| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3282
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 4:01 pm: | 
|
It's just plain com and sence
What?
To me there [sic] are not common everyday words
They are to most people. That's why you need to use a dictionary and not use other board members as a substitute.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Tad G. Fitch
Member
Username: tad_fitch
Post Number: 316
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Sixth Officer Moody wasn't the cause of the mishap, and that was not what was said. What they meant was that there wasn't an officer on the Boat Deck overseeing the lowering of #13 and #15 in the final stages.
First Officer Murdoch had ordered these two boats away (they subsequently took on more passengers from A-Deck after he gave this order) then crossed over to the port side of the ship. Moody was on A-Deck at the time, and the fact that there wasn't an officer on the Boat Deck overseeing the lowering may have been one of the reasons #15 did not stop lowering sooner. It wasn't anybody's "fault," it was just what happened, nobody anticipated the effects of the water discharging from the condenser. |
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 625
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 12:49 am: |
|
Ok Tad.The cause was that they did not have an extra officer or seaman for the lowering of the lifeboat #15.
Mark sir. It's just plain COM and SENCE.Maybe you don't know these words cause you come from an upclass family. it means you don't need to read a book for the answer. |
Bob Godfrey
Member
Username: bobgod1
Post Number: 4590
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 1:16 am: |
|
The point Mark is making, Alyson, is that a dictionary would reveal that there are no such words as COM and SENCE. So maybe it would be common sense to get one. |
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 627
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 2:50 am: |
|
Why didn't he just tell me? I don't own one and don't no wear to find one. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25120
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 4:05 am: |
|
>>I don't own one and don't no wear to find one.<<
Just about anyplace which sells books would have some available.
When I speak of tradeoffs, what I'm talking about is compromise. In this case, achieving the best possible balance between what's as safe as possible, and what happens to be a practical possibility. The problem with a monohull design is that there are only so many places along the length of the ship where boats can even be hung and it's not long befor you run out of both available length to use and stability depending on how high up the boats are fitted.
Boats are heavy and so is the equipment to handle them. Place too many of them too high up, and you raise the ship's centre of gravity, and this leads to problems with the stability.
Put it another way, how much pitch and roll can you stand? And while we're at it, what about the righting arm of the ship? Screw that one up and you risk a capsize.
How do you avoid that?
You hang the boats down lower so your weight and balance doesn't get messed up.
The catch?
See Sam's illustration!
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 632
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 4:50 am: |
|
Ok Sir, I understand you're post now  .I also know what you are getting at point taken.
By law,pasenger's life's arn't aloud to be risked.If putting lifeboats that close to the sea and had sea trails and it was aceptable to pass by law. It sounds like a great idea.
If there was more than a chance of having life boats that close to the sea and causing lifeboats not being deployed in time and risking passenger's life's, why would they place the life boats in a dangous place? I thought the law change after Titanic sunk?
If it's a real big deal of having life boats being so close to the sea and dangous,all ships would be built smaller to have life boats in better places.
Or maybe the law did not change after Titanic!cause if it's true about lifeboats being in danger to close to the sea,it means the no body don't care about the passenger's,like it was back in 1912? |
Mark Baber
Moderator
Username: mab
Post Number: 3283
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 5:06 am: |
|
Maybe you don't know these words cause you come from an upclass family.
What?
don't no wear to find one.
Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep
And doesn't know where to find them.
Leave them alone, And they'll come home,
Wagging their tails behind them.
Just about anyplace which sells books would have some available.
There are several available online, too, and this message board has a spelling checker program available.
MAB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OceanicSteamNavigationCo/
http://www.greatships.net/
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 634
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 5:24 am: |
|
>>What? <<
Well sir.
UM...like since you have been educated so well,that you can't understand me sometimes.
What does the Poem mean? about me? that's not nice!
Ok. I'll check some books stores out. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25138
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, February 1, 2009 - 6:01 am: |
|
>>If putting lifeboats that close to the sea and had sea trails and it was aceptable to pass by law. It sounds like a great idea.<<
Ummmm...it doesn't follow that it's a great idea, however it's probably the least of the evils.
>>why would they place the life boats in a dangous place?<<
Because there's no other place to put them or the alternatives are worse.
>>Or maybe the law did not change after Titanic!<<
Oh, the laws changed allright but Titanic's influance on the legislation and rule making is somewhat exaggerated. To see what I mean, read the article at http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/titanic-impact-on-maritime-law.html
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 654
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Monday, February 2, 2009 - 9:53 am: |
|
Yes I had a felling it was Titanic that made the lifeboat rule change.
So it is a great idea to put the lifeboats down bottom,i was trying to state that Michael sir |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25168
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 3:58 am: |
|
>>Yes I had a felling it was Titanic that made the lifeboat rule change.<<
Not quite. The movement had been afoot for some time but what Titanic did was speed things up a bit. Some to the point of over reaction.
>>So it is a great idea to put the lifeboats down bottom,i was trying to state that Michael sir <<
Not quite. What I said was "Because there's no other place to put them or the alternatives are worse."
Least of the evils in other words.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Alyson Jones
Member
Username: firefoxy
Post Number: 666
Registered: 11-2008
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 4:23 am: |
|
>>Some to the point of over reaction. <<
Michael sir. How can people over react about not enough life boats?
You're Quote sir- *The other alternatives are worse*
So it's a great idea to have life boats lower but higher it's much more perferred. |
Michael H. Standart
Moderator
Username: mstandart
Post Number: 25197
Registered: 12-2000
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 6:27 am: |
|
>>How can people over react about not enough life boats?<<
The over reaction was in the provision. After the Titanic, the shipping lines were suddenly jamming as many boats as possible on the ships whether it would do any good or not. Some of the boats were in questionable condition and some like the collapsibles had something of a dubious record by this time.
>>So it's a great idea to have life boats lower but higher it's much more perferred.<<
Something like that. The higher up they are, the less likely they are to be damaged in rough seas. The problem here is that the higher up you go and the more you add, the more topweight you have to contend with. Topweight is no help to a ship's stability.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
