Any comments, Nords?
Driving lessons, maybe?
Yeah, I always look to Vanity Fair for their analysis of defense issues...
I'll cut those guys a generous helping of slack. British Navy officers have separate communities for nuclear engineering and ship driving, and their OODs are some of the world's best. Far better than the U.S. system where nukes rule the submarine force.
IIRC the ship was doing a personnel transfer. Those suck. Nobody likes them and you don't do them very often so you're not very good at it. You have to come into shallow restricted waters, with tides & winds, and the closer you get ashore/inland then the quicker the small boat can get out to you. The OOD is busy dealing with people topside and making sure the waves don't wash anyone overboard while the CO is busy with VIPs and other trivia. The XO and the Engineer are yammering to have fresh fruits/vegetables and spare parts delivered along with the passengers. The ops officer wants all the radio masts raised to get caught up on message traffic, and then he wants to talk about current events with the CO/XO/Nav. The navigator is the unhappiest guy on the boat because nobody wants to run aground but nobody wants to be in the middle of the shipping lanes or other deeper/offshore water, either.
The media will always play up the sensational nuclear (or anti-nuclear) aspect of a collision or grounding. That's actually the strongest part of the sub and the least likely source of problems. The white smoke in that video, however, indicates that they're snorkeling, which either indicates training or (more likely) seawater suctions fouled with mud. Since cooling water may be in short supply they're probably trying to reduce their need for reactor power by letting the diesel handle some of the electrical load. But it needs cooling water too, and that mud will mess up a lot of seawater pumps.
Submarines are surprisingly difficult to maneuver on the surface. Half the rudder is out of the water so there's not much force to change direction. There's only one small auxiliary propulsion unit and it has to be lowered beneath the keel so it may have been damaged in the grounding. It doesn't have much power to whip the stern around, either. The turbines are tremendously powerful but you don't want to ding up the screw on the mud/gravel and you don't want to build up momentum or have a command misinterpreted. Sudden acceleration or deceleration also causes the stern to squat down a foot or two, which is undesirable in shallow water. It's like operating a Ferrari in a McDonald's drivethrough by telling the driver not to use his brakes.
If you're gonna run aground then the rudder is the best thing to do it on. Relatively rugged, less damage, easily repaired, cheaper than sonar domes or screw blades. But they're gonna waste a couple weeks in drydock.
Having said all that, the CO/XO should have been aware of all of these issues and should have adequately trained/prepared their crew to handle them. Even a propulsion/helm casualty should have been accounted for. The charts were probably adequate for the task and the bottom topography was unlikely to be changed by storms or currents.
You can get away with dragging the rudder on on a sandbar once in a while but there's no excuse for going hard aground. I suspect the change of command has already occurred...