Military Review

Passion on "Nerpe"

80
Passions continue to seethe around the tragedy that happened in the Sea of ​​Japan 8 January 2008 of the year. Recall that on that day 20 people were killed aboard the nuclear submarine Nerpa and 21 were hospitalized with a diagnosis of "poisoning" due to the abnormal response of the fire extinguishing system and the release of a mixture of freon and tetrachlorethylene. Of the twenty dead, the 17 are members of the so-called receiving and receiving team, who together with the crew participated in a kind of run-in of the nuclear submarine cruiser. There were a total of 8 people on the 2008 submarine of January 201 of the year.




According to the results of the investigation, the prosecutor's office decided to charge the “Nerpa” captain Dmitry Lavrentiev (the captain of 1 rank) and foreman Dmitry Grobov. According to the investigators, it was the foreman Grobov who decided to press the fire button without authorization in order to suspect the watchman in such a strange way. Why Coffins could not take advantage of more adequate situations for the situation, and what generally led him to take this fatal step, the investigation and the prosecutor's office did not explain.

Captain 1 of rank Lavrentyev was accused of bringing an untrained crew to the test boat, in which, apparently, the most unprepared crew was identified as the foreman (bilge driver) Grobov. Moreover, Dmitry Lavrentiev was also blamed for the fact that he himself allegedly acted unprofessionally during an emergency on the “Nerpa”.

Already these arguments alone raised numerous questions.

First, by what criteria did the investigating authorities determine the crew’s unpreparedness, and even assuming that such unpreparedness of individual crew members could manifest itself, then for what purpose did the experienced Dmitry Lavrentyev use the services of these people on the boat? After all, the nuclear submarine cruiser is, it seems, if it is not a private stall, where shawarma is offered, and its owner is free to choose cooks at his own discretion ... And, therefore, the crew - what was ...

Secondly, as far as the inexperienced foreman Grobov needed to be, in order not to take advantage of the regular communication systems that were on board, in order to bring the watchman to him, but instead, excuse me, cut in the fire extinguishing system. If you believe the arguments of the investigation, then it turns out that the Grabs with the same "success" could try to beckoning the watchman, hitting the elements of ammunition with a hammer (if there was one on the submarine at the time) ... Grobov himself during court sessions denied the fact that He pressed the fire extinguishing system trigger button on the submarine.

Thirdly, how it happened that the launch of the fire protection system occurred at the touch of a button. After all, if the developers have foreseen just such a version of the fire extinguishing system, then, it turns out, the boat was not completely insured from its operation: for example, a button could be pressed for fatal randomness - everything happens in a limited space when a large number of people gather.

Fourthly, if even the fire extinguishing system worked, then why all this led to victims in general. It turns out that freon was used in the system, as mentioned in one well-known film, “the wrong system.” After all, if the fire extinguishing substance was suitable, and in addition the entire system also worked in normal mode, then you need to ask questions already to the developers and tankers: and what - if any fire protection system fires, the chances of surviving the crew will tend to to zero. Well, what is the difference between this fire extinguishing system and how someone would just let the water inside the submarine ... Sorry, but the effect with the number of victims would probably be the same.
And if we assume that the technicians were “screwing up” at the factory, then why only members of the submarine’s crew were in the dock. No, it is, of course, clear that the captain of the vessel should be responsible for everything that happens on this vessel, but it is unlikely to be blamed for the fact that the manufacturers could not have fulfilled all the elementary requirements, which led to the tragedy .

Such inconsistencies clearly did not find an explanation at the regular court hearing on this strange case that took place the other day. The jury decided that the actions of the captain of the 1 rank Dmitry Lavrentyev and the foreman Dmitriy Grobov did not contain any corpus delicti, and an acquittal was pronounced on the two accused sailors. At the same time, it is reported that the experts had carefully analyzed the recording of events on the Nerpa submarine, captured by the registrar on that fateful day, and the same specialists did not determine non-professional actions on the part of the submarine team. This added confidence to the jury that neither Lavrentiev nor the Sepulcher were guilty of the tragedy.

As it later turned out, this was not the end of the Nerpa case. Naval prosecutors believe that if the jury were competent in technical matters, their verdict would be the opposite of that rendered. The prosecutor's office is confident that the objective conclusion of the tragedy by the jury did not allow for the “complexity of technical nuances”, and in addition the defense “deliberately distorted the facts”, thereby misleading the jurors. Based on this, the prosecutor's office intends to appeal the verdict on appeal.

It should be noted that the acquittal verdict against Lavrentyev and Grobov is not passed for the first time. The first acquittal was announced a couple of years ago, and then the prosecuting authorities decided to appeal against it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overturned the acquittal verdict handed down by the jury and referred the case to a new trial. The defense and then petitioned that the case be tried in a jury trial. The petition was granted, which immediately discouraged the prosecutors. Obviously, they were counting on the fact that the second time the court would pass without the participation of jurors, which would give more chances to the prosecution, but had to again hear the acquittal.

I wonder how many more court sessions will the prosecutors need to put an end to this matter? Or everything moves to the fact that appeals against sentences will go up until Lavrentiev and the Graves still do not appear behind bars. If so, this will be another oddity of the justice system in our country ...

It is noteworthy that, in addition to indirectly accusing jurors of incompetence (and no one obliges them to be competent in the technical nuances of nuclear submarines), the Military Prosecutor's Office decided to let off steam, accusing journalists as well. According to military prosecutors, information has passed in a number of media outlets that is distinguished by bias and also complete incompetence. At the same time, the main controversy spun around the recording made on January 8 2008 onboard the Nerpa submarine. Military prosecutors say that this is an audio recording from the registrar of the submarine, and journalists say that it is still a video. Although there is no fundamental difference in this, because the video recording of the audio recorder itself is difficult to fully call video recording, but, nevertheless, it is still a video. And the quality of the recording is such that to argue about whether it is proof of the guilt of the captain "Nerpa" or is not actually meaningless ...

Whatever it was, but the situation with the accident on the "Nerpa" continues to be in a "flooded" state. The persons really guilty of the tragedy are not clearly identified.
Author:
80 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. atalef
    atalef April 29 2013 07: 47 New
    20
    and what - with any operation of the fire protection system, the chances of survival of the crew will tend to zero.

    Yes, unfortunately, the launch of the VOC in the compartments completely leads to the death of those not included in the emergency breathing system. A.t.c. there were extra people on board (and the same in the emergency compartment), then all did not have breathing equipment. Only members of the military staff assigned to this compartment are entitled to join the on-board breathing system. All the rest either rely on IDA (individual breathing apparatus), or on happiness (that the fire goes out in 20 minutes).
    It’s not realistic to survive in an atmosphere saturated with freon. The main task of Freon is to chemically bind oxygen and thereby prevent its access to the fire and the fire itself goes out. Of course, bound oxygen is not suitable for breathing. And when the VLF starts without warning as a result of an accident or error and the IDA is not dressed, then there is zero chance to survive, even in the case of early ventilation of the compartment.
    1. Z.A.M.
      Z.A.M. April 29 2013 10: 15 New
      +2
      atalef
      Thanks for the comment and clarification.
      Quote: atalef
      Yes, unfortunately, the launch of the VLC in the compartments completely leads to the death of those not included in the emergency system

      All the time I was interested only in this question. And of course, why there are no claims to the developers of this "fire extinguishing" system.
      Well, after all, this is nonsense, to have a similar system ... which, when triggered, suddenly kills the crew.
      Question: so on all submarines? And we and "them"?
      If so, then the submariners for me acquired an additional, and without it, status of SUPER heroes ... It seems that they, with all the dangers, were originally kamikaze ... soldier hi

      For a long time I am sure that being an astronaut, in comparison with a submariner, is approximately that of exercises and military operations. The cosmonauts did not want to offend.
      1. Delta
        Delta April 29 2013 10: 41 New
        +6
        Quote: Z.A.M.
        Well, after all, this is nonsense, to have a similar system ... which, when triggered, suddenly kills the crew.
        Question: so on all submarines? And we and "them"?

        this system kills those who do not have time to engage in emergency breathing equipment. There should not be an SUDDEN LOCH switch on (the case with the "Nerpa" is exceptional); in the event of a fire on the submarine, the personnel are warned about the use of this system over the public address system. Well, and most importantly, if even the entire personnel of one compartment die from the chemical fire extinguishing system, or the entire crew and boat die from the fire. Where is the lesser evil?
        1. Z.A.M.
          Z.A.M. April 29 2013 11: 25 New
          +1
          Quote: Delta
          in the event of a fire on a submarine by speakerphone, personnel are warned about using this system.

          I assumed that.
          Quote: Delta
          Where is the lesser evil?

          You're right. Of course, when the compartment.
          Therefore, I admire the courage of submariners.
          And with regard to the inclusion of this system, Grobov, in one of his last interviews, said that for activation it is necessary to enter a certain number of digits, a code. So, there is protection from the "fool". So?
          Who is in the know, clarify.
          1. atalef
            atalef April 29 2013 11: 54 New
            +3
            Quote: Z.A.M.
            And in relation to the inclusion of this system, Coffins, in one of the last interviews, said that for activation it is necessary to enter a certain number of digits, a code.

            These systems do not have the ability to start without a certain number of sequential operations (so that some kind of loshara doesn’t turn on the Loch by mistake)
            As a rule, this is either turning on a key (or two) or simultaneously pressing 2 buttons of remote drigs from a friend or dialing a code. But anyway, it didn’t open the protective cover and pressed the button.
            There is protection, but it should be at such a level that it would not interfere with the performance of its task in the event of a real accident
          2. navy33
            navy33 April 29 2013 21: 58 New
            +3
            in order to feed the Loch into the compartment, at least 2 valves must be opened, and only then open the valve with the compartment number. There is NO button.
          3. Old_kapitan
            Old_kapitan 1 May 2013 18: 03 New
            +1
            And with regard to the inclusion of this system, Grobov, in one of his last interviews, said that for activation it is necessary to enter a certain number of digits, a code. So, there is protection from the "fool". So?
            Who is in the know, clarify.

            I don’t know how on the Nerpa, on my boat it was necessary to open several valves in a strictly defined order and turn the main valve switch. This was done quickly, but absolutely eliminated the accidental start of the system.
      2. med262
        med262 April 29 2013 11: 08 New
        -1
        It seems that they, with all the dangers, were originally kamikaze ...

        but what do you think ... only in this case, rather "kaiten".
        1. Vovka levka
          Vovka levka April 29 2013 15: 38 New
          +1
          Instead of finding the reasons, they find the switchman. There wouldn’t be a jury sitting for a long time as nice, and everyone would report and be happy. And so until the next state of emergency.
          But submariners are courageous people and they know what they are going for. But they are doing their job.
          1. Scythian 35
            Scythian 35 April 29 2013 20: 38 New
            +2
            The case is sewn with white threads !!! Please tell me if Grobov denied his guilt, where did the investigators learn such an intimate detail-quote- "it was Sergeant Major Grobov who decided to press the fire button on his own in order to call the watchman to him in such a strange way." Or do telepathists work in the military prosecutor's office? And to be more precise, drunks who gobbled up to delirium tremens - I see no other explanation. It is high time to disperse the military prosecutor's office and tribunals - which do not reveal crimes in the army, but are covered up !!!
            1. Uncle
              Uncle April 30 2013 14: 07 New
              0
              Quote: Scythian 35
              it is the foreman of the coffins

              He said this himself immediately after the accident. The access code was written with a pen on the remote, oh said that he was just dabbling.
      3. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg April 29 2013 13: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Z.A.M.
        Well, after all, this is nonsense, to have a similar system ... which, when triggered, suddenly kills the crew.


        Not all. The compartment is insulated. Guaranteed to die those who were in the compartment, but in general the boat will survive and continue to fight. No one expects that in peacetime it will be necessary to extinguish fires in a boat.
        1. Andrey from Tver
          Andrey from Tver April 29 2013 14: 24 New
          +4
          Yes does not kill a sucker! In 1989, freon was applied twice to the emergency compartment on the 675 project, and there were either 2 or 3 conscripts there. And at least that. When an emergency occurs, they first switched on the remote control (portable breathing apparatus), and then switched to IDA-59 or IP-6. All remained alive, healthy, received leave. It is only necessary to take into account that at that time all the crews were fighting like sidor goats, skills development went to automatism. And for the unprepared civilians what demand from the commander. Yes, and before, in order to file a LOKH, it was necessary to open the operational valve to the compartment, and then move the crane by 180 degrees. And all this was sealed. This is not a button to press. Real protection against fools.
        2. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 1 May 2013 18: 08 New
          +1
          No one expects that in peacetime it will be necessary to extinguish fires in a boat.

          I will disappoint you - at home they burn not only during the war. Ships and boats are exactly the same. And no one is guaranteed to die, on the contrary, it is guaranteed to survive, and not burn alive. For this, it is enough small - to comply with BCF.
  2. zart_arn
    zart_arn April 29 2013 07: 57 New
    +4
    The most ridiculous precedent is to blame the design flaws of those who will operate this equipment. Definitely the fault of the designers who did not foresee the emergency alert, or the manufacturers who assembled this system (if any).
    Alas, I myself came across similar shoals, fortunately the equipment failed, and here people died ...
  3. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI April 29 2013 07: 58 New
    0
    There can be no complaints to the CAPTAIN in this case - the fire extinguishing design using freon is absurd.
    After all, there may be a situation where, even without human intervention, the fire extinguishing system will suddenly work and freon will still strangle people. You need to look for safer materials to extinguish the fire in such facilities.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado April 29 2013 11: 09 New
      -3
      in this case, the claim to the commander that he allowed the foreman to fulfill his duties, who (according to the investigation) pressed the coveted button
      1. atalef
        atalef April 29 2013 12: 01 New
        +3
        Quote: Mikado
        that he allowed the foreman, who (according to the investigation) pressed the coveted button, to fulfill his duties

        The foreman couldn’t launch it. Only the commander, the brigade officer, or the chief watch officer has access to launch. In general, as far as I know, LOX is launched only from the central post (correct me if there is a local inclusion for each compartment) Therefore, as a bilge could turn it on - it's a mystery to me. I think there was an elementary failure of the equipment, and the manufacturer does not want to pay compensation and brings down the captain and foreman
        1. Delta
          Delta April 29 2013 12: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: atalef
          As far as I know, Loch is launched only from the central post

          it’s possible to put it into your compartment and even into the next
          1. atalef
            atalef April 29 2013 12: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Delta
            it’s possible to put it into your compartment and even into the next

            I didn’t know thanks, although it should be logically. But in any case, a person cannot turn it on by mistake, but only after several consecutive actions
          2. Andrey from Tver
            Andrey from Tver April 29 2013 14: 35 New
            0
            I won’t tell you for all the projects, but where I saw it, the system is this: from the central post of the Loch it can be fed to all compartments, from the bow - at 1,2,3, from the stern at 4.
    2. atalef
      atalef April 29 2013 11: 56 New
      +3
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      There can be no complaints about the CAPTAIN in this case - the fire extinguishing design using freon is absurd

      The only one possible - in its efficiency, quenching speed and simplicity
      1. Delta
        Delta April 29 2013 12: 12 New
        0
        Quote: atalef
        The only one possible - in its efficiency, quenching speed and simplicity

        depending on what kind of fire. After all, they use an air-foam system. For example, to extinguish rocket fuel, the VOC is not used. Although, of course, Loch is most effective
        1. atalef
          atalef April 29 2013 12: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: Delta
          After all, they use an air-foam system. For example, to extinguish rocket fuel, the VOC is not used

          Well, of course, the presence of an oxidizing agent in rocket fuel deprives the VOC of its meaning - cutting off oxygen from fire.
          hi
          1. Andrey from Tver
            Andrey from Tver April 29 2013 14: 37 New
            0
            On 651 projects, there was an ESAP 3 Buki system - an electronic emergency fire extinguishing system - also using 114 B2 freon. Designed for use inside cruise missile containers.
    3. Corsair
      Corsair April 29 2013 13: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Lech from ZATULINKI
      There can be no complaints to the CAPTAIN in this case - the fire extinguishing design using freon is absurd.
      After all, there may be a situation where, even without human intervention, the fire extinguishing system will suddenly work and freon will still strangle people. You need to look for safer materials to extinguish the fire in such facilities.

      Moreover, under the influence of high temperatures, freon has a lousy property that will turn into phosgene, which in turn imposes some nuances on the use of LOX. But alternatives to the displacement (binding) of oxygen
      Yes, in the area of ​​combustion Alas, no. Quick and effective extinguishing of the fire in the 100% calculation provides only this method.
    4. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 29 2013 19: 29 New
      0
      Is it possible. When a powerful gas system spontaneously triggered on one of the serious objects, people evacuated through the windows (the doors could not cope with the flow, the jamb of the design), fortunately there were no casualties. There is a gas that leaves a person a chance, while extinguishing a fire, or rather a mixture - inergen. But it needs six times more to extinguish, respectively, it is six times more expensive, and the boat is non-rubber.
      And that's why she banged ... I would venture to guess. Either the subcontractor who made these systems was replaced at the plant, or the leading specialists were fired there. And rather the first thing - the idiotic one-button actuation system is often done on civilian objects. There must be at least two sensors to start, but the buttons ... In order not to kill people, gas systems in civilian life are usually left ... a little disassembled! Often they even remove the cylinder locks pyrotechnics. The set of code as a starting system in civilian airbag is not required, therefore it is not used.
      So the fire extinguishing system on the nuclear submarine, it seems, was made by people who harp them for small server rooms. It did not even enter their heads that the military would assemble their coseporin according to the instructions. Kroilovo leads to a popalov, cheap "specialists" allowed someone to steal it well. They also killed people. And now this someone is trying with all his might to imprison the innocent, so as not to answer himself. But to find who is so greedy is a piece of cake ...
    5. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 1 May 2013 18: 16 New
      0
      There can be no complaints to the CAPTAIN in this case - the fire extinguishing design using freon is absurd.
      After all, there may be a situation where, even without human intervention, the fire extinguishing system will suddenly work and freon will still strangle people. You need to look for safer materials to extinguish the fire in such objects.

      First, not the captain, but the commander. Secondly, this "absurd" system has been operating for more than a dozen years, and before that ill-fated day saved more than a dozen lives. Unfortunately, it is not yet possible to create a different way of dealing with volumetric fires other than by binding the oxygen supporting the fire. And man, like fire, alas, cannot live without oxygen.
    6. sir.jonn
      sir.jonn 2 May 2013 22: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Lech s ZATULINKI
      .Need to look for safer materials to extinguish the fire in such facilities.

      Like it or not, and the fire burns the same as we breathe.
      The boat also has safe fire extinguishing systems such as IDPs, but the personnel of the compartment work with them. LOC is renamed in the absence of L / C in the emergency compartment or the threat of death of submarines. Unfortunately, all known radical fire extinguishing methods are no less safe, but apply including the civilian sector.
  4. Apollo
    Apollo April 29 2013 08: 10 New
    +3
    quote-I wonder how many more court sessions the prosecutors will need to put an end to this case? Or everything is moving towards the fact that appeals of sentences will continue until Lavrentyev and Grobov are still imprisoned. If so, then this will be another strangeness of the justice system in our country ...

    complement info

    The acquittal was drawn up on the basis of a jury verdict. From the moment of its announcement, Lavrentiev and Grobov have been officially recognized not guilty of the charges against them and will remain in that status if he is not appealed by the prosecutor's office within ten working days from the date of the sentence.
    According to defense spokesman Sergei Bondar, lawyers are hoping that the prosecutor’s office will not file an appeal or cassation appeal against the sentence handed down by the judge. “This is the second time the jury has justified Lavrentiev and Grobov. In my opinion, this can already be stopped, or a very unpleasant impression will be created that the prosecutor’s office simply does not trust the people whom it selects for the jury. ”- said Cooper.
    Earlier, a representative of the military prosecutor's office said that the prosecution did not agree with the acquittal of the jury. According to him, the jury did not understand all the nuances of the criminal case and were confused by the actions of the defense. In this regard, the prosecution announced its intention to appeal the verdict. The last day of appeal against the verdict is May 15.
    more details http://www.vz.ru/news/2013/4/29/630722.html

    The question begs, who prevented the prosecutor's office from helping the jury to figure out and unravel the actions of the defense.?! winked
    1. Kaa
      Kaa April 29 2013 09: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: Apollon
      the jury did not understand all the nuances of the criminal case and were confused by the actions of the defense.
      Legal nonsense, it has always been the task of the defense - to counterbalance the accusation in ANY legal way. It turns out that the "prosecutors" are incompetent? Or someone very big REALLY needs to be charged with, well, I don’t know, in design defects, as freon (and there are a lot of confusion)? Well, the legal profession - offset, the prosecutors - stars will fly, but the point in the absurdity must be put!
      1. Mikado
        Mikado April 29 2013 11: 15 New
        0
        Here, the mess in our courts also plays the role. Previously, at least the judges were military men at the tribunal, Serdyukov decided to remove it and make the judges civil, it is now unclear whether the tribunals remained at all or whether the military are tried by courts of general jurisdiction. In America, all members of the tribunal are military people, including jurors and lawyers.
  5. fenix57
    fenix57 April 29 2013 08: 19 New
    +1
    The jury rendered a Verdict of Verdict.
    " The Pacific Fleet Military Court passed an acquittal to Captain First Rank Dmitry Lavrentyev and bilge engineer Sergeant Dmitry Grobov, who were accused of an accident on the Nerpa nuclear submarine. According to RIA Novosti, the court made such a decision on the basis of a jury verdict issued on April 26, which unanimously recognized Lavrentiev and Grobov as not guilty of the accident." see http://www.bfm.ru/news/215046 hi
    1. Apollo
      Apollo April 29 2013 09: 03 New
      0
      "The accident at the nuclear submarine" Nerpa ": who is to blame?". Part 1

      1. Apollo
        Apollo April 29 2013 09: 05 New
        0
        continued part of 2
        [media = [media = http: //www.youtube.com/watch? v = W6BcHrcvd0w]]
      2. Apollo
        Apollo April 29 2013 09: 08 New
        0
        part 2-I continued

        1. Apollo
          Apollo April 29 2013 09: 10 New
          0
          part 3-I continued

          1. Apollo
            Apollo April 29 2013 09: 11 New
            0
            part 4-I ending

  6. Apollo
    Apollo April 29 2013 09: 01 New
    0
    "The accident at the nuclear submarine" Nerpa ": who is to blame?". Part 1,2,3, 4, XNUMX and XNUMXth

    [media = youtube.com / watch? v = VW-jtGOUur0]

    [media = youtube.com / watch? v = W6BcHrcvd0w]

    [media = youtube.com / watch? v = GX4Pn0ivPPo]

    [media = youtube.com / watch? v = _1eMKWy-6h4]
  7. Katani
    Katani April 29 2013 09: 02 New
    +3
    Unfortunately, prosecutors very often try to compensate for their incompetence with such "calls" - to appeal, appeal, and so on until they cut through. And who needs to draw conclusions on such incompetent actions on the part of lawyers for some reason are silent.
    1. ABV
      ABV April 29 2013 16: 18 New
      +1
      that's it! What then is the point in a "jury trial" if they can constantly be accused of incompetence and appeal against sentences ??? the whole point of a jury trial comes down to the fact that people (jurors) are judged who are not experienced in various legal and technical issues, which should be explained to them (and if they did not understand those questions, it is the fault of the clarifiers, and not defendants) during the trial and the verdict should not be overridden by professional judges!
  8. vlbelugin
    vlbelugin April 29 2013 09: 10 New
    +9
    Of course, I'm not a submariner - a rocketeer. However, all the time, since the complexes are always under warranty, I had to communicate with the industry. This is an eternal dispute in the event of equipment failure. The industry is looking for a reason to blame the operation, the operation all nods to the industry.
    Since in the Army and the Navy in any incident there must be a culprit, this is a fact. And then the commander and the foreman were chosen. Industry won - connections, money. The nonsense of the accusation is that the foreman pressed the button to call the sailor. The foreman is already a competent specialist. And he perfectly knew the purpose of the button. A priori, he could not press it unless he was crazy. On such complex systems, there simply cannot be foolproof. If this button is publicly accessible and can be pressed accidentally, this is a design error. If the protection is standing, then this is a spontaneous activation. The industry simply cannot recognize this. This is the re-testing and improvement of systems. This money and money is no longer the customer. Therefore, it is better to pay less to the investigation, so that it would make the commander and the foreman a scapegoat.
    The command of the commander and the foreman "surrendered" - either money again or a formidable roar from above.
    Unfortunately, this is not the first and not the last case when "switchmen" are responsible for the mistakes of the top. It is a pity for the distorted fate of people.
    An excursion into the past.
    The beginning of the 90s. All mechanics - the driver of MAZ fled to their national armies. There are only two mechanical drives for all units of the PKP regiment. Nobody filmed combat missions for us. And I, as the commander of the PKP, during the field exit behind the wheel, put officers and warrant officers. And he got behind the wheel. Did I know what I was breaking. I knew. The command knew that I was breaking. I knew. But you have to go out into the field. By the way, neither I nor my officers and warrant officers had crusts of multi-axle chassis drivers, and I generally did not have category "C". But I had to take risks. After all, if something happened, then I would go to jail. So I myself "arbitrarily" got behind the wheel, which, due to my "foolishness", put people who were not allowed to drive behind the wheel. And the command would have been reprimanded as a last resort.
    And all this I knew. But there was no way out. On the one hand, a prison on the other hand, fulfillment of one's duty. Thank God nothing happened in this field exit.
    By the way, the head of the division’s automotive service checked the documents before the start of the march and who do you know? Those two mechvod soldiers who had documents. But he didn’t come to us, officers and warrant officers. For he knew that we did not have the right to control the units and he would have been forced to drop us out of MAZ. But then he would disrupt the implementation of combat training missions.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 29 2013 10: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: vlbelugin
      The foreman is already a competent specialist. And he perfectly knew the purpose of the button. A priori, he could not press it unless he was crazy. On such complex systems, there simply cannot be foolproof.

      so categorically, too, cannot be declared. Do you know a case when a boat was lost, and a sailor assigned from another boat was turning the flywheel in the wrong direction, just because it was necessary to turn the flywheel on his boat? and "Kursk" remember where no one knew how to handle a "thick" torpedo, and a sailor from another boat had to connect it to the system. And "Komsomolets", where at first they decided to blame the designers, and then it turned out that there was nothing to blame, and the personnel did not even know how to handle life rafts. Such examples make it clear that the human factor in accidents is the main one.
      1. atalef
        atalef April 29 2013 12: 06 New
        +2
        Quote: Delta
        Quote: vbelbelugin
        Petty Officer is already a competent specialist. And he knew the purpose of the button. A priori, he could not press it unless he was crazy ..

        At the expense of specialists, do not rush into the army, there are enough SPECIALISTS who only reduce defenses and without them the army would only win. I think everyone who served has a couple of three stories about such specialists
        On such complex systems, there simply cannot be foolproof.

        There are even more so on such systems.
  9. Black
    Black April 29 2013 09: 28 New
    +1
    Quote: vlbelugin
    The command of the commander and the foreman "surrendered" - either money again or a formidable roar from above.


    Now, don’t go to grandma!
  10. AlNick
    AlNick April 29 2013 09: 49 New
    +2
    ... "The naval prosecutors believe that if the jury were competent in technical matters, their verdict would have been the opposite. The prosecutor's office is confident that the jury was not allowed to make an objective conclusion on the tragedy" the complexity of technical nuances ", and in addition the defense side" deliberately distorted the facts ", thereby misleading the jury. On this basis, the prosecutor's office intends to appeal against the verdict on appeal" ...

    I do not want to offend prosecutors, but they are such docks in the technical issues of the operation of submarines? I am 100% sure that they themselves received advice from professional submariners!
    If the jury did not believe their arguments, then it is not so simple, and the arguments of 1st-rank captain Dmitry Lavrentiev and foreman Dmitry Grobov, as well as their defense, were more significant.
    It is difficult to judge the circumstances of the case without knowing all the information.
    And prosecutors want to wish - learn the materiel and collect evidence or leave it behind.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop April 29 2013 20: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: AlNick
      I do not want to offend prosecutors, but they are such docks in the technical issues of the operation of submarines? I am 100% sure that they themselves received advice from professional submariners!
      If prosecutors actually took advantage of the advice of PROFESSIONALS, they would have removed their version of the charge themselves
  11. ImPerts
    ImPerts April 29 2013 09: 50 New
    +2
    I am glad that the jury again made an acquittal. So the prosecution could not collect convincing data in their favor.
    And I really want the whistle with the accusation to stop.
  12. Apollo
    Apollo April 29 2013 09: 54 New
    +2
    The issue of returning to service the commander of the nuclear submarine "Nerpa" will be decided after the entry into force of the verdict

    This will happen after the court verdict comes into force. Today Dmitry Lavrentiev and sailor Dmitry Grobov were acquitted on the basis of a jury verdict. As Lavrentyev told Interfax, he hopes that he will again be entrusted with commanding a submarine.

    http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=304313

    One question remained unclear about compensation for the families of the deceased. The state is simply obliged to do this and the sooner the better.
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 April 29 2013 20: 09 New
      0
      And - what's the difference, who is to blame? Guilty is one thing, compensation for those killed in especially dangerous work at a military facility is completely different.
  13. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 29 2013 10: 17 New
    +2
    To enable the LOH system, you must enter a code of numbers. 1-you need to know this code. 2- just like that, by accident, no one will press the commissioning of the system. We decided to find a switchman in case of a system malfunction (on whom to "hang up" the dead?), Well, he is a commander and a commander in Africa, from him and will repair the demand.
  14. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk April 29 2013 10: 26 New
    +1
    According to the idea, the sucker is not dangerous in its normal form, but on the seal it was in violation of technology, here you have the dead.
    1. starpom
      starpom April 29 2013 11: 58 New
      +3
      Quote: Krasnoyarets
      Suck on the idea is not dangerous in its normal form

      A sucker cannot be dangerous because it is a system. Dangerous freon, which is used. AND atalef in the commentary above everything is perfectly explained even to amateurs (in the normal sense of the word)
      1. Executer
        Executer April 29 2013 12: 16 New
        0
        Freon is dangerous when heated above 600 gr. C - releases phosgene. In the absence of heating, it is neutral, but displaces oxygen, or rather, all air.
    2. atalef
      atalef April 29 2013 12: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Krasnoyarets
      According to the idea, the sucker is not dangerous in its normal form, but on the seal it was in violation of technology, here you have the dead.

      If you are in a life support system, in an isolating gas mask or in a clean field, then it is not dangerous / In general, this gas is not toxic. it simply displaces oxygen and a person dies of suffocation.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop April 29 2013 20: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: atalef
        it simply displaces oxygen and a person dies of suffocation.

        Did you hear anything about gas concentration? The system of LOKh to different compartments gives a different dose of a fire extinguisher (depending on its free volume). For this reason, the tubes of the distributor into different compartments have different lengths (in the same tank). So it is impossible to mix up and give the wrong dose physically. And in state tests, the inventor of this system stayed in the compartment for 4 hours WITHOUT protective equipment, proving safety for people of his own design. If you blow out the WHOLE supply of freon that is on the ship in one small compartment, then there really will not be oxygen there. But by no means at a concentration sufficient for extinguishing
  15. andrejwz
    andrejwz April 29 2013 10: 27 New
    +3
    According to military prosecutors, information has passed in a number of media that is biased and also completely incompetent.

    The system of modern Russian justice in action. The prosecutor’s office, taking the most convenient and simplest position for itself (it’s not even important for the prosecutor’s officials to personally be convinced of the correctness of their position) will fight for the honor of the uniform and not for a lawful and judicial decision on the case. Moreover, it is far from uncommon in the courts that the position of the prosecutor’s office is biased and unproven. To them, even the very mention of the principle of the presumption of innocence in court is a biased position. And I don’t even want to talk about the virginity of the prosecutor’s in technical, and indeed any, requiring special knowledge.
  16. Delta
    Delta April 29 2013 10: 47 New
    +2
    It is a pity that such an audio recording was not carried out on the Kursk
    1. atalef
      atalef April 29 2013 12: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: Delta
      It is a pity that such an audio recording was not carried out on the Kursk

      You can be sure no doubt / You will not know the truth
      1. Delta
        Delta April 29 2013 12: 24 New
        -1
        I have no doubt - it was not. The Kursk had an ordinary tape recorder for this. After the disaster, he was found and the cassette contained the recordings of the "Lube" group, and not the crew's negotiations
        1. atalef
          atalef April 29 2013 12: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Delta
          I have no doubt - it was not conducted.

          I do not believe in it. Kursk is a new boat and surely there should have been hard data carriers. Is the tape cassette the second joke? In the event of a fire, flooding - the cassette is the best thing that remains, what is on fire, what is in water? And how to investigate. Or in the space age there are no other devices. The first joke that Kursk died due to the explosion of a torpedo on hydrogen peroxide (in England after the explosion of such a torpedo and the death of 17 crew members (1956) they were banned (like in NATO) but they were cheap and they drowned Kursk with such a dangerous cheap price, but what about tape recorder (if true) A boat at the exercises - why the compartments are not battened down (as it should) and negotiations are not being recorded on the CCP.
          1. Delta
            Delta April 29 2013 12: 44 New
            -1
            Quote: atalef
            I do not believe in it. Kursk is a new boat and surely there should have been hard data carriers.

            except that after his death, they began to introduce mandatory registration of negotiations (and that is not on hard media, there is nothing to connect them to, only negotiations are recorded, and any audio recording device is enough for this) Although a kind of black box was introduced before him. But it was an ordinary cassette recorder, on which, in addition, the entire crew took off. Like this. The boat was not new, the 95th year. Regarding the others, the new is yes.

            As for the cassette, these are the words of a person who was on the commission investigating the causes of the disaster. And you can trust him just, it’s Admiral Ryazantsev (if you know who it is, then you will trust).

            Quote: atalef
            Exercise boat - why the compartments are not battened down (as expected) and negotiations are not being recorded on the Central Control Commission. CHAIR.

            on the Kursk?
            1. atalef
              atalef April 29 2013 13: 20 New
              +2
              Quote: Delta
              on the Kursk?

              Kursk was on the trainings that the inter-compartment doors (hatches) were not closed up (they wrote about this), which led to the instant propagation of the blast wave, and honestly did not know. that not only was there an opportunity not to record the conversations on the CKP, but it simply wasn’t /
              And about the truth, no one will know.
              1. Delta
                Delta April 29 2013 13: 44 New
                -1
                Quote: atalef
                That the inter-compartment doors (hatches) were not battened down

                inter-compartments are not battened down quite often. In the USSR they also fought unsuccessfully with sloppiness, let alone how they serve after its collapse. I don’t know (and no one can know for sure) whether the inter-compartments on the Kursk were opened, but between the first and the second they were definitely torn off. And there is a direct indication of the designer. During torpedo firing (A "Kursk", as you know, was preparing for training firing at the OBK.) Depressurize the first compartment, opening the ventilation and bulkheads, thus making it one piece with the second compartment. The designer tried to compensate for his miscalculation in the way that was used on boats of the WWII times.
          2. Misantrop
            Misantrop April 29 2013 20: 35 New
            0
            Quote: atalef
            The first joke that Kursk died due to the explosion of a torpedo on hydrogen peroxide
            That's really a joke. Frankly delusional version, no worse than the French lol
            1. Uncle
              Uncle April 30 2013 16: 58 New
              0
              Quote: Misantrop
              Frankly crazy version

              And I asked a friend of a submariner, or rather a political officer from a submarine, he in turn has an acquaintance - a representative of "Rubin", almost the chairman of the commission, and so he claims that the cause of the accident was the explosion of a practical torpedo.
              1. Misantrop
                Misantrop April 30 2013 18: 45 New
                0
                Quote: Uncle
                submarine
                I will reveal a terrible secret. A technically competent political officer in the navy is less common than a diamond necklace on a beggar's neck laughing Again, there are a fair number of types of torpedoes, and the reasons for its explosion are many times greater. So even if that "friend of an acquaintance" is right, then there are a fair amount of options for the reasons for this ending
        2. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 April 29 2013 20: 17 New
          0
          Damn, in the energy sector they started to record from the beginning of 60x, they were always listened to at any analysis, God forbid anyone who dared to pick up the phone and not introduce himself! They were looking like an enemy spy, and I’m not even talking about the slightest problems with a recording device under my ass with my knee ... Is it really so ?!
  17. tverskoi77
    tverskoi77 April 29 2013 11: 23 New
    12
    It is interesting how Putin would have commented on the "responsibility" of the submarine commander for the subordinate foreman in comparison with the "responsibility" of the defense minister for the subordinate deputy.
    Specifically, in one case, the submarine commander is the defendant and is sitting in the same dock with the foreman in another case (about the minister) he is a witness.
    All the same, it is correctly spoken: it is better to sell the Motherland (in all senses of the word) than to give a crack to a hooligan, you will sit down for the second, for the first you will live where the children of Yeltsin, Gorbachev and other former members of the CPSU Central Committee.
  18. Shkodnik65
    Shkodnik65 April 29 2013 11: 31 New
    +7
    I'm definitely glad that the jury acquitted the commander and the foreman. As a commander himself, he repeatedly encountered representatives of the military prosecutor's office and was repeatedly convinced of the limitations of many employees of this structure (+ the investigative committee). Being nonspecialists in many areas, it is military activity that these figures attract professionals, but they will be willing to draw their conclusions selectively, i.e. they take only those facts that fit into the line chosen by the "prosecutors", namely the ACCUSATIONS. They do not understand the situation, do not investigate the incident. They stupidly put people behind bars. In this case (in my opinion) they needed to hide the commander and the foreman. There was such an attitude. Well, they are unceremoniously trying to do "business". God forbid that they do not succeed. Well, the captain of the "Nerpa" Captain 1st Rank Dmitry Lavrentyev and Petty Officer Dmitry Grobov - patience. Good luck guys, but unfortunately you are not the first, not you and the last. And decent prosecutors only in the series "Secrets of the investigation".
  19. the polar
    the polar April 29 2013 11: 31 New
    +5
    And what is the point, then, in a jury trial? In world practice, a "jury trial" is a people's court-court of the highest instance and no "Supreme Court can appeal against its decision, especially the prosecutor's office. And so, in Russian it turns out, judicial officials and the prosecutor's office" lay down with the device "on the People's Court and will appeal indefinitely, until the accused are “put in.” Then it is necessary to end these comedies with “juries” and appoint “troikas” - “judge, prosecutor, deputy.” The same shameful story with the “jury trial” was demonstrated at the trial of Captain Arakcheev and his comrades.
  20. ed65b
    ed65b April 29 2013 12: 09 New
    +5
    I am most annoyed in this situation by the behavior of prosecutors. There is a jury verdict, that’s the point. And here, as in the case, Ulman and Budanov will be tried until they are imprisoned. Apparently there is a team to plant. But in the case of Serdyukov-Vasilyeva such agility is not noted. Brace yourself men, God will not give out the pig will not eat.
  21. camcos
    camcos April 29 2013 13: 47 New
    +5
    Faced with military prosecutors, the truth and the desire to help the cause is not about them. they are all on the drum, the main report is to compile and identify the perpetrators while not even studying regulatory documents.
  22. Bongo
    Bongo April 29 2013 14: 22 New
    +8
    For some reason, it is not said about the boat itself, about when it was laid down and how many years it stood in the form of a "long-term construction" at the Komsomolsk shipyard. About how and by whom it was completed, in what setting. About the fact that the system of training civilian specialists and naval sailors has been destroyed; about what materials were used during the completion ... That would be what the military prosecutor's office would be interested in.
    1. Delta
      Delta April 29 2013 14: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: Bongo
      That would be something to be interested in the military prosecutor's office.

      Who is your enemy? then many epaulettes would fly.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo April 29 2013 14: 34 New
        +6
        It's not about the shoulder straps ... At the Amur shipbuilding, the management is mired in theft, the count is only on proven episodes, goes to tens of millions. In the worst case, the former director is replaced by another, from the same "team", and everything is repeated ...
        It would be surprising, if only with this submarine, against the background of what was happening, everything was normal. It is a pity for the dead workers, what are they to blame for?
  23. Vtel
    Vtel April 29 2013 15: 57 New
    +3
    Yes, the military has nowhere to go - "You are appointed guilty for everything" - "Tell me, what is the fault on me, boyar. - The Tambov wolf is your boyar." And the foreman was not lucky - his surname turned out to be too "suitable" for the given case (psychological effect), he was born in such a way - you can't help it. Making the military guilty is much more profitable and most importantly easier, for the leadership - they say the technique is cool and there is no point in breaking the contract, but we will punish the military and all business. And the money and the authority of the company - you know whoa. By the way, Grobov said on the TV box that it is not easy to start a fire extinguishing system - you need to dial a combination of 10 characters, and not 3 as some are trying to show.
  24. Aeneas
    Aeneas April 30 2013 00: 10 New
    +2
    but is this freon from LOHA immediately spreading in the compartment and displacing oxygen, or in a while? Did people have a chance to survive, or they died (lost consciousness) instantly, does freon have a smell at all ?. Sorry for the amateurish questions.
    1. Kaa
      Kaa April 30 2013 00: 35 New
      +4
      Quote: Aeneas
      but is this freon from LOHA immediately spreading in the compartment and displacing oxygen, or in a while?
      It was, to put it mildly, "snuff" freon: "Outrageous facts were cited in his speech by the former chief chemist of the Pacific Fleet Rear Admiral of the Reserve Alexander Maksimov:" Freon gas should be used in the fire extinguishing system. Its effect on the respiratory system is not instantaneous. After the triggering of the system, the sailors remained conscious for another 5-10 minutes. This would be enough to have time to use oxygen masks and help comrades. But the sailors on the "Nerpa" did not have this time. A mixture of freon (34%) and tetrachlorethylene (66%) was pumped into the Nerpa nuclear submarine's fire extinguishing system, a solvent that, when it enters the nuclear submarine compartment, turned into poisonous phosgene, Maksimov specified. - It was from him that the sailors died. This gas is ten times cheaper than freon. Taking into account the volumes required for the submarine, the scam of substituting one gas for another brought suppliers about 5,5 million rubles. "
      The management of the Amur shipyard, which built the Nerpa nuclear submarine, said after the accident that two-thirds of the poisonous substance tetrachlorethylene was pumped into the submarine’s fire extinguishing system. The reasons for the presence of freon in the fire extinguishing system have not been established. Instead of tetrachlorethylene, the system should have had a low-toxic substance - tetrafluorodibromoethane. Freon for "Nerpa" was purchased through six intermediary firms - one-day deals. The manufacturer has not yet been established.
      Violations can be found everywhere. During production, output control is necessarily carried out, information about which is recorded in the relevant certificates. Apparently, when gas was delivered to the Amur Shipbuilding Plant, it was apparently also with gross violations. Finally, when freon was pumped into the boat, the gas had to be checked again and an acceptance certificate was drawn up.
      “I don’t understand why the investigation wasn’t interested in all these facts, but continues to blame the submarine commander and the foreman for everything,” Maksimov said.
      According to Vice Admiral Alexander Konev, the root cause that created the main prerequisites for the death of people is the collapse of the previously worked-out control system during the ordering, construction, delivery and acceptance of the ship from the fleet industry http://www.baplpskov.ru/messroom/index. php? topic = 118.60
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt April 30 2013 00: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: Kaa
        The reasons for the presence of freon in the fire extinguishing system have not been established. Instead of tetrachlorethylene, the system should have contained a low-toxic substance - tetrafluorodibromoethane. Freon for "Nerpa" was purchased through six intermediary firms - one-day deals. The manufacturer has not yet been established.
        The fact that through 6 firms of intermediaries it is already necessary to take strict measures, denyuzhki then state-owned, but the fact that they did not find responsible for the persecution of sailors is sad.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa April 30 2013 01: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: Thunderbolt
          the fact that they did not find the person responsible for the persecution of sailors is sad.
          So this is what the prosecutor's office should be doing, otherwise "the jury is incompetent", "the defense exerts pressure" - some of the best
          nashalnykov "sawed the grandmothers", for example, on the same freon, and now he is putting pressure on the prosecutor's office and the court so as not to lose "big stars" and not sit down seriously and for a long time negative
  25. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa April 30 2013 01: 12 New
    +6
    Good evening! The theme is bleeding. Many thanks to Apollo for the video. At least something becomes clear in the third approximation. And what conclusion I personally came to.
    1. D. Grobov still pressed the buttons on the remote control to unlock, because in an investigative experiment, he showed how he did it. Expert conclusion: such a combination should not have led to the operation of the Loch. The conclusion suggests itself - a system defect, also because in the 2-th compartment it poured out in 3 times more than the norm, without signs of fire. Software bug? "Aurora" is modestly silent: otherwise the Indians will not take the boat, then goodbye 560 million dollars. And for that ...
    2. The conclusion of the State Commission: no guilty personnel. Do not trust the conclusions of Deputy Chief of the Navy adm. Tatarinov Alexander Arkadevich I can not, because I know him from a joint service for more than one year. It is a flint and a servant to the bone. The jury, apparently, too, did not doubt the conclusions and competence of the high commission. (PROSECUTORIAL - “DOUBLE”!)
    3. 17 representatives of the Amursky Zd and 3 crew members were killed. This is a tragedy. The second compartment is not a refuge compartment (salvation - 3, 6), where there is an IDA for the entire l / s of the compartment plus 10%, plus each with a PDA. Total 30 + 10 = 40 min of life, if I managed to turn on in time. In the compartment there are masks for all submariners according to BG-1, but this is a residential compartment, there are cabins, a dining room, a mess room.
    4. Change team - did civilian specialists in the age remaining after leaving the youth, HDL passed for a long time, if at all, had a remote control with them? And if they had, why didn’t they turn on? Who went out with the pros can remember a lot ...
    5. The system is to blame which reduced the training of the crew in Sosnovy Bor to 3 months, made it possible to combine factory sea trials with state elements, thereby: a) saving on the captain-mentor, b) blaming 1r D. Lavrentiev for the results of the acceptance of the boat.
    6. This is a foreign order, sabotage is possible, but why not? A) compromise the weapons of the Russian Federation, b) disrupt the deal.
    7. Prosecutor's Office Position: many corpses - must be guilty. The foreman of the coffins is too small for such a thing, but the train with the commander is just that. Therefore, they are so persistent in their desire to fulfill the order from above. What it was - I have no doubt that there is an example of the Head of the Institute, Peter the Great, when cadets drowned on a six-year-old yale.
    Eternal memory to the departed. May there be a righteous and fair trial. Health to the commander - we believe in you Dmitry!
    1. NOBODY EXCEPT US
      NOBODY EXCEPT US April 30 2013 20: 59 New
      +1
      Finally, a balanced and competent comment ..... It is necessary to find the guilty, otherwise the Indians will be forced to finish and re-test at their own expense, and the image is not the last thing in the arms trade, so it’s easier to blame the sailor, and the wolves are full and the sheep are safe ... ..
  26. Marconi41
    Marconi41 April 30 2013 01: 13 New
    0
    What a devilry! When the volumetric fire extinguishing is triggered, the siren and the "Gas - go away" warning lamps must go off. Actuation of such systems from one push of a button is usually not possible. First, it is necessary to open the valves supplying gas to the fire extinguishing system. If they have already been discovered - by whom ?! What does the commander of the ship have to do with it, either. The bilge has its own immediate superior - the foreman of the bilge and boiler crew. And the hold ones themselves are basically the most unskilled personnel of the BCH-5. The same sewers. After all, they serve only a year. What can you learn it during this time ?!
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 1 May 2013 20: 26 New
      0
      The commander is always to blame. He is the main commander of the warhead 5 - KDD - foreman of the team foreman of the bilge team - hold. As for the most unskilled, I will allow myself to disagree - in their department all the auxiliary systems of the ship. By the way, why do they serve only a year? And the rest of the sailors? In Ukraine - one and a half.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 1 May 2013 20: 34 New
        +1
        Quote: Old_Kapitan
        He is the main commander in the chain of the BS-5 - KDD - foreman of the team foreman of the bilge team - hold.
        The supreme commander is even more important. Why is he not in the dock? And what does the commander of the traffic division (KDD)? I would also understand if KJ ... Maybe a typo?
        1. Old_kapitan
          Old_kapitan 2 May 2013 10: 26 New
          0
          And what does the commander of the traffic division (KDD)?

          Of course a typo. Himself in the past a turbinist, here on the machine and tapped movements instead of vitality.
          And about the blame ... Alas, the chain begins on the commander of the ship, and ends on it. And further - the more important the commander, the less likely to get on the bench.
  27. 955535
    955535 April 30 2013 19: 19 New
    0
    When a fire extinguisher is supplied, a howler fires in the emergency compartment and on the control panel in the central post. There is nowhere to go only from the emergency compartment, and the RBJ (manual on survivability control) does not order to leave the emergency compartment on their own. It’s bad if you aren’t accustomed to carrying PDA (portable breathing apparatus) with you ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE and therefore you can’t immediately get involved in it. Even worse, when tetrachlorethylene is fed into the compartment instead of Freon 114B2.
  28. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 19: 07 New
    +3
    I can hardly imagine that someone on the boat could be allowed to be without PDA. And civilian specialists are no exception. BCF is sacred and is punished severely for violation. But that’s why so many people didn’t manage to get involved in the device, it’s strange. In extreme cases, they could also hang on the SDA. It is interesting how much time has passed from the moment the VLF was turned on and until the compartment ventilation began.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 1 May 2013 20: 39 New
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      I can hardly imagine that someone on the boat could be allowed to be without PDA.
      In our time, for the CONSTANT wearing of the remote control-2 they fought VERY hard. And it lasts for at least 10 minutes even in the most severe modes of use (in rest conditions up to 50 minutes it makes it possible to breathe, personally checked). So far, there is an impression of a terrible mess, when the crowd rolled out into the sea not so much to check the systems, but to receive the "naval" commissioning crew and those on board (by no means the military, those are not supposed to be NIKHREN during the running day)
  29. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 20: 51 New
    +2
    Yes, PDA will not be enough for a long time, therefore I asked about the time from the moment the system was turned on and until the ventilation began. A mess ... I agree with you. Perhaps this is even too soft a word!
  30. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 21: 01 New
    +2
    In principle, 10 minutes should have been enough. After receiving a signal about the operation of the LOX, the central post had to contact the emergency, establish a false alarm, turn off the system, start ventilation. Not much time is needed.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 1 May 2013 21: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      In principle, 10 minutes should have been enough.
      Yes above the head. Moreover, in the above-water position (the delivery crew pays 8 hours underwater per day, and the engineering crew 6 hours). Although, sometimes it happens that they don’t have time to turn on ... It happened when a direct current power shield exploded in our compartment. Non-smokers fell IMMEDIATELY, clutching their throats. Well, we, smokers, and ourselves included in the remote control, and included non-smokers. And then they crushed the accident, no one was hurt in the end ...
  31. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 21: 24 New
    +1
    Was there a fire after the explosion? On the BDRMe?
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 1 May 2013 21: 49 New
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      Was there a fire after the explosion?
      Did not have. The closed-phase plate simply evaporated in a split second. And we also didn’t screw up this case. And in the 8th (when the ATG shield flashed), there was no fire either ... We were not lucky as a child. Although, "lucky to the one who is lucky" (c)
  32. Misantrop
    Misantrop 1 May 2013 21: 56 New
    +1
    In general, IMHO, fires due to the fault of electrical equipment on nuclear submarines most often occur ... due to improper actions by personnel. Either equipment with combustible rubbish (and EVERYTHING is lit in this arc) is littered, or it wasn’t turned off on time (or it turned off the wrong thing) ...
  33. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 21: 58 New
    +2
    God has mercy on me. Only at firefighters good
  34. Misantrop
    Misantrop 1 May 2013 22: 03 New
    +1
    And I "sipped with a full spoon." Unless there was a serious inflow of water into the compartment, but everything else ... And the VVD, and electrical panels, and even the prerequisites for a severe accident of the primary circuit. The first-year sailor "made friends" by closing the manual steam valves on the working board. I managed to open it, although I almost broke the veins at the same time ...
  35. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 22: 08 New
    +1
    The temperature in the reactor did not have time to jump?
  36. Misantrop
    Misantrop 1 May 2013 22: 20 New
    +1
    All the parameters managed to "float" while running from the GEM PU until the 7th. And the pressure on the barrels for 32 kg / cmXNUMX managed to get out. What saved me was that I had a ratchet on each valve, I typed it in the factory. There was no need to rearrange anything, twisted those on which it grew faster. And during the construction, I achieved that they cleared the access to the observation window from the pumping room (initially it was not realistic to see at least something there, they swore a lot when they were redoing it. But it came in handy ...)
  37. rudolff
    rudolff 1 May 2013 22: 30 New
    +3
    N-yes, really dashing dashing full spoon! I had slightly different problems. Warhead times.
  38. volshebnik
    volshebnik 4 May 2013 12: 50 New
    +2
    You are not talking about that. I'm sorry, but turn on your head. If the prosecutor’s office is so stubbornly trying to blame the captain and foreman and doesn’t dig deeper, then it is COVERING someone higher. Anything deeper can be - from corruption and the purchase of low-quality parts (and they can be on many boats - and this is a lot of money) - and then everything leads back to the ministry ... until the removal of an important specialist or an attempt to compromise a system or mechanism, or hide a system design defect. The captain in this case is the weakest link. They beat him. And in any case, there is more trust in the captain, because he is down there, unlike the thick-assed prosecutor ..