Talk:USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)

message: I see this page has been added to :Category:Acts of sabotage. Can we really call it that? I think of sabotage as usually having some sort of political motive, or at least to be aimed at more than just the thing being destroyed. So if the idea was to weaken the US Navy as a way to give some other nation an advantage, that would be sabotage. But if the guy who started the fire was just trying to get a few days off that would not be sabotage. Also the sailor has been charged but not convicted, so we don't even know for sure that it was arson. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the category. Without a quality source that explicitly characterizes the fire as an act of sabotage, I think the categorization violates WP:LABEL and WP:RS, arguably also WP:CRYSTAL. Carguychris (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I just realized  has the same problem. In fact the sailor who set that fire explicitly said it was so he could get out of work early. GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabotage 

message: Long Chain of Failures Left Sailors Unprepared to Fight USS Bonhomme Richard Fire, Investigation Finds (dropping new ref here for anyone interested in using it to expand the article) Schazjmd (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this definitely needs to be included.—ukexpat (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report on fire 

message: "A Navy report published in 2021 lists numerous deficiencies in leadership, firefighting training and equipment that contributed to the loss of the ship."
Yeah, that could be extended a bit and not given as a single, last sentence. Here are some statements just to illustrate the extend of the snafu:
''
    In addition to poorly run and deficient drills, many of the ship’s crew had not donned Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) in over a year, did not know how to use or activate Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) or halogenated hydrocarbon (Halon) firefighting systems, and were unaware of where to locate and use Emergency Escape Breathing Apparatus (EEBA).
...
    There was no “map of the ship” (Fire Control Plan as required by IMO SOLAS convention) available to shoreside firefighters when they arrived at Pier 2 at the San Diego Navy Base to assist in the firefighting effort. And there were no fire standpipes on the pier to supply firefighting water.
...
    Mismatched hose threads, lack of compatible radios and common frequencies, inability to locate the fire, inability to provide firefighting water, no SCBA refilling capability, portable pumps inoperable, dead batteries in equipment, inability to accurately account for all crew, inability to take correct draft readings (required for stability calculations), not accounting for free surface effect, and a “leadership vacuum”. These are just a few of the issues identified in the US Navy’s report.''
Those are based on the official report and can be found at https://g c a p t a i n.com/fire-fire-fire-how-navy-failures-destroyed-the-uss-bonhomme-richard/ (no idea why that site is blacklisted by WP, didn't expect it when I wrote all this, now just want to save)... I do believe that this is more than enough to justify some pointing out. Stating the truth is not soiling the valor of the fire fighting nor the history of the vessel. JB. --92.195.107.254 (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of details in the source used in the article, feel free to expand that portion based on the source. Schazjmd (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hush hush ?