Distance to the Iceberg when sighted, and questions about the lookouts.

[Mike Spooner]

Seeing the photo of Smith with his gloves. On the right hand side on the floor. Can one tell me what it is? As it looks like lose rubbish?
Not one would expect to see on a brand new ship.

 

[Seumas]

Yes you would.

Really, you wouldn't expect to see litter on deck of a brand new ship during last minute preparations for a voyage ?

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Seeing the photo of Smith with his gloves. On the right hand side on the floor. Can one tell me what it is? As it looks like lose rubbish?

It is the loos end of a rope/fall which is running from the left side into the navigation bridge.

 

[Mike Spooner]

It is the loos end of a rope/fall which is running from the left side into the navigation bridge.

Thank you for a positive reply. I would agree decks bellows would be a certainly amount of mess as there is work to be completed.
But not insight of the captain on the bridge area.

 

[R.M.S TITANIC]

It's possible they didn't realize it until after taking the photo. Not to mention, if they did take notice of it an were trying to make sure the photo looked good, they would of cleaned the area around the captain. I can see some dust / dirt on the walls of the bridge.

 

[Bob Read]

This was in the officers’ promenade area. The Captain was no doubt more concerned that everything was as it should be in the passenger areas than in making a scene because he had a little foliage underfoot which would shortly be cleaned up.

 

[Jonathan Granato]

I am forever debasing the cozy myths and legends about some of the accepted, embellished and actual balderdash about the night of the sinking. One favourite balloon burster is that the ship was just proceeding ahead at a comfortable 22.5 knots and JUST SUDDENLY! OUT OF THE DARKNESS! A lone iceberg appeared! I believe it was The Night Lives On [but I cannot be certain as it was around 25 years ago] that clearly stated the ship was dodging ice bergs for a good hour before the collision.

The second is doing the math BUT NOT VINDICATING CAPTAIN LORD. Say the first distress call reached the Californian. That would have been around midnight. Remember, the Californian was shut down for the night AND wedged into field ice and unable to go anywhere due to the very real possibility of damaging her rudder [a fate wh. befell S.S. Frankfort the day before]. But, for argument's sake, let's say the Californian rec'd the distress call. 30 minutes to muster the crew and get moving [I believe it would've taken longer but I'm not an expert on revving up a vessel that's shut down for the night]. So, the Californian finally gets underway at 0030 Monday April 15th. Say it takes an hour to reach the Titanic. That puts us at 0130. At this point we have lifeboats that contain between 12 to 70 passengers. These lifeboats must be rowed out to the Californian, and evacuated as soon as possible. Those individuals occupying the lifeboats were civilians. I figure one minute per passenger in each lifeboat to get out, grab a rope and get hauled up to wherever. 70 minutes. Not including the time it takes the lifeboat to row out to the Californian. That puts us at 0240, twenty minutes after Titanic foundered. Where those who survived the sinking and were physically able to tread water going to swim to the Californian in 28 degree water? As the saying goes, "Let's not and say we did."

The above is just my educated guess after following this incredible event that never should have happened, was a freak accident, and the odds of everything being in order for it to occur again being so remote, it's folly to consider it.

But the motivation behind composing my first [and more than likely last] position of opinon about the sinking is this: Lightoller toed the line [VERY big toe, Charles] that proper navigational procedures were followed the night of April 14, and that what happened to RMS Titanic would more than likely have occurred to any other vessel traveling that route under those conditions. Because the unwritten rule for steamship navigation was to proceed at pace until the danger was seen with the naked eye. For 52 years I concurred with Lightoller. Until a couple of weeks ago. Something hit me. How in the name of Mick Jagger's lips is anybody, from the lookouts in the crow's nest, to the men on the bridge, to the officer patrolling the back of the ship, going to see ANYTHING if there is no moon? And, if these officers were so experienced, wouldn't they have foreseen that the absence of moonlight would decrease any chance of seeing foam around the base of the ice? So, given that it was a known fact the ship was sailing directly into field ice, field ice so massive it too most of Monday for the Carpathia to sail south around it and begin heading the New York. How could safe navigation be practiced without any ability to see the ice they were sailing into?

I am not an anally retentive factoid warrior. If some of the information in this post is not 100% accurate I would appreciate a correct. But don't get on a high horse because you know more about the facts about this than I do. I don't care, and neither does anybody else, except maybe your therapist. I've noticed a knee jerk reaction on the part of site members of other interests to self-exalt when they are able to call another site member out on an error.

I don't come to these sites to exchange sharp words [and the sharp words I do throw into the mix are entirely annihilating and only fired out when I'm provoked], I come to learn.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

How could safe navigation be practiced without any ability to see the ice they were sailing into?

The full extent of the icefield they heading toward was not known beforehand. Besides, they actually struck the berg a few miles before reaching the pack ice which was not seen until it became daylight.

I believe ... the ship was dodging icebergs for a good hour before the collision.

But then you asked: "How ...is anybody, from the lookouts in the crow's nest, to the men on the bridge, to the officer patrolling the back of the ship, going to see ANYTHING if there is no moon?"
You can't dodge what you cannot see.

 

[R.M.S TITANIC]

But then you asked: "How ...is anybody, from the lookouts in the crow's nest, to the men on the bridge, to the officer patrolling the back of the ship, going to see ANYTHING if there is no moon?"
You can't dodge what you cannot see.

I mean, even with the stars that night, the iceberg was also really black too. You wouldn't be able to win if I told you to spot the black dot on a black piece of paper.

 

[Georges Guay]

I was driving my 4x4 yesterday in heavy snow shower, thinking of that Crow’s Nest Canvas. The light snowflakes were naturally driven by the airstream created by the generated wind. At low speed, the snowflakes were deflected upward by the front end, flying over the hood but falling and melting on the windshield. At higher speed, the airstream was driving the flakes totally over the top of the truck, keeping the hood and windshield dry and clean. But I can assure you that if I would’ve taken the windshield away, I would’ve needed goggles to watch the cockpit being filled. Since «Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed»; due to a plan against a breeze, the airstream is compressed, accelerated and is partly transformed by a void turbulent airflow.

At low ship’s speed, the air flow was driven upward and above the nest in the exact same manner. You just had to back up in the nest to not feel the wind too much. But at higher speed, backing in the nest was not sufficient. The lookouts had to rig a canvas air deflector at the rear of the nest. It would then bring the air flow higher and produce a larger void that gave better protection against the breeze. On a ship’s bridge wing not equipped by wind deflector, you just have to back up a bit if you don’t want to feel the wind too much; far from rocket science.

Light shade canvas would’ve been unnecessary since a lookout didn’t have to scan the horizon more than 2 points abaft the beam. Any type of vessels approaching from a direction of more than 2 points abaft the beam is considered by the Rules of the road as an overtaking vessel, which befalls as the giveaway vessel and must keep clear from the stand-on vessel.

Sorry but, I personally found the lookout duties as the most boring job on earth and steering a vessel by hand on a straight course not much more exiting; but an experience required if you wish one day to command a vessel.

 

[Georges Guay]

There would be no need for any fancy engine use. The normal practice was to simply take the way off the vessel then go full astern until the wake started to spread out. You can actually see it doing so in the original photograph

You’re right Jim; «no need for any fancy engine use». Smith just had to kick out the pilot from the bridge a few minutes above Saint Helen’s pilot station, rudder cycling a little bit to get the stress down then from full ahead, order full vibrations astern. After a few 360° through eddies, the rowboat would be alongside in split seconds. The pilot just had to jump head first in the row boat as Smith had already ordered full steam ahead some more. Time to a Master was money too Jim.

The real danger at pilot station is for an inbound vessel under the command of a zombie captain who has been doing about nothing for weeks. The pilot has to «advice» him as to the embarkation leeward side, the heading to maintain, and the maximum speed at which to proceed. Ounce bouncing alongside, the pilot has to inspect the Jacob’s ladder to make sure is not manure rotten, make a prayer and jump on the ladder at 3.00am.

As in this present case, the pilot disembarkation for an outbound vessel was a totally different story as it was the pilot who had the conduct. He would order any fancy heading and engine settings he judged necessary to ascertain disembarkation as safe as possible, as his own life (and the ones on the rowing open boat) depended on it. He didn’t even have to ask the permission from his grandmother neither his nephew to execute the safer maneuver possible.

Once again, a veteran Sandy Hook ship pilot has died after falling during boarding an «inbound» containership in the Port of New York on Monday morning December 30, 2019.

 

[Jim Currie]

I was driving my 4x4 yesterday in heavy snow shower, thinking of that Crow’s Nest Canvas. The light snowflakes were naturally driven by the airstream created by the generated wind. At low speed, the snowflakes were deflected upward by the front end, flying over the hood but falling and melting on the windshield. At higher speed, the airstream was driving the flakes totally over the top of the truck, keeping the hood and windshield dry and clean. But I can assure you that if I would’ve taken the windshield away, I would’ve needed goggles to watch the cockpit being filled. Since «Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed»; due to a plan against a breeze, the airstream is compressed, accelerated and is partly transformed by a void turbulent airflow.

At low ship’s speed, the air flow was driven upward and above the nest in the exact same manner. You just had to back up in the nest to not feel the wind too much. But at higher speed, backing in the nest was not sufficient. The lookouts had to rig a canvas air deflector at the rear of the nest. It would then bring the air flow higher and produce a larger void that gave better protection against the breeze. On a ship’s bridge wing not equipped by wind deflector, you just have to back up a bit if you don’t want to feel the wind too much; far from rocket science.

Light shade canvas would’ve been unnecessary since a lookout didn’t have to scan the horizon more than 2 points abaft the beam. Any type of vessels approaching from a direction of more than 2 points abaft the beam is considered by the Rules of the road as an overtaking vessel, which befalls as the giveaway vessel and must keep clear from the stand-on vessel.

Sorry but, I personally found the lookout duties as the most boring job on earth and steering a vessel by hand on a straight course not much more exiting; but an experience required if you wish one day to command a vessel.

The rear screen was to protect the lookout's night vision Georges. Nothing to do with wind or shelter. The front bulkhead and the cylindrical shape of the nest acted like a wind break, deflecting a 25 mph wind left... right up and over.. We had exactly the same system on Anchor Line passenger ships. We also had venturi-type deflectors on the bridge wings on other ships I served on. Rear screens were very useful to lookouts when during buoyed channel passage at night, they needed to spot buoy lights. You, as a Pilot will know how annoying accommodation light glare can be on night passage down such a channel.

 

[Georges Guay]

Jim, you wrote somewhere that you had the honor to serve in the barrel in 50 feet waves and if there be no watertight door on the mast, the spray would’ve flooded the vessel. That must’ve been quite an experience! Have you any «evidence» like a medal of heroism, photos or something of that sort?

Nowadays, I am quite sure that you can spot at nighttime the glow of an Oasis Class cruiseship beyond the horizon. But on her bridge, you would see absolutely nada zero of that glare; pitch dark expect that faint panama light requested by pilots on narrow channel passages.

That was exactly the same on Titanic; all forward passageways lights shining forward would be switched off, except the side navigation lights. Furthermore, the height and location of the nest would make any accommodation light refraction insignificant. In addition, the lookouts didn’t have to scan the horizon more than 2 points abaft the beam, as any approaching vessels beyond that direction were giveaway.

If the lookouts would've need curtains to shadow them from dazzling accommodation light, that same glare would've been refracted on forward deck structures and become a nuisance the OOW night vision. They would then have to canvas the whole bridge. The «evidence» shows that it would’ve been totally inacceptable. Even vigorous Smith, to say the least, would have dispute.

 

[Scott Mills]

Nae danger mate

I urge everyone to catch my upcoming new documentary and book based upon evidence which I uncovered in my Grannie's garden shed which proves that RMS Titanic was fatally rammed by one of the Kaiser's warships disguised as an iceberg.

I'm going to make thousands from suckers !

(On a serious note, I'm afraid that there are some sad individuals out there who would readily believe nonsense like that)

And what connection did your Grannie have to the Kaiser!? Something fishy is going on here.

PS. Just reading back through the last few pages, this thread took a downward spiral quickly; and just for the record, someone need not know "what time X picture was taken by whom," nor do they need to know what room exactly X porthole connected with, to be an expert on Titanic or her foundering.

Not that some of these facts are not interesting, but is details like this that are literally trivial in the final analysis.

 

[Jim Currie]

Jim, you wrote somewhere that you had the honor to serve in the barrel in 50 feet waves and if there be no watertight door on the mast, the spray would’ve flooded the vessel. That must’ve been quite an experience! Have you any «evidence» like a medal of heroism, photos or something of that sort?

Nowadays, I am quite sure that you can spot at nighttime the glow of an Oasis Class cruiseship beyond the horizon. But on her bridge, you would see absolutely nada zero of that glare; pitch dark expect that faint panama light requested by pilots on narrow channel passages.

That was exactly the same on Titanic; all forward passageways lights shining forward would be switched off, except the side navigation lights. Furthermore, the height and location of the nest would make any accommodation light refraction insignificant. In addition, the lookouts didn’t have to scan the horizon more than 2 points abaft the beam, as any approaching vessels beyond that direction were giveaway.

If the lookouts would've need curtains to shadow them from dazzling accommodation light, that same glare would've been refracted on forward deck structures and become a nuisance the OOW night vision. They would then have to canvas the whole bridge. The «evidence» shows that it would’ve been totally inacceptable. Even vigorous Smith, to say the least, would have dispute.

In fact, Georges, I have been on a semi submersible in 60 feet waves/ You should try it some time. I have to smile at all you young whipersnappers who think that being on a 500 K vessel is "sea-faring"/

On a serious note, though, I had the misfortune to have been on one of the ships that attempted to rescue the poor lads on the German Sail Training Ship "Pamir".
We all limped into Las Palmas in a broken, sorry state. Not the least bit funny, I can tell you. Yes , I do have a medal or two. I'll see if I can find them or the citations/