In 2004 the Canadian navy took possession of the last of four Victoria-class submarines It had purchased from the British navy. The submarine, renamed the Chicoutimi, set sall from Faslane, Scotland, for Halifax. On October 5, 2004, about 200 kilometres west of Ireland, there was a serlous fire aboard the Chicoutimi, Initial reports indicated that the crewmembers were flne. However, a later report indicated that all 57 crewmembers were safe, although a few were suffering from smoke inhalation, A later report indicated that the fire had caused serous damage aboard the submarine and that there had been a smaller second fire that been quickly brought under control. The British Navy had sent help to the stricken submarine and dropped off medical per-sonnel. The British Navy then airiifted three crewmembers from the Chicoutimi to a hospital. Tragically, one of the three, a Canadian naval officer, died.

This was a major news story in Canada and it received wide coverage. Initial media accounts provided updates on the condition of the Injured as well as the remaining crew and the submarine Itself as I was being towed back to Scotland. An' immediate question, among others, was why did this happen? Many responses generally reflected a Canadian or British perspective. The Canadian perspeotive suggested that these tragic events were caused by technical problems with the submarine, not human error. The Canadian Press Newswire referred to a CBC news report that suggested a key piece of equipment, an alr-vent valve, might have failed, ultimately resulting in the fire and death of the Canadian naval officer. This was exacerbated by electrical panel insulation, which was alleged to have been old and cracked. An article in the Sudbury Star suggested that the crew thought loose wiring had caused the fire. In fact, one crewmember had told The Canadian Press, *It was not human

error." Many people have spoken out against Canadas submarine program, alleging that the submarines purchased from the British had many technical faults. Another report by the Canadian Press Newswire Indicated that even the British press had reported that the Chicoutimi, formerly HMS Upholder, had had many problems with Its electrical systems, It Is clear that the British perspective on the incident was more one of human error than mechanical or technical failure. For example, Captain Mike Finney, a British Navy officer, told the BBC that "The first Indications are that the problem has nothing to do with any technical aspect on board of the boat, or the design or build." Also, the Daily News In Halifax reported that one of the main refitters of the Chicoutimi said, "There was nothing wrong with the boat." Further, he felt that the submarine had been kept in showroom condition and whatever faults It might have had in the past had been fixed. Lastly, the Calgary Herald reported that an unnamed source had told London's Mall on Sunday that crewmembers had left open hatches and seawater had poured in, causing short circuits and the fire.

On February 1, 2005, the Chicoutimi arrived In Hallfax har-bour aboard a Norwegian seallft vessel. Although an Initial Investigation Into the matter was concluded in December 2004, the HMCS Chicoutim/ Board of Inquiry has reconvened and will seek further testimony from crewmembers regarding events that happened. A final report was made public in early May 2005 (see http://www.veds.forces.go.oa/bot_chicoutlmi/ intro_e.asp for the complete report), which cleared the commander and crew of any wrongdong. Indeed, Defence Minister BIll Graham simply stated that this was an accldent. Since this report, David Reddaway, the British High Commissioner to Canada, has suggested that the tragedy was a result of inappropriate operating conditions (e.g., leaving hatches open In rough seas), not the condition of the sub-marines. Further, workers at the yard that built the submarines Insist that they were well built. Meanwhile the final cost to Canadian taxpayers of making the Chicoutimi seaworthy Is reported to be $100 million.

Questions: Please explain!

1). How do you account for the different initial Canadian and British media accounts of this event? 2). From an attribution theory perspective, what purpose did the Inquiry Board serve? 3.) How do you account for the positions of the British High Commissioner and the shipyard workers?