Criticism of Titanic's Officers

[Randy Bryan Bigham]

I think we have some very formidable expertise represented here. That may be the trouble at present - we are perhaps just a bit overloaded with experts at the moment.

Indeed we are lucky on ET to have such a melding together of great minds.

David Haisman has direct and extensive experience as a seaman and his life, professionally and privately, has been shaped by the sea. Probably more so than anyone else on this message board, David is in a unique position to understand and address issues relating to Titanic, not just owing to his career but to his family history, both of which have not been lightly touched by the reality of danger at sea.

Parks Stephenson's career in marine engineering and forensic science is similarly unmatched by anyone on this board. His work has brought him to the fore in his field as well as in a secondary endeavor, that of the long-suffering existence of technical advisor in motion pictures.

Both of these gentlemen are well-informed, valued contributors. They are both outspoken and while this attribute often puts them at odds with others (in this case with each other), they are equally well-respected and admired.

I am proud that we have such talented people as these two individuals, among a group of similarly well-versed members, to educate us on ET.

 

[Harriet Collingham]

Dennis,
am not at all miffed. Is very useful to be corrected when one is wrong.
One day I hope to become a Navigation Officer in the Merchant Navy, and I hope that will bring about a better (and slightly more coherent) understanding of the responsibilities and pressures those men faced.
Best Wishes,
Hattie

 

[Tom Pappas]

Michael, what your (overly hyperbolic, for my taste) statement boils down to is: "you can understand the problem if, and only if you have stood a watch blah blah blah..."

The fallacy is that only if qualifier. Of course an experienced mariner knows what [a situation] is like, but that simply doesn't mean that no one else can comprehend it. There are many things that are literally indescribable, such as pain, o~~~~~, or taste. But merely to analyze the therbligs of lifeboat launching, or how a ship might have averted disaster if otherwise maneuvered, requires no sea experience whatsoever.

As I pointed out before, armchair (or laboratory) analysis often yields important results that bear on a historical outcome. The crew of American 191 didn't know that they could have flown the plane out of trouble, because the engineers who built it didn't figure out the correct control inputs until long after the wreckage stopped smoking. The fact that the problem was analyzed after the fact and a solution found is no reflection on the crew who died doing their damnedest. They did the best they could with the training and experience they had.

Just as did the crew of R.M.S. Titanic.

Walter Lord loved playing with the "what ifs" of Titanic's last voyage, but never did it to besmirch the names of her officers and crew. I don't see why I'm not entitled to do likewise.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

David,

It's unfortunate that you do not extend the same respect to my experience that I do yours, but that's a situation that it appears I am going to have to accept.

I don't mind repeating myself if I feel comfortable with my conclusions. I am always open, though, to new evidence or interpretations of evidence that might change them. At any rate, I wasn't aware that repeating myself was a crime.

You say, "Nothing you've written makes you an expert or anything close to it." Who said that I desired anything of the sort? I would never consider myself an expert on something so lacking in corroborative evidence.

I thought mentioning "Perth" and "W.A." in the same sentence was explanatory enough. Maybe not. It's quite possible that I've spent as much time crossing the Pacific as you have the Atlantic. And I had to demonstrate a proficiency in navigating with a sextant and reduction tables to get my OOW qualification, so on the surface it would seem that I've satisified at least one of your criteria, but judging by the direction this conversation has taken, I doubt it.

I say this not to impress, but to give you background on my experience, much as you have yours. However, it seems that there is nothing I can say that will satisfy you, so I will leave you to your own devices. Thank you for your advice, but you have given me no good reason why I should follow it.

I still would like to learn why the British Merchant Marine considers "Blue Duster" to be an insult, when my RAF friends showed no sign of insult when they referred to their "Blue Duster." Again, I'm not contesting the contention that the Blue Ensign should not be referred to as the "Blue Duster" in the merchant navy...I would just like an explanation of why this was by those who have made the assertion.

Parks

 

[Dennis Smith]

Tom,
I can see your point, but , as an "armchair person" work your way out of this one in less than a couple of minutes. We were on a small ship (G.T. 7672.66, NET 4973.5) coming back from Murmansk to Hamburg in Oct. 1987 when the unreported hurricane force winds hit the UK.It also hit us in the North Sea and I have never seen anything like it, I`ve been in Atlantic Hurriacanes and Pacific Typhoons but I`ve never seen anything like that. The seas were so short that we couldn`t ride, even head to weather, which was the only way to stay alive. Normally a ship will ride one wave and be ready to ride the next when it arrives but because of the shallow water the waves had increased in height and frequency, so when we were at
the bottom of a trough we were getting swamped by the next wave before we could ride it - the whole of the fore part swamped, believe me it was frightening, but not as frightening as when the head started to fall off, ie. she started to shift away from "head to weather". The ship was starting to turn to port and there was nothing the helm could do about it. the reason for this was because the prop was coming out of the water and the engine was going into overspeed and then shutting itself down, not stopping but slowing right down so no drive from the prop. This had to be sorted in less than half an hour otherwise no post from me and yet another ship lost with all hands, another ship broached - rolled over and gone. Just to add a couple of facts - No Radio comms - Far too much spray (that includes VHF)- the Aeriels may just as well been under water. The other thing being, the Master, who has sailed all his life on the North Atlantic (He was about 50-55 years of age I would guess) had never seen seas like these and in the report of total cargo loss (yes total cargo loss - 2 hatches flooded), stated that the seas were up to 35 metres - YES - 35 metres. I know this as I had to comment and sign the report due loss of comms.

I await your reply with interest

I am not trying to make anyone, especially you Tom, look silly or anything, but if you haven¬t been in a situation and been incredibly well trained you cannot and should not say how someone should or should not react to a situation.

Best Wishes and Rgds

Dennis

 

[Tom Pappas]

Did I give the impression that I feel qualified to comment on any situation? Some I do, others I don't.

The only thing I can say about the one you describe is, "whew!" But The Damn-Near Perfect Storm doesn't have much to do with looking at the data on the evacuation of Titanic, now does it?

 

[Dennis Smith]

Hi Tom,
If you are infering that my situation was inspired by "The Perfect Storm" you are totally wrong, if you would like the ships name and Company I can give it to you, the situation was real and it happened.
With regard to what happened on the Titanic, they were in the same situation, a situation where this had never happened before, no-one really knew what to do, so they relied totally on what they had been trained to do - the only thing a mariner can do, unless one of the officers had come up with something that may not have been done before. The chances of this been taken up, as far as I understand would have been - none. The Master of a ship in those days was GOD, there was no questioning, no arguments, no nothing. If the same situation had have held in my situation we would have been lost - thank God for the Chief Engineer.

Modern day ships still have the same rules, the OM `S word is law, but given time he will consult other officers - fortunately our OM did just this and the ship was saved.

I still don`t know what you would have considered
doing in the situation we were in. (Perfect Storm negated unless you could come up with how they could have got away with that situation)

Best Wishes and Rgds

Dennis

 

[Kyrila Scully]

Whew! Time out, people.

Now, I have a lot of respect for the individuals here - as Randy said - who are indeed experts in their individual fields, and I agree that experience counts for a lot of things. I feel honored and privileged to learn at your feet, hear all the opinions, and weigh which one makes the most sense to me, all the while acknowledging that (hey, here's a concept: ) I don't know it all.

Detectives tell me that the more witnesses they have the harder their job becomes because rarely does everyone tell the same story - no the opposite is usually true - they all tell a different story. Then the case goes to trial, and one side has their expert witness, while the other side has their witness, and the verdict all comes down to which witness was more believable in their testimony - not who had the better credentials, not who had the most experience, not even who was really telling the truth! The factor is believability. The art of believability comes with sincerity, respect, humility and openness.

Let's put egos aside, shall we? Tolerance is the honey that catches flies while contempt is the vinegar that turns them away. After reading through this thread I have seen provocation and I have seen whining. I have seen arrogance, and every now and then a ray of sanity and humility.

Someone once told me that it's not a good thing to be placed on a pedestal; when you fall off, it's a long way to the ground and more damage is likely. I assume it's the same for a high horse.

Debate is all well and good, but nothing is accomplished except time wasted when hot heads prevail. Check your tempers at the door, please. Or as mother would say it, "Play nice!"

Kyrila

(I know, I know, shut up and go watch a movie or something.)

 

[Tom Pappas]

Hi Dennis,

I made no such inference - I thought your harrowing experience stood on its own merits. In fact, my allusion to the book/movie was intended as a compliment.

The rest of your riposte seems to assume that I am criticizing the actions of Titanic's crew, and that is not my intent. My interest in the handling of the accident is strictly from a theoretical viewpoint, as I am intrigued by the possibilities that their plight offered.

As far as my suggesting a course of action in your situation, I thought my post made it abundantly clear that I do not presume to know everything (which I will modify to "very much at all"). But I guess it didn't.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Michael, what your (overly hyperbolic, for my taste) statement boils down to is: "you can understand the problem if, and only if you have stood a watch blah blah blah..." <<

Whether you regard my statement as overly hyperbolic is your problem sir. Not mine. I called it as I sees it and I gave full and due credit to the people who do the book learning. You need these people and I don't question that. Oftentimes, they ask the hard questions that need to be answered which others would rather avoid.

By the same token, I went to some pains that there are some things that you cannot and never will understand by any means save direct experience. Watchstanding under adverse conditions is just one of those. You may not have a problem grasping the book theory, but the nuances are another matter entirely.

If you don't believe me...fine. It won't change anything, but you're not required to. However, even as one dismisses the armchair theorists at their peril, they are on equally thin ice if they dismiss the people who know and understand the day to day practical realities. These are the people you ultimately have to go to to get the answers to the hard questions because nobody else really understands the territory.

But you might want to put yourself in a place where you have an opportunity to actually try it some time. It'll be an eye opener.

 

[David Haisman]

Parks Stephenson,
I'll try not to make this too much of a lengthy reply and deal with each paragraph.

I do respect your credentials and never said otherwise.

Too much is written covering the same ground and I fully understand how many people would enjoy that and their love for the subject. It doesn't do anything for me although some newcomers to the forum may pick it up.

Yes Indeed. When referring to a British Merchantman, I would be looking for similar expertise in that field and quite right too. You can't be expert enough to convince me, or many others that have endured similar circumstances.

Perth in WA. Of course, but having served for two years in the Australian MN I can assure you I've never heard the expression. However, knowing my Auzzie mates and the banter we have all exchanged from time to time,it was no doubt used for a laugh at some time or other.

Having crossed the Pacific myself many times on tankers etc. to Australia, I can't remember ice routines and so on but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding the Blue Ensign, Lloyds Register of 1936 lists 45 flags using the Blue Ensign, many of them with crests and several for yachts. If I called your Navy Flag a rag I doubt if you would go much on it.

Finally as one gentleman to another, there is an old saying which states quite simply. ''Stick to what you know best''

Many before you have dropped many ''clangers'' for trying to put across how much they know about our industry. Take it from me. You haven't even scratched the surface.
If I wanted to know what makes a US Merchantman or Navy ship ''tick'' I would ask my old mates Mike Standard, Captain Eric or even yourself.
I certainly wouldn't criticise your industry until doing so, whether today, or 90 years ago.
Perhaps some out there may one day extend that courtesy.
Believe it or not, I do find your posts interesting. You are a professional after all!

Finally, nice post Randy and many thanks to my fellow countrymen on this topic. It's Greatly appreciated.

Best Wishes,

David

 

[Kyrila Scully]

There, that's better! Keep up the good words.

Kyrila

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>If I wanted to know what makes a US Merchantman or Navy ship ''tick'' I would ask my old mates Mike Standard, Captain Eric or even yourself. <<

Be careful with that shipmate. The way things go sometimes, we often wonder how or why anything works at all!

 

[Erik Wood]

This conversation bothers to me to unexplainable extent. I agree and disagree with David H. I know him to be a honest (sometimes brutally, but that comes with being a sailor and a skipper, I can be the same way) and honorable man, and this without ever having met him. He is to my knowledge the only Master Mariner from the east side of the pond.

I have commented and will continue to comment on the actions of Titanic's officers in a way that I see fit. As should the rest of membership of the board. But they need to remember that there are those of us, who actually know what certain things mean, beyond what can be learned in a book, and anyone who thinks they can learn all there is to know about a ship and how it operates from a book, ask any cadet from any maritime academy and see what they say.

It is my personal opinion that they did there level best, that is a position that 99% of the maritime community shares. There may have been mistakes made, but as Parks said in a earlier disucssion on this thread, that doesn't in my view negate there professionalism or there overall ability to navigate (notice I didn't use the term "operate") there ship. It also in my opinion shows respect for those officers and crew who died doing there job that night.

One could assume by Tom's comments that by reading how ships operate, one would be to operate one, much like reading a manual on a computer and then being to operate it. If this where the case, then it wouldnt take deck maritime cadets 4 years to get there license and (this is U.S. law as well as Canadian) some 2 and half years of seatime to get your license and that is for 3rd mate on freight ships, not passenger vessels.

To imply that one can gain useful insights by reading books on a subject of operation implies that by reading books I can learn how to operate just about anything with the experience to back it up and that is just pure absurdity.

I do however agree with Tom's statement about being able to comprehend a situation without ever having the experience to back it up. You can get the general idea of how a situation played out and why. To think that you can have the knowledge of 90 years ago and can assert current theories as fact based on here say information, based on a event that none of us where there to see and fewer of us can relate to (I have had my fair share of emergency situations, both on passenger vessels and freight ships) is also pure absurdity. That would mean that there should be no need for organziations like the Coast Guard and NTSB. It would mean that there investigations which run off the same information (with the added bonus of 2003 technology) as the investigations in 1912 are useless, that anybody who could read a book should/would be able to figure out what went wrong and why.

Something that few of the folks on this board take into account here is how the maritime world works and without having been in it for open sea voyages commenting on it with certainty is a dangerous business. A fair chunk of the none sense discussed about Titanic is given from people who have no experience in the maritime industry and when that information is reviewed by the industry it makes those who assert it out to look like fools. Something that happens and continues to happen on a regular basis on this board, mainly because people like the romantic version of events, and not the reality of a maritime accident. The reality of how the maritime world operates, and the words in a book are two completely different things.

Before every action there is a reaction and before every reaction there is a action.

I as a professional mariner am unwilling to condemn the crew of a ship that sailed 90 years ago, in conditions that I am familar with, sailing with an industry that I am familar with, but working for a company and country that I have read about and worked with, but never worked in. I can understand the generalities of how they operate, because there are some things that are generic to sailors. Especially as seeing as that sailoring as we know it is decedent of the British way of some 200 years ago.

I am further unwilling, to claim that the lifeboat lowering that night didn't go well. I have lowered lifeboats with passengers, I have also done it at night, but I have never done it on a sinking ship. To say that the men, or to imply that the men operating Titanic and in charge of the lifeboat lowering didn't do there job correctly or could have done better is a game that no professional mariner would ever do. That is giving discredit to men who where in a situation that few (I am not one of those few) can relate to, they had to lower lifeboats, on a sinking ship in a hurry. To imply that 2 + hours isn't a hurry is to show how very little people no of maritime operation.

Think about it, how many of us have held a license on a ship over 14,000 tons?? How many of us have the sea going experience on a ship over 50,000 tons?? How many of us have commanded a ship over 50,000 tons?? Last but not least, how many of us did it in 1912?? To the last question, none of us. The rest few of us.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

David,

I see that your words are sweeter, but I am still receiving the message, "Back off, you don't know what you're talking about."

Kyrila,

Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend that the conversation has taken a sudden turn in congeniality.

Generally,

But I also have no interest in perpetuating the acrimony. It's a pointless exercise, because none of us, and I am including everyone reading this now, can speak with ultimate authority on what happened that night. It doesn't matter if I have over 20 years in the U.S. Navy or if David Haisman spent even more in the British Merchant Service, etc....none of us were raised in the same world as those who crewed Titanic. They're probably up there in the Great Beyond right now, looking down and laughing at our posturing and manoeuvring for position over a subject none of us can truly comprehend.

How much do we really know about what happened on board the ship that night? The history of the disaster has been analysed and written mostly by those who weren't even on board and by many with little or no nautical expertise. Those who were there and lived to tell the tale knew only their isolated experience, which was miniscule compared to the events swirling around that huge ship. For instance, what would a passenger know about what was going through the mind of the deck officer? What can a forensic analysis really tell us about the factors that led to a collision?

So, the issue of who went to Australia, or who has weathered the worst storm, or who has actually lowered a boat in a Welin davit, or who is British or who is not...all of it, as Tom said, is poppycock. None of it gets any of the claimants closer to the real truth and serves only to polarise people and opinions.

So why are we here? I can only speak for myself, and the reason why I am here is because I think that the popular history is wrong and misleading. I think that through research and experience, I have ideas to contribute that might give interested parties something new to consider. But mostly, I'm doing it for myself. Not for money -- Lord, no...very few ever make money from Titanic, and I do not expect to be one of that number -- but for the sake of my own understanding of the disaster. For those interested, I am willing to share my thoughts. Not one single person in this forum or anywhere is obligated to agree with or take on board what I say. I do not insist that anyone has to see events the way I do. I have my considered opinions, but I would never consider myself to be an expert. Only those who experienced the event could be considered experts, and even then, only in respect to their version of events.

If that doesn't work for you, then pass me by. No one, though, save the crew of Titanic herself, has the right to tell me to be quiet because I can't know anything. Wouldn't that be a direct violation of the forum rules? Or worse, throw around the attitude of "you don't know what I know, so you don't know anything." For those who say that -- and there has been more than one person in this forum alone who has in so many words claimed this -- are forgetting that they, too, don't know what they think they know. We are all, as it has been put, "in the same boat," and it's not a very seaworthy one. In this light, it is ludicrous to engage in oneupsmanship.

Don't like being lectured to? Neither do I. But this post, which has turned into a lecture, is directed at myself as well as anyone who wants to take it on board. Don't like it? Then pass me by, like I suggested earlier. No one has to listen to a word I say; likewise, I don't have to listen to those who feel the need to denigrate my credibility. Ignore me, counter what I say with historical evidence or even common-sense logic, if you must, but I will insist, that you adhere to the forum rules and allow me to speak without telling me to pipe down.

David,

I'm sorry that we had this conversation. I have held you in high regard for so long, it's tough saying now that I'm going to have to move along.

Parks