!!

I too have read similar comments to the ones mentioned by Jeff - where the RAN has been cited as the most accident prone navy - related to the number of ships-incidents ratio.

Whether that is a fair criticism or not can only be answered IMHO by taking into account how many of these incidents were down to negligence or "bad luck!"

Blaydon
23-08-2009, 15:43
I think if you removed the Melbourne colission it would not look as bad at all, and accidents can never be eliminated so I would think they may have been unlucky.

astraltrader
23-08-2009, 16:09
I agree with you there Kevin. Despite having a bad record in terms of number of incidents a lot of them have seemed to be down to bad luck.

Maybe the RAN`s unfortunate tag as the most accident-prone navy should be changed to the unluckiest instead??

kookaburra
23-08-2009, 19:14
I agree with you there Kevin. Despite having a bad record in terms of number of incidents a lot of them have seemed to be down to bad luck.

Maybe the RAN`s unfortunate tag as the most accident-prone navy should be changed to the unluckiest instead??

Gents, not being defensive about this - after all I raised it -but perhaps I should make the point that four of the eight incidents on my list appear to have been the result of shipyard and equipment problems rather than human error aboard : namely the gas events on Tarakan [faulty refrigeration unit], Stalwart 11 [stern gland], and Tobruk 11 [some kind of gas condenser from memory] , and the fire on Westralia [ruptured fuel line].

In the case of the Tobruk incident, again from memory, the Navy had been reluctant to accept the ship from the builders as there were signs of gas problems during trials, and the RAN appears to have eventually come under some pressure to accept her although still not totally satisfied. That said, the Auditor-General's Report criticised the Navy for accepting the ship too early, before its gas emission problems were known to have been resolved [which, clearly, they weren't].

A fifth case on the list, the 1947 loss of Warrnambool to a WW11 mine [one of ours, in a defensive field layed by Bungaree] might also be considered a wartime type of situation, as the ship was involved in an inherently dangerous mission. Along with the four killed, 29 were injured, including her commanding officer, Commander A.J. Travers.

Nonetheless, coming across all these incidents - which caused me to to start adding them up eventually - I did come to think that there appear to have been a few too many. In the case of the explosion on Woomera, her CO was court martialled for allowing old aircraft flares to be among the mix on munitions being dumped at sea. I think he was cleared.

Anyway, just some additional info, for what its worth.

astraltrader
23-08-2009, 19:24
Surely that was my whole point Jeff? From the point of view of the RAN ships and crew it was not their fault that these faults that you mentioned happened.
Therefore they were unlucky.

Guz rating
15-10-2009, 14:44
I agree with Terry the RAN was just unlucky, I served in both armed forces the RN, and the Australian Army. The quality of the men was the same, some operations went like clockwork others having to make do because needed equipment had arrived. But that's life and we just got on with it, except when someone deliberately put our lives at risk. Thankfully this did not happen to often.

Alan.

Bear
16-10-2009, 06:35
Interesting thought, Kookaburra. Got me thinking about the near-misses as well.
It was occasionally the case that the RAN accepted ships from dockyard hands that were not fit to go to sea. Political pressure from the opposition in parliament was sometimes the factor in ships going out badly prepared. I well recall HMAS Yarra in 1969 and the series of engine failures we had over half the world. We were way over in our refit time and went to sea after the opposition began asking questions. Our gunnery system was not working properly either and we went to Vietnam in that state. I later heard, can't reference this, that the gunnery system was sabotaged at Williamstown while the ship was in refit.
Derwent was commissioned with the air-conditioning in the after part of the ship not working--yes, okay, I can all hear all the old salts groaning "air conditioning....???", my first two weren't air-conditioned either, but remember, these ships had no other ventilation. To live in the after part of Derwent was an absolute nightmare anywhere and double so in the tropics.
I'm a bit off topic, sorry. Is the RAN more accident prone than any other navy? I doubt that it is the case. Check out the rate of accidents in the USN or the Russian navy. I'm pretty sure they would put us in the shade despite the difference in size. Service deaths are a fact of life--if you'll excuse that juxtaposition. The military is a dangerous way of life. With ships charging around blacked out in exercises, there is always the risk that human error will crop up.
Woomera's loss was considered by the Naval Board as the RANs last wartime loss because of the work she was doing, although the four blokes lost were not added to the roll of honour. Voyager was a dreadful blunder, but by no means the first or last time an Australian destroyer cut across Melbourne's bows. The Westralia was a dodgy equipment supply problem.
The aircraft collision in 1961 didn't result in a death from memory. One pilot bailed out and the other managed to land his damaged aircraft. I was in one of the boats that raced out to try to save the bloke that parachuted, but someone else beat my boat to it by a considerable margin.
Where did you get your information on the Woomera from?

kookaburra
19-10-2009, 15:47
Another interesting response Bear,Thanks.You raise another interesting topic,which causes me to wonder sometimes - that is,the amount petty sabotage that may have gone on against Navy ships on the Australian waterfront in past years,when it was such an ideological battleground.

Regarding the Woomera incident and sources, I'll have to come back to you on that. I'm away from my sources at the moment.This message is in fact coming from a hotel lobby outside Petra, Jordan. I do recall that I tracked down several newspaper articles on the two courts martial faced by Woomera's CO, one of which went into some detail about the way the obsolete aircraft flares were being handled loose on trays and perhaps mixed with other obsolete ammo.They also had strings and bits of parachute cord attached from memory.

Forget where I read that the men in the water were attacked by albatrosses,too. Maybe the Bastock book, but as I say I'll look again when I get home - 3 weeks. Cheers K.

Rushy
25-10-2009, 20:21
I tend to agree with Bear regards political pressure being used, I think a fairer way of addressing incidents would be to classify according to reasons ie, mechanical/electrical failure due to fair, wear and use, failure due to incorrect design, manufacture or installation, human error; lack of training or not following SOP's. From an ex sailor point of view whether the incident was as the result of uniformed personnel or civilians, in many cases as I am sure you are all aware a lot of dockyard workers appeared not to give a damn about the quality of their work. How many times have you sailed from a maintainence period with many minor and sometimes major faults onboard, the fuel lines on the Westralia for instance. .

Cheers

Rushy

Jackaroo
01-11-2009, 10:29
The RAN Accident Prone?

Nah, just ask the then captain of HMAS Perth when he went into Hobart.:eek:

Maybe a wee touch of the Navy Lark :rolleyes:


Cheers
Jack :cool:

Rushy
01-11-2009, 22:01
Jack, they did put the welcome sign out for them

Cheers

Rushy

Bear
08-11-2009, 05:26
I made a silly mistake in post 11 above when I wrote:
'Woomera's loss was considered by the Naval Board as the RANs last wartime loss because of the work she was doing...'
I meant HMAS Warrnambool.

Don Boyer
12-11-2009, 18:40
In the US Navy there have been some articles re bad ship driving among captains of US vessels of late. We are not teaching seamanship and ship handling as well as in the past according to some harsh articles in USNI Proceedings, prompted by the Greeneville and St. Louis come to mind for deaths, proven bad judgement and the ruining of careers. I remember when I was on an aircraft carrier we would lose at least one person every cruise because the work was so inherently dangerous, not because of any operational inherent incompetence. Just the nature of the game. Seamanship is a demanding and dangerous business, the sea an unforgiving environment. I don't think the RAN has a black cloud over it -- quite the contrary.