Disqus - Latest Comments for Michael DeKort

Re: Reigning in Military Contracts

Michael DeKort — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:48:26 -0000

The 2010 start is very important relative to Deepwater. it means that the ICGS parties still wield too much power and will do so for several more years which means most if not every first in class will be awarded and or constructed. That means the damage is done and the LCI's will get most of what they wanted as the rest of the assets are copies of the original. The bill the congress put out while helpful in some areas doesn't address the root causes and basically changes nothing on the ground. Case in point. The CG just awarded the new FRC design and manufacturing contract to Bollinger. it is worth up to $1.5 billion. Bollinger is part of Northrop who is part of ICGS. They never figured out where the 123 hull designs went wrong and ignored the government engineers advice on the NSC hull design and only made changes to them when under pressure, no one was held accountable and the government has still yet to see its refund. Under those conditions how did the ICGS parties get to be part of a new surface asset bid and win? The Commandant and ICGS are running all over congress, the DHS IG and the rest of us. (At one point the VP of Bollinger government contracts, T.R. Hamblin was asked what happened relative to the flawed design of the 123 extensions. He told the reporter he thought the computer used for the design had a power hit. That is analogous to my dog ate my homework. Given the ICGS parties never figured out where they screwed up the 123 extension design why would we think they are competent enough to handle the FRCs?)

Re: CGBlog’s Open Discussion… it’s back

Michael DeKort — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:57:49 -0000

Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman should be debarred from bidding future Deepwater ship projects, like the OPC, until the refund and fraud issues are resolved and the NSC’s classified communication systems are complete, the system thoroughly tested by an independent source that would report its findings back to congress and the events surrounding the funding of the effort to, include the SCIF, are look in to. (Given the large defense contractors are so integral to the nation’s security it may not be practical to debar the companies as a whole. Of course those companies know this. While that would send the strongest message, one that is certainly maybe the more practical option and the one that sends almost the same message is to debar people. There are several dozen engineering, program management, senior leadership and ethic personnel in these companies who are responsible for these problems. They personally profited from the shoddy workmanship and fraud that was perpetrated on this effort. As the companies would continue on without these people and the nation wouldn’t suffer a bit maybe all of these people should be fired and their 401k company contributions and pensions should be stripped. That might send the loudest and most practical message of all? In future blogs I may start listing the names of the personnel I am speaking about – all the way through to the CEOs and Board of Directors)

To date all the Coast Guard has said is that the future bidding will not include ICGS and may include parties outside of Lockheed and Northrop. Given the contractors have yet to resolve the $96m 123 refund issue, they are now facing charges of fraud filed on behalf of the US government and there are serious questions about the actual capability of the NSC to meet secure communications requirements I am calling for all of this to be cleared up in order for LM and NG to be allowed to bid on future ship projects. The contractors have not only taken no responsibility for the 123 issues but Lockheed for example – still maintains all of the issues were reviewed by their internal ethics process and there was absolutely no wrong doing.

Given these circumstances it is not enough to simply state that ICGS is no longer in the loop. That is a reuse. While it keeps Lockheed and Northrop from picking themselves it does not preclude the Coast Guard from picking them.

The contractors on Deepwater were given and paid for an unparalleled amount of trust on the effort and not only squandered it and profited from it but is put the nation in serious jeopardy post 9/11. As Lead System Integrator’s they were asked to be trusted agents of the US government, the Coast Guard and the citizens of the United States after 9/11. The CG admitted it did not have the right expertise to run the program and more importantly they admitted they didn’t have the expertise to figure out what needed to be done and eventually test the systems to see if they were acceptable. The contractors professed to be able to leverage world class talent and world class ethics to accomplish those tasks – all post 9/11. They were paid for that advertised capability and didn’t deliver on either. They backed the CG in to a corner be not informing them of what was really going on until the program was so far down the road it would be almost impossible to stop. They held the Coast Guard and the country hostage. They took advantage of the Coast Guard’s admitted lack of expertise and conned them into accepting systems they should not have. The contractors withheld important information and lied about what they did tell them in order to ensnare the Coast Guard. These contractors abused the trust of the nation. Their performance, refusal to accept responsibility and pay for their actions should be intolerable.

Re: CGBlog’s Open Discussion… it’s back

Michael DeKort — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:04:52 -0000

Recent Deepwater articles on NSC TEMPEST and our lawsuit which we filed against LM, NG and ICGS. (There were more articles in the lawsuit thread but their links are not working at this time. Search Google on "Deepwater" and "Coast Guard" and they will come up. Most are written by Alice Lipowicz)

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/0...

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/0...

http://washingtontechnology.com/blogs/editors-n...

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2009/0...

Re: CGBlog’s Open Discussion… it’s back

Michael DeKort — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:02:01 -0000

They were paid by the project directly or indirectly. Lockheed received funds from the CG and used them to pay these people. Some directly, since they charged the contract directly, and some indirectly through the overhead pool.

I am not saying their were payments on top of that.

A large portion of the $96m went to salaries. Salaries paid while the CG was purposefully given false, misleading or incomplete information.

Re: CGBlog’s Open Discussion… it’s back

Michael DeKort — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:40:29 -0000

Understood

I used this legal definition

"income from something: income from an investment or transaction"

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 10:36:31 -0000

A comment on MCPOCG and this site lashing out at those who make anonymous comments

Allow me to leave this warning for the MSPOCG (and Ryan Erikson)

For every person that speaks up there are thousands who think the same things and don't speak up.

I too would prefer people post named. As many have attacked me I can simpathize with the feeling the master chief has but only to a point. It is simply not reasonable to expect most people to post named because of the real probability (not possibility) that there will be repercussions for those statement if they run counter to the party line. All the master chief did in lashing out was prove the point for many. His statement will only drive people further under ground. What the master chief should have done is empathize with those who want to speak out and are afraid to and to go out of his way to make them feel as comfortable as possible. He could have said that while he prefers people be named he realizes the pressures and realities associated and appreciates the feedback - as that feedback probably reflects the thoughts and feelings of many others. The MCPOCG blew the opportunity and demonstrated a serious flaw in his leadership capabilities.

The leadershiop of the Coast Guard has proven itself to be a group of good ole' boys who routinely put their own careers and politics ahead of the organization and the greater good.

Examples - Deepwater - the Civil Rights issues (of which there are many), the deplotrable conditions of the aging cutter fleet (a large portion of which should have been replaced by now) and the coddling of a senior officer who used cocaine.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:06:51 -0000

"MCPOCG,
As odd as it may sound, I would like to congratulate you on lasting as long as you did in allowing people to post in the open. A site as high-profile as yours can only be expected to attract those who wish to get their own agenda on the docket, albeit disrespectfully, in order to create controversy. It was good while it lasted though.

I too am thinking about turning off the anonymous posting as to curtail the insults (though some may be justified…). Keep up the good work.

LT R. Erickson"

I should probably restate my comment. The MCPOCG lashed out. You supported it by stating what he said was "good work". I think that can be viewed as your lashing out - though not directly.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:06:38 -0000

You post confirms why posting anonymous should stay. You say you could handle the "pressures and realities' of posting named EXCEPT some other anonymous people could make your life difficult. Boy that's easy to say and type isn't it? The point is that there is a wide array of people who can mke lives of those who post named difficult. Given the MCPOCG comments and the performance of the CG senior leadership over the past few years I can see why most people don't post named.

I agree that some take advantage of posting anonymous and go tooo far - something they surely would not know if they were named. But it is the price to pay when someone who has the right intentions takes a shot, even anonymously, to make a statement in the hopes of improving things.

Again the MCPOCG went way overboard (pun intended) and not only squandered an opportunity but made things worse. Senior leaders are the ones who are supposed to do the right thing and keep his cool when things get tough. It's interesting to watch these senior leaders whose careers are based (usually) on handling tough situations in the field but they comppletely blow it when the situation gets politically difficult or even uncomfortable.

The MCPPCG should appologize and restate his commnet or rethink his career choice and pick something he can handle. He blew it in the EXACT situation we need master chief's to be able to handle. Shhoting all the anonymous meeseengers was uncalled for, counter productive and a big mistake. If the comments were out of line he should have taken on those specific posts while encouraging more posting - even if it has to be anonymous. He should be doing anything and everything he can to get more poeple involved. Not lashing out because his political skin is thin.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:20:28 -0000

What the MCPOCG needs is is non-political straight talk that puts the service and the country first regardless of where it comes from. Of course it would be best if it came from his own people, inner circle or leadership. My sense is that isn't happening.

As for me. Disgraced? Maybe you could provide a bit more on that? Everyone of my allegations relative to the 123s was proven accurate. Those relative to the NSC look pretty dead on too. And I am the only party actively seeking recovery of the 123 refund and for the contractors to be held accountible. Maybe you didn't read the latest news or our lawsuit?

Fired - correct

Disgruntled? I don't think so. Unhappy yes. But not disgruntled. And even if I were I assume you figure that feeling wouldn't be appropriate, fair or earned?

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:55:37 -0000

Good question. Being named certainly helps the credibility factor. Then again anonymous tips help law enforcement all the time. I would imagine the incidents of BS cut way back when someone is named. Which is probably your point. I revealed who I was because the damage was done. As soon as I fought my internal management my career path change was set. If I had called the DHS IG and not given a name it would have been much harder for them to get through and understand all I had to say and to weed out the data. It probably depends on the situation. For the MCPOCG this was more of an all-hands complaint kind of thing not someone shouting out names of people doing certain things wrong. I think you can use anonymous tips or data to take a peak but then need more to justify digging. As I said before I prefer these people to be named. But it's not reasonable or effective - even with the BS and the downside. I have been a manager on several occasions - from 10 to 150 people. I learned from that that people talk at different times. In large meetings, team meetings, one-on-one and anonymously. If you avoid the last one because it can be a hassle you will miss something meaningful.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:03:26 -0000

I found a job 4 months ago and am doing fine. So I can support my family just fine. As for being the laughingstock of the industry I don't think that's true. If it is that says less about the industry than it does me. The MCPOCG doesn't actually need to take advise from me. But he should not dismiss it lightly.

1 - Porter and the whole event is still being looked in to. Do you doubt he illegally and improperly waived things he should not have? If so I would be glad to post proof - again.
2 - You are correct nothing was apparently removed. it was worse - it was never there. So the CG and ICGS didn't appear to remove equipment to misrepresent the truth they just misrepresented the truth without the equipment being there. A situation that was worse than I thought.
3 - No there is not a SCIF and there should be. I don't understand the point.
4 - I was told the NSC received an ATO under the same circumstances that the 123s received theirs - illegal and improper waivers. of course now that we have sued ICGS etc on behalf of the government and the NSC issues are part of the complaint we will get discovery to look in to that and more. And should anyone stonewall us or BS us we will head to the court, on behalf of the government, and work that out.

So yes I have had a small detail or two incorrect. overall I have either been dead on or the final judgment has yet to be determined.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:09:23 -0000

I am not insinuating it I am stating it.

Anthony D'Armiento - look that one up. he was harassed and held at gunpoint for transmitting a cleared document.

I know of several CG employees whose careers were harmed due to Deepwater

I know what things the senior leadership misled congress about. Some not public knowledge.

I know how the CG has treated me - both on and off the field. (Isn't it ironic that they lambasted me and said every one of my allegations was baseless and now I am the only party actively seeking their refund?)

Look at the MCPOCG's statement. Figure it's the first time he has taken that view? I would bet his career is littered with hammering people who rock his boat.

And finally I am just playing the odds.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:12:48 -0000

It's not accurate nor funny. It's not simply constructive criticism it is messenger shooting BS. Do you lead men and women Mr. Erikson? If you do you might want to reflect on what side you are on, what your ethically and moral compass says and whether or not you are a truly capable leader. I am not saying that because I am the target here. The issue is that someone is the target and should not be. Looks like your true character is coming through?

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:21:49 -0000

The master chief, those around him and his superiors did what a lot of sham leaders do when they are pissed off (or drunk – and I am not saying he was) – they tell the truth and let their true colors show.The MCPOCG position should be filled with someone who does exactly the opposite of what he did. He needs to be removed. Not just because of this but because of the true nature of the person it brought forward. (Add this to his over the top, uncalled for, exaggerated and embarrassing introduction of the Commandant at the sate of the CG presentation this year and I think you can see where his priorities lie. he like those above him are all about themselves. They are political hacks that hide behind slogans, rank, fist pounding on desks, promises and the good will of those in their charge. They are shams.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:48:08 -0000

You are correct. It's much harder to avoid someone who is named. Again I prefer people be named but I think it's an unfair and unreasonable expectation. In my case I went at then head on with data - no way to do that being anonymous.
Most people will do the quick math, figure out their odds of success and career failure and decide not to get involved at all much less submit an anonymous note. Look at how my case went. Three ethics investigations all concluding every one of my allegations was 100% baseless. Then I had no job. People see that stuff happen all the time and it just firms up their resolve to stay quiet or be anonymous. When is the last time any big company volunteered to come clean? We live on a planet where ethical standards are situational. Short of obvious and immediate death to someone (and even then in most cases) people don't get involved. This is why company policies, bumper stickers and slogans are BS. The key in all of this is who is the local leader and what does he/she believe. if they are ethical and strong when the crap hits the fan everyone else will be. If he/she is not then the lemmings will line up. It's all human nature unfortunately.

As for the people who posted anonymous on the MCPOGs blog. They could very well have been disgruntled, wrong and insubordinate. But that's the price to be paid to have a system where a couple good posts come in you would never see otherwise. All the master chief had to do was single out bad behavior and encourage the good.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:26:45 -0000

Some things just aren't funny and are simply to out of line, uncalled for, innaccurate, unfair and rude to be funny. Had this not been directed at me and someone who has been through the same kind of thing I would feel the same. And this is not a thin skinned issue. I expect some of this and do not let it weigh me down - beyond calling it out. It's no way to treat a patriot who is fighting a huge uphill battle for the good of the country. It's dispresectuful to me, my family and the country. The line is crossed when the statment is knowingly incorrect and it doesn't give fair and just credit for the good. Attacking me or any other whistleblower for some tactical issues is fine - making a mock of their plight and situation is not.

Your response is no different than the MCPOCG's. And yes it most certainly does open up a window in to your character.

I will give you credit for though. You are being honest and are doing so named. Far better than most.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:28:26 -0000

Can you explain that a bit?

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:03:28 -0000

Yes that is true. However I accept this kind of stuff as part of the deal. As such my being attacked isn't nearly as big of a deal as the fact that someone is being treated like this. That is the part that frustrates me. It shows the overal problem is and always has been about leadership - and the associated ethical and moral courage of those leaders. We revile whistleblowers because they show someone is working aganist the group. Even if the whistleblower does the right thing they are treated as outsiders because people generally revere 'team playing" more than doing what is ethical. legal or moral. The thought process Marty and Erik demonstrate clearly show that. If either one of them were in senior leadership with either the contractors or the CG during DW they would have made the same incorrect, illegal and counter productive decisions. They clearly don't have the ethical compass or courage to do otherwise. It's about ones thought process and how their ethical and moral standards are actually applied when challenged. What most people say they believe and what actually happens when they are tested are usually two different things. And it seems that political courage is far harder to muster than doing the right thing in the face of physical adversity.

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:18:15 -0000

Would you like me to post the proof Porter illegally and improperly waived critical TEMPEST failures the Navy did not want waived? Illegal= he was not a cleared CTTA when he signed the waivers. Improper= the Navy TEMPEST extent did not want the failures waived. I have posted on the dozens of times. Ever see the CG dispute it? Feel free to ask them yourself. As for the comment he wouldn't be doing the work if it was true. Of course he would. Wouldn't be much of a cover up if they hung him out to dry would it? And I heard he has been cleared by the NSA since then.

The CG admits the equipment wasn't there. the congressional committee said that as well. CG personnel have posted on these sites and said it was missing. IT IS STILL MISSING. (Most of it is SCIF related). Adm Blore stated to POGO and the CG has made press briefings saying it won't be in and tested for another year. They also admitted they would have to retest the secret side when it is.

Yes they should both resign and it has nothing to do with me. Fine line between seeing something through and obsession I suppose. I never expected perfection but what has occurred to date is not nearly enough. No one held accountable, the refund is still not paid. There are significant problems with the NSC that shouldn't exist etc.

Why is the suit bogus? Did you read it? I assume you believe there was no fraud and LM/NG did great by the CG and the country? I'll give you one example. In the DHS IG 123 report they confirmed the topside equipment failure issue was purposefully withheld from the CG until the summer of 2006. Shall I post that. (Please try calling my bluff) Years after the NRE was paid and after 8 boats were delivered. Shall I post that for you? 1/3 of the suit is to get the 123 refund back. The CG rejected the entirety of the 123s - C4ISR and all. Would you suggest the government not get that $. If so then I would be the only hope at thins point because the CG failed to get it and punted and the DoJ deferred. Right now me and my attorney's are the only parties actively trying to get that $ back.

If LM wins the CG and the country lose. I am a small player in that - at least relative to any recovery.

Nice to see you are in favor of contractors treating the CG and the country the way these have post 9/11. Nice to see your loyalties are in the right place. Given those standards I have no problem being called a hack by you.

Who do you work for? The CG? One of the contractors?

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:46:08 -0000

I am sorry it is coming off as self-righteous. I am surely not perfect nor have I handled the past 6 years perfectly. It's quite the uphill climb and the odds have never been in my favor. Doing the best I can.

From my side what you see as self-righteousness is my firm belief based on my experience on this issue, in the Navy, in the State Department, in Lockheed and life in general. My approach in writing and verbally is also very direct which can be good and bad I suppose.

As for the land of what if. I am wired different than most. Doesn't make me better at all - just different. The vast majority of the population acts as I stated. It's not only my opinion but that of people who research such things and I bet if you looked at your life experience and were objective you would say the same. (Having said that I don't do well in some situations that most would. Again I am not better overall than most. Just different)

I used the patriot line much less to describe me than someone like me. I completely understand that it looks like self-promotion (which is why in 6 years I never said it before). My point was that most whistleblowers involved in defense work are patriots and more so than the average person who goes with the flow and doesn't make waves. People who whistle blow deserve a wide berth. Especially from those who lack the will, courage or ethical fortitude to do the same.

Which Coast Guardsman am I disrespectful to? The whole lot because I criticize the senior leadership? I hope that's not it because that's the usual be a team player no matter what BS. Do you feel that since I wasn't in the CG I can't comment on non-DW issues? I can see that point. I was never in the CG. But I was in the Navy, spent the past 26 years serving the government in one way or the other and have contributed a lot to watch the backs of the Coast Guardsman over the past 6 years. Does that give me the right to criticize those leaders - I think so. But I respect your position on it. (If anyone of probably hundreds of Coast Guardsman had courage they would have helped me and most of this would be avoided. So in that respect I deserve to comment more about the senior leadership than quite a few Coast Guardsman)

Whose service am I insulting? The senior leaders I call out by name? If that is who you are talking about you are correct. I feel my comments are direct and appropriate given the circumstances.

In closing I want to say i appreciate your push back. You obviously don't agree with me. But you are pushing back objectively, with respect and make some well thought out and reasoned points. Far better than the usual messenger shooting. Thanks

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:20:20 -0000

Bluff not called it seems?

Re: Open Discussion for the week of 21 June 2009

Michael DeKort — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:19:51 -0000

Of course it is not illegal just becaue I say so. Do you deny my description of events? Porter waived TEMPEST failures the Navy did not want him to and he was not cleared by the NSA to sign off on anything at the time.

The SCIF and the associated secret comm TEMPEST testing were supposed to be done by DD-250 and they were not. If you drop the SCIF out of the equation the secret side was over a year late. (First promised to be done in the winter of 07, then the spring of 08, then by DD-250, then by August 08). The CG did that to avoid having to carry the fact they they had no secure comm capability as a DD-250 major item. All so they could get the boat delivered without anyone challenging them. (During that period the Navy Times, POGO and others wrote stories on the CG changing their story on this along the way. i will post some of them if you wish)

The SCIF has been part of the design since 2003 when we frist started to design the NSC systems. Why the need for the ECP if it was part of the contract in 2003? How much extra $ did LM get paid for this and what else did the money go for? Changing the secret side to bail LM out of the mess they created for themselves on the 123s? (LM stated TEMPEST was not part of the 123 effort - so they needed that changed for every other ship in order to CYA. of course TEMPEST and the secret systems are clearly called out in the spec - and are not "guidance")

Your comment about my being paranoid ar exaggerated. Simply going with what has happened, not happened and the pattern of the CG and the contractors misrepresenting the truth or not providing the complete story. I do however think about this endeavor, how I should handle it and if I should end it a lot. I have never expected perfection as a resolution. The problem is the CG and congress didn't get close enough. The NSC has problem it shouldn't have, the CG and taxpayer are paying way too much for things they should not have, the refund has not been paid and no one has been held accountable. (Yes stopping the LSI held the organizations to account somewhat. At the end of the day it is some loss of $ for the contractors and some loss of face but not necessarily a bigger deal than that. LM and NG are still in the game working the NSCs and maybe the OPCs all while the refund has not been paid, the contractors maintain they did nothing wrong - including fraud - and no individulas have been held accountable) And now it appears that if I don't hang in there the CG will never get it's refund nor will anyone be held accountable or pay for their actions. I will stop when I agree to stop, am satisfied with the resolutions presented or run out of options. Right now the lawsuit, the book and blogging are still available to me -so I will keep going.

As for resigning. Yes I believe the Commandant should have resigned his commission. Not only for what is publically known but for events that are not. (Which will come out in my book and I would assume our lawsuit proceeedings if the powers that be don't get their acts together). As for the MCPOCG I am only calling for him to resign his position not the service.

I agree that LM and NGSS screwed the government I don't quite see how I screwed the government how? I served in the Navy, the State Department (including the counter terrorism group) and then 13 years of LM DoD programs. As far as I know I did a professional and honorable job at each. Then I took on an effort to make the DW program right. During that the LSI practice stopped, the CG asked for a refund and there were many other changes. Seems to me I had a hand in all of that. Again - exactly how did I screw over the government? Does that question mean you are questioning my service to my country? If you are going to go that far please include your full name in your post. (And just in case you bring up the fact that i use my Yahoo handle I signed in using my name this time)

Re: $2.1 billion Deepwater shortfall; Icebreakers not included

Michael DeKort — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:11:34 -0000

The program was originally estimated to be $17m. As such the cost growth till now is 65%.

As for what did they get for the money. Simply look at the original Deepwater plan (not even the 5 or 10 year recommended acceleration plans.)

In service by 2009
46 of the 49 123s - with 46 110s out of service
4 of the 8 NSCs
Only 7 out of 12 WHECs left - the rest taken out of service

The 123 and NSC debacles cost the CG and the American taxpayer hundreds of millions they should not have. Where's that refund?

Re: The Coast Guard Image: She floats- but that’s it

Michael DeKort — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:51:40 -0000

Rumor is that one of the 123s had to be taken out of the water in Baltimore because it was sinking. It also appears that the corrosion breach was in a new metal area.