Celtic League: Sub Incident Exercise was Safe Say Royal Navy

- Rapport -

The Royal Navy has responded to concerns from the Celtic League following an incident during the "Joint Warrior 091" exercise in May when a Fishing Vessel was involved in an

Cathal Ó Luain Par Celtic League le 10/07/09 10:04

The Royal Navy has responded to concerns from the Celtic League following an incident during the "Joint Warrior 091" exercise in May when a Fishing Vessel was involved in an incident with a submarine.

The Commander Operations and Rear Admiral Submarines (RN) insists that the operations did observe standards set by the International Maritime Organisation which are aimed at ensuring safety. He also confirms that the submarine involved was French and also that a French Maritime Patrol Aircraft was involved (The Celtic League are aware that a number of Bregeut Atlantic aircraft of the Aeronavale were operating from Kinloss for the duration of the exercise).

The Royal Navy also refer to the loss of the Breton trawler Bugaled Breizh during a similar naval exercise some years ago. They reiterate their stated position that the vessel was not involved in a collision with a submarine although submarines were involved in the exercise at the time.

Many people in Brittany are sceptical of these denials and believe the Bugaled Breizh was lost with all her crew following an accident involving a submarine.

The full text of the Royal Navy letter is set out below:

From:

"Commander Operations & Rear Admiral Submarines Room 1.11 Maritime Operations Centre Northwood Headquarters Sandy Lane NORTHWOOD Middlesex HA6 3HP

25 June 2009

Dear Mr Moffatt

Thank you for your letter of 24 May 09 regarding an incident involving a FV during Exercise Joint Warrior 091. The Commander-in-Chief has asked me to reply because I have Operational responsibility for the safe conduct of UK Maritime exercises, such as JOINT WARRIOR.

The circumstances of this case have been investigated by my staff and I can provide you with assurance as follows:

IMO Resolution A709 reflects the MoD safety processes laid down in the Code of Practice - agreed between the MoD and the Fishing Industry (revised 1999) - and contained within the MoD Reference publication — Fleet Publication (FPN) 095 (Fishing Vessel Safety). These processes to ensure mutual safety, having been pioneered by the Royal Navy, in close cooperation with the Fishing Industry, and have successfully been adopted by our NATO Allies (and others world-wide) in their submarine exercises and training processes.

The rules in FPN 095 were strictly applied during the planning and conduct of the exercise: with printed briefings to Fishermen and safety guidance to all exercise participants; SUBFACTS broadcasts on VHF and GMDSS by HM Coastguard; Fishing Vessel Safety Ships detailed for each phase of the exercise and all submarines briefed on the rules in force and the mandated safety separation.

As a result of all this, MFV Silver Cloud II was contacted by an Italian Warship, acting as the Fishing Vessel Safety Ship, when it was estimated that the FV might be closing to within 6,000 yards of a dived French Submarine. This was based on a datum from a French MPA, which had held brief RADAR contact on the Submarine some 30 minutes earlier, whilst the submarine had been at Periscope depth.

The submarine had returned to periscope depth at that time because she had detected a FV on SONAR. In accordance with FPNO95 she conducted a visual search (visibility of the order of 5,000 yards), but saw no sign of the contact. Because of this, she stopped her exercise activity, placed the contact astern of her and opened range to ensure their could be no compromise of the safety rules in place. At no stage was the submarine within 4,000 yards of the FV (a range agreed with the Fishing industry) at which the submarine must remain at Periscope depth to ensure visual contact and to avoid collision, nor within 1,500 yards, at which point the submarine would have surfaced to comply with the safety rules.

Based on the safety situation as perceived by the Italian Warship, in which the FV was nearing the warning circle of 6,000 yards (derived to give the SM warning before the FV reaches the safety circle at 4,000 yards) the ship transmitted a warning to the submarine via Underwater Communications. She also advised the FV that she was nearing a Submarine involved in an exercise. At the request of the warship, the Silver Cloud altered course, during which her nets caught on the sea bed briefly and were damaged. A claim for compensation has been submitted in accordance with well established procedures and this claim is being progressed with the staff of Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland.

All of these measures, based on the Code of Practice, comply with IMO Resolution A709. The observance of these measures is fundamental to the Royal Navy in conducting its peace-time training and operations, world-wide.

With regard to your final paragraph, I can state that the answers given in parliamentary questions and the evidence gathered by the Royal Navy Special Investigation Branch and submitted to the French Justice holding an Inquiry into the tragic loss of the Bugaled Breizh in January 2004, confirms that there was no dived submarine operating within 130 nautical miles of the FV; and that the only Submarine in the area was surfaced at the time some 11 nautical miles South East of the datum. That submarine responded immediately to the relayed MAYDAY call from HM Coastguard to join the Search and Rescue operation. Her presence as part of the rescue force was noted by vessels on scene, who, like her had responded as any mariner would; although this probably led to the misunderstanding that a submarine was involved in the incident within some elements of the Media. To ensure you have the correct timeline of events, I also confirm that the exercise you refer to did not commence until the following day and took place 120 nautical miles to the West of the position.

The Royal Navy controls all submarine activity around the UK very closely and no submarine can operate surfaced or dived in these waters without approval from my Headquarters. Indeed, I also hold the NATO responsibility for submarine movements in the NE Atlantic area. Within the Scottish and South Coast exercise areas a system of SUBFACTS broadcasts informs fishermen of which areas have submarines operating dived within them. At the time of the loss of the Breton FV, inside the South coast Exercise Areas, there was no dived activity taking place in UK exercise areas on the South Coast.

I trust this response will assure your organisation that the Royal Navy takes its responsibility for safety at sea very seriously indeed. The Royal Navy continually seeks ways of improving safety, and its Liaison Officer meets regularly with all representatives of the UK Fishing Industry to ensure these matters are openly discussed, are agreed and are familiar to all.

M ANDERSON Rear Admiral Commander (Operations)

Copy to:

The Secretary General International Maritime Organisation"

Put your name here

ABP

Publish

Nous suivre