The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-18

Careiessness Declared 10 ne Inexpensive
for Most Accidents 90 Them.

There have been In recent years hve cases
| OF the accidental sinking OF a ubmarine
vessel. In each case there was loss OF NE.
The list includes the English boats Al
and AS, the French boats Farfadet and
Lutin, and the Russian boat Dolphin.
These Eve accidents are analysed In
Hdrpsr's Weekly by Lawrence Y. Spear
lately Naval Constructor, U. >. N, to de-
termine whether the cause Of trouble was
inherent in the submarine type OF a
and 10 without remedy. =.
In the case Of the Dolphin, an unusual
number of men were in the boat the
! ballast tanks were flooded with the hatch
! omen, Very naturally the boat nlled
! through the hatch and sank.
Comment on such gross and almost un-
believable incompetence and folly 10 I'M
necessary. No provision OF design can
ever forestall such an accident and the case
may be dismissed without further discus
sion.
The sinking OF the Fsrfadet was m
what similar. The boat was apparently
prepared to dive or diving. when 1t was
discovered that a hatch had been I'M
properly shut and was leaking.
In some unexplained manner the crew
while attempting to close 1t fully opened 1t
instead. and the vessel partially filed and
sank. This was a very distressing case,
az IL appears that the crew Lived for many
hours after the occurrence, having sue
ceeded in limiting the flow Of water.
The amount taken in, however. was
sufficient to overcome the ~buoyancy due
to the drop weights and OF the ballast
tanks, which In this particular vessel were
OF smaller capacity than is nov considered
good practice. This particular instance,
then. was primarily due to a combination Of
possible carelessness with a badly designed
hatch, and as a proper hatch design is a
simple matter. there would appear to be no
reason to fear the repetition OF such an
accident.
while running at a high speed under abnor-
NAL conditions was driven under with an
open hatch, which the crew did not succeed
in closing in time to prevent the catastrophe.
The evidence before the court OF inquiry
shows clearly that the boat was in an alb
normal condition with regard to her buoy
sncy, and indicates, moreover, that this was
even less than the commanding officer
thought.
Under the circumstances, with this par
ticulsr design Of hatch, prudence should
have suggested the closing OF the hatch
which need not necessarily have been open.
in which case the catastrophe would not
have happened.
Remembering this and remembering also
that he condition was an abnormal and
unnecessary one and not contemplated
in the design, it is certain that this case
does not reveal any usual and necessary
danger, and the accident must therefore
be classed with the preceding ones.
In the case Of the English Al. the top Of
the coming tower was struck by a steamer.
the collision resulting in leakage through
the hatch, which was sprung open, but
otherwise in no serious damage to the
structure. However, after the collision,
the boat travelled the whole lenoth under
the ship, during which time sufficient water
had leaked in to sink her, though IL is by
no means certain that the leak was Of suf-
ficint dimensions to sink the vessel in case
all Of her water ballast had been immedi-
ately elected. This apparently was not
done, n the cause remains n mystery.
The generally accepted theory that the
whole crew were rendered momentarily
unconscious by the shock of collision hardly
seems tenable. At any rate, this sad &C
oident clearly indicated the necessity for
the automatic appliances previously re-
ferred to.
1t also pointed out the d~esirability OF a
second modification now generally carried
out, namely the fitting of a water tight hatch
between the tower and the body Of the
boat. So far as it is possible to tell now,
Al would not have been sunk had she
been provided with these two features.
Therefore, it is legitimate TO say that,
as things now stand, this particular case
does not revea any inherent and unavoid-
able danger Nevertheless, the broad
cause Of this disaster, collision involv-
ing the upper part OF the submarine. il the
most serious danger to be avoided in prac-
tice, and will consequently be reverted to
below.
In the last case, the Lutin, detailed in
formation is lack ing TO enable any mature
OPINION to be expressed. Press desr atchee
indicate that the vessel, having previously
made two successful dives, plunged for the
third time, after which no sight of her
was had except a momentary glimpse of
her bow.
The divers reports show that she sank
in about ilS feet of water, and further
that The coming tower hatch was oren
and the interior full OF water, and all OF the
drop weights in place except one, which
had been def ached. IL is stated that the
official commission reports the disaster as
being due to a large leak In the stern.
This explanation is hardly tenable, as
there is no evidence OF collision and no
adeuuate cause can be IMAGINED which
would produce a leak Of such dimensions
as TO overcome the ability OF the air system
and pumps At present little mora can he
said about this sad case than that ID illus
trates very well one OF the objections TO
drop wei0hts, that IL, their unreIiabilitv
and that the fact that the coming tower
was found open " very insignificant.
Summing up, then. We may Il, itimatsIy
say that one of the accidents occurred
from causes a. yet not clearly understood
and that the other four were due TO causes
in no way inherent in sub rarine boats.
And further, that three out Of the Gonr
accidents never should have happened at
all TO the boats in question. and that, while
the fourth accident arose from n real
danger TO which all submarines are sub
ject, the fatal results might have been
avoided with two comparatively sliqht
changes in construction now clearly under
stood.
From all OF the foregoing il sbo,Id he
plain that the principal source of danger
to a submarine lies in collision with other
craft. 1t would, however. be far from the
truth to assume that such a collision in
evitably involves grave results TO the sub
marine. for there are at least eight an
thentic cases known TO the writer where a
submarine has beer in collision without
any material damage and these cases sho1Id
be set against the one case of the Al
Nevertheless, IL Is the duty OF the oom-
handing officer to exercise the graafast
caution in this one raanaCt and 10