Inquiry's testimony centers on Waddle

By Mike Gordon
Advertiser Staff Writer

For 10 days now, a Navy court of inquiry has pondered the enigma of the USS Greeneville, its charismatic captain and his loyal crew.

Cmdr. Scott Waddle, captain of the USS Greeneville, and his wife, Jill, stopped to talk to the media Wednesday outside the Trial Service Office at Pearl Harbor. AP library photo • March 14, 2001

Everyone who took the stand has praised the captain of the Greeneville, Cmdr. Scott Waddle, for his ability to inspire. When his sailors testified, they called their boss the best they had ever known and their belief appeared unshakable.

He was in charge, every bit the captain. If he wanted to violate one of his own standing policies or abbreviate procedure, it was his judgment call. If he said the surface was clear of obstacles, it was clear of obstacles. His call.

But as the second week of the court of inquiry drew to a close, the court moved closer to a solution, even as it found more evidence of what one admiral called sloppy management.

Among the revelations: Nine of the 13 men standing watch the day of the collision were not on the original schedule, known in the Navy as a "watch bill"; unqualified sonar technicians were allowed to work without direct supervision for the last three-plus years; and Waddle's command style did not foster open communication that could have prevented the tragedy.

When the court questioned Capt. Robert Brandhuber, who was a guest aboard the Greeneville when it collided with the Ehime Maru on Feb. 9, he echoed their concern: "Because of captain Waddle's image and personality and gregarious outgoing manner and capabilities, I sometimes wondered if it was more show than go."

The truth lies somewhere in the contradiction.

The court was convened after a preliminary investigation by Rear Adm. Charles Griffiths Jr., the first witness to testify. His comments hammered at Waddle's reputation like a boxer on a punching bag.

On the day of the accident, the Greeneville was nearing the end of a six-hour public relations cruise intended to show 16 visitors the prowess of the U.S. Pacific Fleet's submarine force. The submarine had just completed a series of high-speed turns at a depth of 400 feet. Waddle's final demonstration was a surfacing procedure called an "main emergency ballast blow."

To prepare, his crew was required to use its sonar to check the surface, a procedure that normally takes about 10 minutes. After that, the submarine would rise to periscope depth for a visual search of at least three minutes. Waddle had standing orders requiring both procedures.

But Waddle gave the crew half the time for sonar checks and a periscope check of the surface lasted only 80 seconds.

In a matter of minutes, the Greeneville had quickly returned to 400 feet and the valves were released for the emergency blow. The ship rose like a ballon, crashing into the Ehime Maru like a missile.

One of Griffiths' most damning conclusions was that Waddle's sailors believed in him so much that they would hesitate to question his actions or decisions.

When sailors from the Greene-ville testified last week, they told the court that the crew had done everything by the book. They couldn't understand how something they had done many times before without incident could go so wrong.

Each was asked if their captain's style of leadership prevented them from speaking up if they saw a problem.

Machinist Mate 1st Class Corey Harris told the court that Waddle's motto - "safety, efficiency, back-up" - was a phrase spoken every day aboard the Greeneville.

"We have to live by those words," Harris said. "If you don't, things happen and we don't want mistakes to happen."

He called Waddle an "outstanding" leader, "the best CO I've ever worked for."

Senior Chief Tony Smith said "command climate" was good aboard the submarine.

"The crew was generally happy," he said. "We didn't have any great problems. I have been on ships where we did. We all got along."

But when it came to the subject of back-up, the captain's policy to speak up if a sailor sees that something is being done incorrectly, Smith was less effusive.

"I've had guys up the spectrum where I couldn't tell them anything," he said. "(Waddle) was pretty middle of the road as far as I am aware of."

The only crewman so far who testified that he questioned Waddle's style was Lt. Keith Sloan, the navigator. Waddle rejected his suggestion to give junior officers more experience running the ship.

"I don't think he was pleased with me telling him that's what I thought we should do," Sloan told the court.

Perhaps the hardest blow Waddle took was from his own boss, a man who said he loved him like a son - Rear Adm. Albert Konetzni Jr. Konetzni told the court he placed the blame for the collision squarely on the skipper. It was a decision that vexed him, however.

"I have come up with the conclusion that I can't have it both ways, that this was a well-trained ship with a lot of things going for it and then at the last minute, the skipper was being too cavalier," he told the court.

The proceedings are being watched closely by legal observers and retired Navy officers. There is little uniformity to their comments, adding perhaps to the as-yet-unsolved puzzle.

Jay Fidell, a former Coast Guard attorney and court of inquiry investigator, said the admirals are sharp enough to know who among the crew to believe.

"In terms of finding out what happened and penetrating the barrier they are doing a good job," he said. "I don't think they are accepting the loyalty schmaltz. You really have to give them credit for not taking anything for granted."

Michael Lilly, one of the Navy League's national judge advocates and a retired Navy captain with 30 years of active and reserve service, said fate is an element here but "fate is not blameless."

"It was a series of fatalistic errors and poor judgment that resulted in this accident," he said. "It's an accident but not without fault."

Waddle, like all submariners, was "the cream of the cream of the cream," Lilly said. That didn't make him perfect, though.

"A human being makes errors everyday," he said. "That's what happened to this guy."

One of those making regular visits to the video room where reporters are watching the inquiry is retired submarine commander John D. Peters. He has watched the testimony with sympathy.

"He did his job, and he did it well. But it wasn't enough," he said. "It's very disappointing. He was the best commanding officer in the force. His crew was one of the best. He was a super guy who had an accident."