Alfred Nichols

[Mike Spooner]

I see the Welin Quadrant Davit as a very modern design as an Improvement over the standard radius arm tube davits. As their advert quote over 4000 are fitted on vessels of all nationalities.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

A manual 'playing out' of rope through pulleys each end of the lifeboat seems to me to be rather archaic for 1912?

That's the way it was done. Shipping companies and the BOT didn't care too much about lifeboats.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

FYI, its paying out the falls, not playing out.

"I began paying out the nylon line"

 

[yotsuya]

I am sorry that I don't know much about the Wellin Davit design, and in response to Sam's post 161 on here, I would have expected the falls to be connected to the lifeboat and then both falls cranked down (connected in unison) so as to be an even lowering of the lifeboat attached?

A manual 'playing out' of rope through pulleys each end of the lifeboat seems to me to be rather archaic for 1912?

The James Cameron revisit on his movie accuracy that Nat Geo did (on Disney+ if you have it) included a segment on how long it took to lower a lifeboat from those davits. They used a working recreation of the boat and davits from the film and calculated that even if the ship had more lifeboats it would have been hard to lower more in the time they had. Which was a huge amount of time compared to the Britannic or the Lusitania (55 minutes and 18 minutes respectively). But they clearly show how the process worked. Very manual, but likely to ensure that it could be done if the power went out.

 

[Mike Spooner]

That's the way it was done. Shipping companies and the BOT didn't care too much about lifeboats.
View attachment 111384

I like your sketch, but I see it was the same idea when lowering boats with the radius arm tube davits to.

 

[Mike Spooner]

But at the end of day how much practice did the crew members get lowing the lifeboats with full loads? Want I can see there was none.
Those on Titanic where the guinea pigs for such an operation.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I hardly think boat No 1 under Murdoch with only 12 in was a good figure!

Lookout Symons, who was put in charge of Lifeboat #1 by Murdoch and so survived on it, testified on both sides of the Atlantic and said that both the First Officer & Boatswain Nichols were supervising loading of Lifeboat #1 but there were very few passengers around to board it. (Lowe was there too, but probably left for the port side aft before #1 was lowered).

This is what Symons said that the British inquiry:

11453. And then you went?
- We went to No. 1, and Mr. Murdoch asked who was assigned to that boat. I said I was, and he said, "Are you a sailor?" I said "Yes." He said, "Jump in and see the plug is in." After that he asked if there were any more sailors. Horswell replied, "I am assigned to that boat." He said, "Jump in." He next gave an order for five firemen to jump in, because there were no passengers around the deck at that time

11454. That is the collapsible, we call it?
- As he gave orders I saw two ladies come running out of the foremost end of the top saloon deck, running towards the boat, and from there they asked Mr. Murdoch if they could get into that boat, and Mr. Murdoch said, "Yes; jump in." And then, after that, I saw three gentlemen come running up, and they asked if they could get into the boat, and he said, "Yes; jump in." Mr. Murdoch then looked around for more, and there was nobody in sight, only just the remaining members of the crew. He then gave an order to lower away.

11460. Now why did he order the boat to be lowered away while it was not full?
- Because, I suppose, he had looked around the deck for other people, as well as I did myself, and there was not another passenger in sight, only just the remainder of the crew getting the surf boat ready.

So, it was not Murdoch's fault that there were no more passengers in the vicinity of Lifeboat#1 just before it was lowered. That is why he had to make-up numbers at least to some extent by getting some crew men to board.

Incidentally, Symons' testimony that he saw Nichols working at Lifeboat #3 and then again at Lifeboat#1 is an important piece of evidence that the boatswain and his men were not overcome by flooding when they tried to open the gangway door in response to Lightoller's order earlier.

 

[Mike Spooner]

With great regret the lack of numbers in lifeboats has to fall on Captain Smith. Which he to must be in a state of shock to learn his pride unsinkable luxury liner is going to sink. Then only to find out there wasn't enough lifeboats to save all, followed by who will survive!
So how does a captain in that position decide, and why wasn't there a clear order that no lifeboat after becoming water borne to leave the ship until full capacity? The responsibility of a 62 old captain past the standard age of retirement is heavy. His head must of be buzzing how did I get into this mess in the first place, which only followed on by making more mistakes.

 

[Thomas Krom]

With great regret the lack of numbers in lifeboats has to fall on Captain Smith.

He sadly couldn't have been on all places at once however, and while I do agree any orders that we know of such as

“Yes, put the women and children in and lower away.”

And:

"Go ahead, carry on.”

are indeed vague and do not mention how filled the lifeboat was there are many factors to take in consideration.
First and foremost, when lifeboats number 7, 5 and 3 were lowered there was quite a bit of reluctance from the passengers to leave the warm, well lit ship while the band was still playing for a small open lifeboat in the middle of the north Atlantic.

But a second point is that it appears that the surviving officers' stated that they felt that lowering a lifeboat exceeding a certain amount was quite unsafe. I wanted to mention this earlier but my exams were in the way. Let us start chronological from which officer left the ship first to the last officer who left the Titanic.
THIRD OFFICER HEBERT JOHN PITMAN (1877-1961)
Third officer Pitman at the second day of the American Senate Inquiry mentioned the following:

Senator SMITH.
Is there any danger in lowering a lifeboat with the davits and other equipment operating? Is there such danger in lowering a lifeboat that you can not fill it to its capacity?

Mr. PITMAN.
I would not like to fill a lifeboat with 60 people and lower it suspended at both ends.

Senator SMITH.
Did you ever see 60 people in a lifeboat?

Mr. PITMAN.
No; I can not say that I have, although I think some of them had close on to 60 when they came alongside the Carpathia.

Senator SMITH.
Did you hear Mr. Bride, the wireless telegrapher of the Titanic, testify?

Mr. PITMAN.
No, sir.

Senator SMITH.
Did you hear Mr. Lightoller testify?

Mr. PITMAN.
No, sir.

Senator SMITH.
Mr. Lightoller said that on the collapsible lifeboat, turned over bottom side up, there were 35 people. If a collapsible lifeboat, overturned, can accommodate 35 people sitting unprotected, what would be your judgment as to the capacity of a lifeboat such as No. 5 or No. 7, floating in its customary way; would 60 people be the limit?

Mr. PITMAN.
I should think so, sir. There is no room to move with 60 in it.

Senator SMITH.
No room to move?

Mr. PITMAN.
No, sir. She would support a lot more if she was capsized, and people in the water just holding onto her, of course.

FIFTH OFFICER HAROLD GODFREY LOWE (1883-1944)

Fifth officer Lowe at the fifth day of the American Senate Inquiry mentioned the following:

Senator SMITH.
These lifeboats were all on the upper deck?

Mr. LOWE.
Yes, sir.

Senator SMITH.
If it is dangerous to lower a boat from the upper deck, filled to the capacity prescribed by the British regulations -

Mr. LOWE.
Yes; that is the floating capacity.

Senator SMITH.
Sixty-five plus is the floating capacity?

Mr. LOWE.
That is the floating capacity; that is, in the water, when she is at rest in the water. That is not when she is in the air.

Senator SMITH.
I am coming to that. Then 50 would be the lowering capacity, in your judgment?

Mr. LOWE.
Yes; I should not like to put more than 50 in.

At the British Board Of Trade inquiry, as questioned by Sidney Rowlatt on the 13th day, fifth officer Lowe told the following:

15906. Is it not the function of lifeboats on a steamer, as far as possible, to take away the full complement of passengers?
- Yes; but I was working on the idea that the gangway doors were going to be opened and take people from there.

15907. And that was why you lowered the boats from the boat deck when they were not altogether full?
- Certainly; we were not going to load the boat with its floating capacity from the davits.

15908. What grounds or evidence had you for the opinion you formed that there were going to be additional people put in the lifeboats from the gangways?
- I really forget now. I must have overheard it.

15909. Do you remember whom you overheard saying it?
- I do not.

15910. Did you hear any instructions given for these gangways to be opened?
- Had I any instructions?

15911. Did you hear any instructions given?
- No; but as I say, I overheard a conversation somewhere referring to the gangway doors being opened, and that the boatswain and a crowd of men had been sent down there.

15912. With reference to these boats that were lowered on your side at which you assisted, did you, after they had been lowered, take any means of communicating with those on board in order to have them filled up through the gangways?
- Yes. I told them to haul off from the ship's side, but to remain within hail. That is what I told each of them with the exception of the boat that Mr. Pitman went in.

15913. What I want to get at is this: You having formed the impression that the boats were going to be filled to their full complement from the gangways, did you take any steps to have the gangway doors opened or in any way to have passengers brought to the gangways?
- Haven't I told you that the order had been given to open the gangway doors by somebody else?

15914. Were there people collected, do you know, at the gangway doors that had been opened?
- I do not, because that was in the hands of the senior Officers, and I was a junior.

15915. Beyond lowering these boats and forming that impression, you did nothing to open up communication with the gangways and have the people brought there and lowered into these boats?
- No, I did not.

SECOND OFFICER CHARLES HEBERT LIGHTOLLER (1874-1952)

Second officer Lightoller at the first day of the American Senate Inquiry mentioned the following:

Senator SMITH.
You say there were about 25 in this first lifeboat?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
About that.

Senator SMITH.
And that it was loaded under your orders?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Under my orders.

Senator SMITH.
What happened to that lifeboat, the first one loaded?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
It was loaded and sent away from the ship.

Senator SMITH.
Did it not return to the ship because it was only half loaded?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Not to my knowledge, sir.

Senator SMITH.
As a matter of fact it was not much more than half loaded, was it?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
You mean its floating capacity?

Senator SMITH.
Yes.

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Floating capacity; no.

Senator SMITH.
How did it happen you did not put more people into that boat?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Because I did not consider it safe.

Senator SMITH.
In a great emergency like that, where there were limited facilities, could you not have afforded to try to put more people into that boat?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I did not know it was urgent then. I had no idea it was urgent.

Senator SMITH.
You did not know it was urgent.

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Nothing like it.

Senator SMITH.
Supposing you had known it was urgent, what would you have done?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I would have acted to the best of my judgment then.

Senator SMITH.
Tell me what you would have thought wise.

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I would have taken more risks. I should not have considered it wise to put more in, but I might have taken risks.

Senator SMITH.
As a matter of fact are not these lifeboats so constructed as to accommodate 40 people?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Sixty-five in the water, sir.

Senator SMITH.
Sixty-five in the water, and about 40 as they are being put into the water?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir.

Senator SMITH.
How?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir; it all depends on your gears, sir. If it were an old ship, you would barely dare to put 25 in.

Senator SMITH.
But this was a new one?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
And therefore I took chances with her afterwards.

Senator SMITH.
You put 25 in?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
In the first.

Senator SMITH.
In that situation you were quite sure that they were filled to their capacity?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Yes, sir. I don't say to their floating capacity, I don't say 65.

Senator SMITH.
But about the same number of persons were in each boat?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I should say 35 or 40.

On day four he gave the following information:

Senator SMITH.
What was the capacity of that boat - water capacity and lowering capacity?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The cubical capacity was 665 feet.

Senator SMITH.
How many people would that accommodate?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
In absolutely smooth water, under the most favorable conditions, the board of trade allows 10 feet to each person.

Senator SMITH.
How many persons would that be?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
That is 65 1/2.

Senator SMITH.
That was a clear night, was it not?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Perfectly clear, sir.

Senator SMITH.
Everything was favorable for the lifeboat if it had its maximum capacity so far as you know?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
When they were in the water, so far as I could see from the deck.

Senator SMITH.
How much difference do you make between the safe capacity of the lifeboat in the water, and up at the boat deck, hanging at the davits?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Well, with a brand new ship, and all brand new gear, brand new boats, and everything in the pink of condition, a boat might be safely lowered - you can not guarantee it - she might go down safely with perhaps 20 to 25 in her.

Senator SMITH.
But If the boat happened to be a boat that had been across the sea enough times to impair her as a lifeboat on such a vessel, how many people would such a boat hold?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I could not say, sir.

Senator SMITH.
But, in your judgment, in order to hold 25 people safely while being lowered into the water, everything would have to be new and in the pink [peak] of condition?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Precisely.

At the British Board Of Trade inquiry, as questioned by solicitor-general John Simon on the twelfth day he gave the following information:

14231. Is that a better means of putting people into a lifeboat - a safer means I mean - than having the boat filled on the boat deck 70 feet above the water and then lowered down?
- Do you mean filled to her utmost capacity?

14232. Yes.
- Yes, it is far better to get the boat water borne.

14233. If a boat is filled to its utmost capacity on the boat deck there is a possibility of two dangers, either the falls may prove insufficient or the boat may buckle and break. I think that is the effect of your evidence?
- That is right.

14234. Is it a practicable way of filling a lifeboat in any kind of sea and weather conditions to lower her into the water practically empty and then fill her from those gangway doors?
- Oh yes.

14235. You do not see any greater difficulty in filling her from those gangways doors in rough weather than in lowering her from the boat deck?
- In rough weather I am afraid that boating altogether is a pretty big problem, More than we could discuss here. There are so many things before that to be taken into consideration.

14236. I know, but it is just because of your vast experience - you hold a Master's certificate and an extra Master's certificate, and I recognise your knowledge and experience - that I want you to give us the benefit of your experience. In rough weather would it be safer to fill the boats from the lower part of the ship than from the boat deck?
- You have put a very difficult question before me, you know, and it has nothing to do with this.

Based on the statements above, which I am curious to see if it was shared by the surviving able bodied seamen which I will look into if I have the time, it appears that the full capacity of the lifeboats wasn't considered the lowering capacity and that lowering the lifeboats from the boat deck in their full capacity was dangerous as mentioned by three of the four surviving officers. Fourth officer Joseph Groves Boxhall only told that he thought that the lifeboats could be filled to their fully capacity in the calm seas while in the water.

Which he to must be in a state of shock to learn his pride unsinkable luxury liner is going to sink.

First and foremost, unlike what the 1997 movie shows he wasn't in a daze of any sort. The only time his judgement seemed to have been a bit clouded was when he ordered the first class passengers to go down to A-deck, forgetting there were 42 closed windows blocking entry for the lifeboats numbered 2, D, 4, 6 and 8. Captain Smith gave numerous orders, from giving the order to send out the call to distress at around 12:26 to the order to the occupants in lifeboat number 8 to row for the light off the port bow. Until the end he was seen relieving crewmembers from their duty and was quite responsive.

 

[Mike Spooner]

I know is too easy be wise after the event, but only if Smith had given the order that all boats must be filled when becoming water borne. Hundreds lives would of be saved. This the dreadful responsibility captain has to take that why I think he wasn't thinking straight here. Thank god for him he went down with the ship, as if saved his life would been unbearable for him.

 

[yotsuya]

The Lusitania has problems lowering lifeboats. She only put down 4 and 2 of them didn't make it to the water upright. So perhaps the crew were right. But there was a failure to be sure the boats were filled before rowing away.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

to the order to the occupants in lifeboat number 8 to row for the light off the port bow.

That was a very stupid order to tell those in a boat that had only 20 plus some odd occupants to row for a light that appeared to be about 5 miles away, drop the few passengers off, and then row back to pick up more. He was told by Andrews that ship had between 1 and 1 1/2 hours left well before anyone took to the boats. He clearly was not thinking things through. He would have been better off tell them to stay by the gangway doors and to see to it that crew members got them opened and found a way to get passengers off from there.

The problem is that nobody thought they would have to abandon the vessel and take to the boats. The lack of passengers at certain times and places could be traced to lack of any drill and boat assignments that included passengers. Nobody, including the crew, knew what they were supposed to do. It was all made it up as they went along.

 

[Mike Spooner]

The Lusitania has problems lowering lifeboats. She only put down 4 and 2 of them didn't make it to the water upright. So perhaps the crew were right. But there was a failure to be sure the boats were filled before rowing away.

Lusitania situation was very different to Titanic. Lusitania did not have time on hand as Titanic did.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

(Lowe was there too, but probably left for the port side aft before #1 was lowered).

That's not what Lowe said. Lowe saw it lowered before going aft. Murdoch would have left No. 1 after giving the order to lower away. He then went to No. 9.

 

[yotsuya]

Lusitania situation was very different to Titanic. Lusitania did not have time on hand as Titanic did.

But my point was that lifeboat lowering did not always go as smooth as it did on Titanic. They weren't full, but the all got the water upright.