Talk:USS Constellation (CV-64)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Biased text

This text is straight from the US Navy, and is therefore kinda biased; calling the ship by an affectionate nickname, talking about being ready to fight the global "war on terror" (an expression I, at least, find to be inherently biased). sadly, I suspect there are several dozen other articles which will have this problem, but I don't have the energy to hunt down all the articles imported from the US naval review and flag them.

one nice thing, though; I found a notice indicating that all the US Naval Review material is public domain unless stated otherwise in the text. the pdf forms of the articles have a bunch of nice photos of the ships.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.68.124 (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2006

Almost every ships history on this site has been taken from the Navy's register. I think it is silly to question the nuetrality of this article. Also, "War on Terrorism" has become a widespread title in the media for the actions in Afghanistan and to some extent (perhaps incorrectly) Iraq.- User:Daysleeper47 10:52 EDT 17 May 2006

Actually, I spent five years on board the "Connie" as a Fire Controlman and I can assure you that "Connie" is by far the most used nickname for this ship. Every ship I've been on as an inspector with ATG has a nickname from there crew. To say the Navy had something to do with that or it's biased is just silly, it's human nature to nickname things.Danthenic (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonkin Incident

The text was corrected to reflect the falsity of the claims made to justify the US intervention in Vietnam by the Johnson administration. The link to the Wiki article on the incident has the necessary cites. Tmangray (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fire of 2 August 1988 (#1)

The Fire, as listed in my deployment book.

On the morning of August 2, 1988 Connie quietly slipped her moorings for a routine two week carrier qualification off the coast of southern California. Things quickly turned out to be anything but routine. The ship had barely cleared the harbor when a JP-5 fuel leak in the uptakes rained down on the One Main Machinery Room and erupted into a full blown conflagration that tore through the uptakes and spread throughout the ship. Explosions rocked the ship and the crew went into General Quarters. Amid explosions and extreme heat, volunteers from the crew entered enclosed spaces to extinguish the fires and preserve the ship. Into the next day, the crew battled the blaze that had reflashed and continued to threaten the entire ship. As Connie pulled back into North Island on August 3, the deployment was the last thing on people’s minds. The ship had been hurt, and hurt bad.

1. The fire detail was knocked out first thing, so it was up to us to put the fire out. 2. The fire started as we where pulling away from the dock. 3. Leak? No, there was a 6" pipe going through the intake into the One Main Machinery room. it was not conected , the workers left it open and they where transfering fuel from aft to forward tanks. 20k gals went into the boiler. Thats where the fire is, no leak. 4. There was no GQ called , it was a Feul oil leak , first, then Fire Fire Fire , was called. 5. Volunteers? No haha, they pulled me not once but twice, once to fight the fire in one main and the second for fire reflash inspections. I saw the 6" pipe and there was aleast a 8" gap between the pipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.161.237 (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The fire listed in your deployment book?

I was the Oil Lab Top Watch (boiler fuel, F76) when this occurred, so this isn't coming from my "book". I seriously doubt you were there.

The fuel that caused the fire was jet fuel, JP5. It flowed out of an open pipe in 1 Main's uptake space. This occurred because of several F-up's. The USN had changed the configuration of all fuel piping in USN vessels due to a fire on an oiler, there was a major fire on one due to a leak in an uptake space. All fuel piping had to be routed around uptakes.

Before I continue, I'm going to explain that there are two fuel systems for each fuel (F76 & JP5). There is a "transfer" system to move fuel from tank to tank. There is a "service" system to charge piping to equipment. This is an important distinction.

The open JP5 pipe that poured fuel into the uptake was a "service" pipe that fed the hanger bay fueling hoses. It's basically a loop around the entire hanger bay, 2 decks below. It went through all the uptake spaces of all the machinery rooms (1-4MMR). That was changed when the USN ordered all fuel piping re-routed around uptakes. In each case, the piping was routed one deck up and inboard then back to the original loop once past the effected uptake.

On the port side the service pipe ran through the forward Chief Petty Officers berthing. Behind the forward bulkhead of the berthing is 1MMR's uptake. A contractor removed the piping from the uptake, welded a flange onto the stub in the berthing, and capped it with a bolted flange. The stub in the uptake was left open (ERROR #1). The pipe in the berthing had a "T" fitting welded on to redirect flow instead of a elbow for unknown reasons. Maybe the contractor was out of elbows (ERROR #2). The "T" was capped with a bolted flange on the unused end.

A new CPO was assigned to the JP5 lab. By unfortunate coincidence, he was berthed in the forward CPO berthing. He saw that the JP5 service pipe (painted purple for easy identification) seemed to be missing a piece, between the "T" fitting and the flange on the bulkhead. He had the Hull Tech's manufacture a spool piece, and installed it without verifying the piping on the other side of the bulkhead (ERROR #3).

All major naval vessels are banned from transferring fuel with pumps within 50 miles from shore (sluicing from full to low tanks is allowed). Note I said "transferring". The fuel "service" systems are charged.

The JP5 "service" pump was injecting raw jet fuel through a 4 inch open pipe into 1MMR's uptake BEFORE WE LEFT DOCK. When the level reached high enough, 1MMR boilers forced draft blowers started injecting a mist of air and JP5 into the boiler casings. They exploded internally (firebox & casing) while we were still in the bay.

1MMR was evacuated, emergency trips activated. The halogen injection system put the initial fire out. BUT. The explosion had wrecked the stack & blower dampers and the forced draft blower expansion joints. Air flowed down the stack and re-ignited the fire. JP5 continued to flow out the blower expansion joints.

It took us 18 hours to extinguish the fire. We ran out of AFFF[[1]] 3 times. They were bringing more by helicopter from the 32nd Street Naval Station. Thankfully no one died, but the DCA[2] was hurt badly and air lifted to Balboa Hospital.

Other points:

This was supposed to be a training cruise, there were many USNR personnel aboard, including many females. They were trained hard that day, and yes, many volunteered to help.

The Oil Lab (and myself personally) were initially blamed for the fire, until 1MMR's Machinist Mate Top Watch informed Central Control that it was JP5.

The fire expanded in air ducts and electrical chases throughout the ship, fires sprung up in berthing areas, storage compartments, and heads. The outer skin of the Island[3] was warped from the heat.

4MMR also caught fire due to the intense heat from the shared bulkhead with 1MMR. For non-Naval types, the MMR's are numbered by which propeller they turn, so 1 is next to 4.

It took two hoses and two teams to create one firefighting team going into 1MMR because of the intense heat. The first crew manned a hose to fight the fire, the second crew manned a hose with a spread lance spraying over the first team so they wouldn't catch fire.

Engineer of the Watch in Central Control: Master Chief O'Brien (thanks for believing me)

Oil King: Chief Dufal

Oil Lab Top Watch (me): Boiler Tech 3rd McLoughlin

Oil Lab Pump Supervisor: Boiler Tech 3rd Short

Oil Lab Pumper: Fireman Ramos

Oil Lab Pumper: Fireman Corbitt

Oil Lab Messenger: Fireman Ashley (I still owe you a punch in the mouth re/Diego Garcia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by P-4topwatch (talk • contribs) 15:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was a U.S. Marine Lance Corporal assigned to the Marine Detachment (MARDET) on the USS Constellation from 1986-88. I was under the command of our Captain (Perry). I was awarded the Navy Achievment Medal for assisting to put out the fire next to our berthing. The MARDET assisted with transporting the injured topside to the flight deck, working with our Connie shipmates. This talk about Marines "serving hotdogs in the hanger bay to the exhausted crew" is a complete lie and a dishonor to my fellow marines who risked their lives for our ship, our home. I do not remember any marine or sailor eating anything, let alone hot dogs, during this event. That comment should be omitted for its embarrassment to the entire article. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.233.0.201 (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well said, Marine. Everyone who every served in the Navy, much less aboard the USS Constellation knows this is nothing but a huge lie. Thank you for correcting this distortion of the truth. I doubt any sailor or marine in ANY navy would ever behave in such a manner when his shipmates where in harm's way. I know for a fact that no man aboard the USS Constellation would. Damn the liars anyway. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm on board with everybody else objecting to the belittlement of the Marines' efforts during that emergency. I'd left Connie 8 years before, but I know the caliber of sailors and Marines we had then. I'm certain they were just as good in August 1988. Anyway, I noticed that the bullshirt about the Marines serving hot dogs had never been removed. I knew it wasn't true, but I did a lot of searching for anything reputable source at all supporting the idea and found nothing apart from regurgitated Wikipedia content. I have taken the liberty of dumping that trash off the fantail.

I'm going to work on some additional factual information describing the fire fighting efforts. Ship's company really deserve a more respectful and accurate summarization. I mean, what the hell kind of bad fiction writing is "... to the crew's horror?" That sound like something out of the Saturday Evening Post. /Bruce/ [akaSlasher]. DPC, USN (ret.). USS Constellation (CV64), Supply Department, S-7 Division (Supply ADP) 1977-1980. /Bruce/ [aka Slasher] (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Fire of 19 December 1960

I cut out a contentious discussion that was taking place in the body of the article, no part of which was cited. The talk page is for that kind of thing. Work it out here first, please, and then edit. 192.91.171.36 (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fire of 2 August 1988 (#2)

I was aboard the USS Constellation during the fire of 08/02/88 as a Machinist Mate Fireman in #1 Main. When the fire broke out I was standing thrust-block watch in #4 Main. The use of the word 'explosion' is incorrect though, it was an implosion of the #1 on-line boiler which then resulted in the 'explosion' that was reported. After the fire was extinguished and we re-entered the space later to begin the repair process, there was easily visible evidence of this around the access hatch to the firebox. To the best of my memory, the fires that were said to have started in #4 main were minor; combustables located nearest the bulkhead caught fire but we quickly extinguished them. However, when the #1 shaft was finally locked, I was ordered out of #4 to join the fire party, so I cannot recall if anything after that caught fire in #4. Also, from my PO who was standing MM top watch, he said that the JP-5 poured down from the uptake onto the sides of the boiler directly outside of the Control Room and was instantly ablaze from the heat of the boiler, a literal wall of fire that went from the top of the boiler down into the bilge. During the course of the fire the lower level of 1 main was rapidly filling with water from the fire parties attempts at knocking down the blaze and many of the injuries they sustained were from them receiving chemical burns from wading through the water/JP-5 mixture. The aft Mess decks were converted into a triage area and when I sustained minor smoke inhalation and went there, it was fairly full of injured crew-members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan ness (talk • contribs) 09:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

God bless you. This is my old ship too. Thank you for relating this information. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

1971 Antiwar Activity Focused on USS Constellation

I have attempted to add to this article an important historical period in the history of the USS Constellation when a large group of antiwar activists attempted to focus attention on the ship and achieved much success. Their activity let to a citywide straw vote in late September 1971 with 54,721 votes counted. Over 82% of voters elected to keep the ship home, including 73% of the military personnel who voted. While not a "real" vote, the impact on public opinion was appreciable (many references to this effect are cited). So much so that the commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet was quoted as saying "never was there such a concerted effort to entice American servicemen from their posts." This added material has now been deleted 3 times by the same person User:Anmccaff with coattracking cited as the reason and then good faith edit. I would like to discuss this with User:Anmccaff on this talk page. Please explain how coattracking is involved in documenting a very well publicised and important part of the history of this ship, which by the way led to a congressional investigation of the Captain for suspected destroying of US mail and to 9 sailors publically jumping ship when it did depart for Vietnam. All of which should also go into that article.JohnKent (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, let's get aside the biggest problem: COI. You were personally, deeply, involved in this, and it shows. People aren't really supposed to edit stuff where their own name might pop up many times in sources without extreme caution. In this case, it's also tinged with the nostalgia that hits guys at 50 or so, and grows exponentially from there, as they realize that they are far closer to the dirt nap than to youth. Some of your stuff here on Wiki could be collected together as We were Activists once, and Young.

Next, we have the size. It's 8% of the article. That's probably undue.

Getting down to sourcing, we have use of primary sources which themselves have a whiff of COI. William Watson may have considered his stuff "considerable research", but a lot of never went past the level of argument that begins "what if the Airforce had to have bake sales to buy a bomber..." As a former zoomie yourself, probably realize that the principle purpose of aircraft carriers wasn't to "crush popular uprisings and to bully the weaker and poorer countries of the world."

The coverage of the straw poll is especially tendentious. How many voters did the San Diego area have then? Anmccaff (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff your response is just raising more tangential issues. Please respond to why events that CINCPAC felt deserved the comment quoted above are not relevant to the history of the ship. The results of the vote are only a reflection of that effort. You are now raising COI which is a different issue entirely and should be judged by the relevance of the material and the sourcing. If you want to debate that, I will. As for COI related to sources, please explain how the NY Times and the Naval Institute Press exhibit that. Watson's pamphlet was only one of the sources and I actually think he was making some important points. We never thought a carrier would be very useful against a similar superpower - just a duck in the water.JohnKent (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing tangential about any of this. You are personally involved in this part of the story, you should really not be editing it at all, by Wiki's rules. The material you added is disproportionate to the short era covered. Several of the sources are bad. Naval doctrine then certainly did see the carriers as, essentially, the new capital ship, even if the USSR did not. You can argue this was the same technological lag that kept battleships at the forefront in the 40s, when some would say the carrier superseded them, but that's for another place. Anmccaff (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You're still not responding to my disagreement with your original argument of coatracking. My involvement in the antiwar movement in San Diego only means I need to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV. And it certainly does not mean my contributions cannot be judged on their merits. Would it be appropriate to raise this for dispute resolution?JohnKent (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding COI, that is not correct. Matters you are centrally involved should be discussed on the talk page, but not edited on the main page yourself.

=== COI editing === {{see also|Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide}} Editors with a COI should follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. {{Shortcut|WP:COIEDIT}}

If you have a conflict of interest you should declare your COI, and put edits through peer review instead of articles directly:

• you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles;
• you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly.
• you may propose changes on talk pages (to which you can call attention by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard), so that they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should put new articles through the articles for creation process instead of creating them directly, so they can be peer reviewed before being published;
• you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise.
• you should not accept any such affected article(s) at articles for creation process.

Note that no one on Wikipedia controls articles. If Wikipedia hosts an article about you or your organization, others may add information that would otherwise remain little known, decide to delete the article, or decide to keep it should you later request deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organization concerned.

That's from wiki's COI page, COI editing section Notice it doesn't sy you only ... need to be especially careful to maintain a NPOV., it says you are you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. Pointing out that the editing looks like coatracking is a courtesy; it's liable to be eliminated on sight just for the COI. Everyone is supposed to minimize personal POV in the articles, both their own, and others. Anmccaff (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)