Even more info from CBC
GLASGOW (CP) - One of the chief refitters of HMCS Chicoutimi said the submarine had a revamped electrical system and was in prime condition when it was handed over to the Canadians three days before an electrical fire crippled the vessel and killed a crew member.
"There was nothing wrong with the boat," Ken Collins, who managed logistics on the warship's refit for BAE Systems, said from his home in Barrow-in-Furness in southern Scotland.
After 10 years in mothballs, wires and circuit boxes that needed to be replaced "were replaced with brand-new equipment," he added.
And new cables were installed where the Canadians replaced British equipment with their own.
The warship was kept in show-room condition during the years it sat along a dock in southern England, said Collins, who disputes Canadian and British media reports that the refit was a logistical nightmare.
"Power to the boat was kept on all of the time in case someone was interested in looking at her," he said.
Some of warship's parts were cannabalized in order to get its sister ships up and running.
But in its former incarnation as HMS Upholder, the Chicoutimi was known to have a variety of electrical problems.
One famous incident saw the crew slam the engines into reverse during underwater sea trials only to lose all power.
The ship's diesel engines were originally designed for use in railway locomotives, and were not intended to be rapidly stopped and started, the Royal Navy concluded.
The submarine, which was designed to be highly automated, also suffered from spontaneous flooding in what's called the forward torpedo room.
Collins said all of the flaws were corrected.
And the former Royal Navy submariner had a theory on what might have happened aboard the Chicoutimi.
In order to cause the kind of fire that befell the sub, he said, an electrical panel box would needed to have been left open at the precise instant sea water came splashing down the decks of the submarine.
Another veteran Royal Navy engineer, who sailed on the vessel when it was still the Upholder, agreed.
The electrical panel box could have either been active, causing a fire instantly, or the water could have hit a dead box that short-circuited the moment it was re-energized, said Ron Hiseman, 49.
"If the box was off, once they hit the switch, she could've gone bang," said the 24-year naval veteran who also oversaw the construction of the boat.
Marine engineers have suggested another possible cause for the kind of short circuit and fire, which crippled the boat north of Ireland on Oct. 5, would be a massive number of loose connections - or grounded faults.
The navy said Thursday in Ottawa that water did seep into the vessel as it plowed through rough seas.
But the military refused to draw a link between the highly conductive sea water and the electrical fire.
Crew members have described the accident that killed Lieut. Chris Saunders as a "one-in-ten-million shot," and some have described a chain reaction of events that preceded the fire. But they have also vehemently denied human error played any part in the tragedy.
Collins said submarines are designed to get wet and their electrical boxes are encased in a water-tight seal when they're closed.
"If you've got it open and water comes down, you've got a major catastrophe on your hands," said the mechanical engineer.
"The electrical panel would also need to be fully live."
At the time of the tragedy, sailors reported they were looking for a grounded electrical fault near the spot where the fire broke out on the lower deck.
It's not clear whether the damage-control party had any panels open - or whether they had inadvertently forgotten to close one as they searched.
Another mystery is whether they shut down power to each compartment as they hunted for the glitch.
Standard procedure, said Collins, would be to shut off the feed.
Collins, who knows some of the submarine's crew personally, dismissed the theory that there was any kind of cascade of loose electrical connections.
However, another marine engineer with 40 years' experience cautioned that the state of the wiring needs to be thoroughly checked by the ongoing board of inquiry.
"When vessels are alongside for as long as this one was, dampness sets in and there tends to be a deterioration of insulation," David Clark, president DC Maritime Technologies Inc. in Vancouver, said in a telephone interview.
The issue of the condition of the boat is a sore point in Britain, where the tragedy has caused a lot of hand-wringing in the shipbuilding community.
It's also a political flashpoint for the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair since it's been suggested Canada may sue over the $750 million lease-to-purchase submarine program, which has been plagued with myriad glitches.
A finding of crew error by a military board of inquiry would also take the heat off Ottawa and the suggestion by the Opposition Converatives that the Liberal government is sending sailors to sea in unsafe vessels.
A crucial element in answering the question of whether human error or workmanship is to blame will addressed on the fine point of whether the crew had one or two hatches open while the submarine was running on the surface in five-metre swells.
Crew members have described how the boat was hit by "a huge rogue wave," which allowed water to seep down into the control room.
It's been suggested the water in the control room was ankle deep - too much for the ship's drains to carry to the bilge tanks.
Some of the water is reported to have cascaded down to the lower deck.
Running on the surface with conning tower hatches open is not unusual, even in rough seas, some crew members say.
But Collins, who spent decades in Royal Navy conventional and nuclear submarines, said that being on the surface, in rough weather, with two hatches open "is not good submarine practice."
Take note of the bold text. If it comes out in the inquiry that the open hatches led to the fire, hopefully the CO will lose his command and career. There is no excuse in the world adequate to jeapordize the lives of your men.
