USS America

Scott,

Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the environmental
regulations they're supposed to follow?

I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.

Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy has
been preparing for this SINKEX. If you are truly interested - and not just
trolling - do a Google search on the plans and environmental preparations
for the upcoming scuttling of the former USS ORISKANY (CV-34) as an
artificial reef off the Florida Panhandle. One example of these is the
removal of ORISKANY's wooden flight deck planking due to PCB contamination.
This will give you perhaps the most comparable analog to what the Navy did
to prepare AMERICA.

--
Mike Kanze

"The nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting
done by fools and its thinking by cowards."

- Sir William Francis Butler

"Scott Peterson" wrote in message
...
Dave in San Diego wrote:

Retired Carrier Sunk Off Atlantic Coast

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050521/...s/carrier_sunk


Has anyone seen any pictures of these tests?

This seemed to happen awfully quickly. Usually it takes years and
lots of manpower and money to prepare a ship and remove all the
contaminants, asbestos, etc.

Anyone else think that the Navy short circuited some of the
environmental regulations they're supposed to follow?

Scott Peterson

--
A king has no proper business with reforming.
His best policy is to keep things as they are; and
if he can't do that, he ought to try to make them
worse than they are.
Mark Twain

17/612

"Mike Kanze" wrote in
:

[redacted]

And they "lived" in a shipyard (Yokosuka) when not operating, which
certainly did not hurt their material condition.

I don't have statistics for other carriers, but in my three years in
Midway (May '80 - May '83) I present these:

At sea - @ 540 days
In port Yokosuka - @ 275 days
In port elsewhere - @ 275 days

Of the in port Yokosuka time, only once did we spend more that 21 days at
a time there, and that was the 76 day EISRA (free donut if you know what
that spells out to) in 1981 or 1982.

Since we had such short in port periods, it was always in an industrial
environment.

BTW, y'all need to come to SD to see the Midway. They are opening more
and more of it up all the time. Most recent new areas are the Foc'sl and
an engine room.

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN (Ret)
CV-41 '80 - '83

"Dave in San Diego" wrote in message
. ..
"Mike Kanze" wrote in
:

[redacted]

And they "lived" in a shipyard (Yokosuka) when not operating, which
certainly did not hurt their material condition.

I don't have statistics for other carriers, but in my three years in
Midway (May '80 - May '83) I present these:

At sea - @ 540 days
In port Yokosuka - @ 275 days
In port elsewhere - @ 275 days

Of the in port Yokosuka time, only once did we spend more that 21 days at
a time there, and that was the 76 day EISRA (free donut if you know what
that spells out to) in 1981 or 1982.

Since we had such short in port periods, it was always in an industrial
environment.

BTW, y'all need to come to SD to see the Midway. They are opening more
and more of it up all the time. Most recent new areas are the Foc'sl and
an engine room.

Dave in San Diego
AT1 USN (Ret)
CV-41 '80 - '83






EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????

"Keith W" wrote:


CVA-66 was decomissioned in 1996, 9 years seems an
adequate period for preparation.

True but they only announced that she'd be used for these tests two or
three months ago.

Scott Peterson

--
Auntie EM:
"Hate you,
hate Kansas,
taking the dog"
--Dorothy

132/612

"Mike Kanze" wrote:

I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.


Don't waste time looking for what's not there. It's a legitimate
question as the navy does not have a particularly good environmental
record.

Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy has
been preparing for this SINKEX.

Did look. Did you? It was first announced by the Navy about the
beginning of March, this year. Their announcement at that time said
that "some" materials had been removed.



If you are truly interested - and not just
trolling - do a Google search on the plans and environmental preparations
for the upcoming scuttling of the former USS ORISKANY (CV-34) as an
artificial reef off the Florida Panhandle. One example of these is the
removal of ORISKANY's wooden flight deck planking due to PCB contamination.
This will give you perhaps the most comparable analog to what the Navy did
to prepare AMERICA.


Yes and it's taking 2 years plus on a ship less than half the size of
the America. Oriskany is also having to make two trips between
Florida and Texas to avoid hurricanes while they are working on her.

....and yet the Navy is able to prepare the America for this in months
instead of years, with no money or manpower explicitly budgeted?





--


Scott Peterson

--
After eating, do amphibians have to wait an
hour before getting out of the water?

127/612

"Scott Peterson" wrote in message
...
"Mike Kanze" wrote:

I don't. Sounds as if you may have an agenda in your post.


Don't waste time looking for what's not there. It's a legitimate
question as the navy does not have a particularly good environmental
record.

Others in this NG have separately cited the length of time that the Navy
has
been preparing for this SINKEX.

Did look. Did you? It was first announced by the Navy about the
beginning of March, this year. Their announcement at that time said
that "some" materials had been removed.

SNIP

Just because the Navy issued a press release in March doesn't mean that the
advance planning and material removal had not been going on for some time
before that. Since America was non-nuclear, that takes care of one of the
large environmental problems right there.

Wonder if they have to do an EIR - Environmental Impact Report, for this
type of thing?

"Joe Delphi" wrote:

Just because the Navy issued a press release in March doesn't mean that the
advance planning and material removal had not been going on for some time
before that. Since America was non-nuclear, that takes care of one of the
large environmental problems right there.


Totally understand that. It's very clear that some planning had been
going on before the announcement. but generally ships used like this
are in many ways cleaner than when they were built.

Wonder if they have to do an EIR - Environmental Impact Report, for this
type of thing?

That's what I was wondering. Usually, like the old joke, when there's
enough paperwork to weigh down the ship, it sinks. Maybe as someone
suggested, a ship sunk this deep does not require the same effort as
one sunk closer to shore. I don't know, it seems to have gone through
awfully quickly for an operation of this size.



Scott Peterson

--
Rome did not create a great empire
by having meetings...they did it by
killing all those who opposed them.

417/612

I think secrecy is the reason. THe Navy does not want anyone to know
how they sunk the ship. I hope it took a lot to put her down.

Gerry H

"_" wrote in :


EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????

Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.

Dave

On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:49:04 GMT, Dave in San Diego wrote:

"_" wrote in :


EISRA (free donut if you know what that spells out to)
Emergency In Service Refit Activity?????

Not even close. I'll take a few more guesses before I spell it out.

I Googled it. It's a mouthful.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail dot fm