John M. Feeney
Member
I was scrutinizing Officer Groves' testimony lately when I recognized a peculiarity that instantly flashed me back to a portion of Lightoller's testimony and may explain why most (but not all) of the times cited by many of the watch officers and other "lookouts" can *only* be considered approximate.
Groves was asked, in reference to his 11:10 to 11:15 sighting of the approaching ship, when on the night of the 14th he'd last gotten a precise visual fix on the time:
8141. When had you last looked at the clock? - Ten-twenty-six - well, I had looked at my watch; we had no clock on the upper bridge. I set that at 6 o'clock by the ship's clock.
Later he cited several times which he could only certify as approximations.
Being the mere "landlubber" I am, I wondered why a Watch Officer who had a timepiece conveniently handy *usually* had to just estimate the timing of his observations (except for those instances where the ship's bell offered auditory confirmation). Not having a clock on an open bridge, as was the case on Californian, is perhaps understandable at several levels. But why no standard reference to the watch?
Then it occurred to me -- Lightoller's related bit of information [US 442]:
Senator PERKINS. The duty of the officer in charge of the bridge, the senior officer, is to see that she is steering the course that has been given, is it not?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. The senior officers can not go inside of the wheelhouse to look at the compass after nighttime; they would be blinded. ...
To me this suggested, at least, that Groves may have had no means to *see* his watch -- especially on that dark, moonless night -- without jeopardizing his night vision. (And he was basically alone; Lord was in the chart room for most of that time, according to Groves.) So even striking a match for the purpose of checking the time would risk reversing the night vison acclimation needed for good observations in the only "ranking" pair of eyes that apparently had it. Since there was a nearby vessel in sight -- potentially a hazard that needed to be carefully observed (among other things) ...
What applied to Groves would apply equally to Stone later on, though obviously Stone could have occasionally employed Gibson as a time-keeper (when Gibson was actually *on* the bridge to have this task delegated to him.) Groves, however, was essentially alone.
(This same notion leads me to wonder how Stone could manage to take those implied continuous compass bearings on the nearby ship without impacting his night vision.)
Any thoughts on this? I know that *red* lights were later used on submarines for the specific reason that they don't impair night vision. But was this knowledge even available (or utilized in any way) in 1912?
Groves was asked, in reference to his 11:10 to 11:15 sighting of the approaching ship, when on the night of the 14th he'd last gotten a precise visual fix on the time:
8141. When had you last looked at the clock? - Ten-twenty-six - well, I had looked at my watch; we had no clock on the upper bridge. I set that at 6 o'clock by the ship's clock.
Later he cited several times which he could only certify as approximations.
Being the mere "landlubber" I am, I wondered why a Watch Officer who had a timepiece conveniently handy *usually* had to just estimate the timing of his observations (except for those instances where the ship's bell offered auditory confirmation). Not having a clock on an open bridge, as was the case on Californian, is perhaps understandable at several levels. But why no standard reference to the watch?
Then it occurred to me -- Lightoller's related bit of information [US 442]:
Senator PERKINS. The duty of the officer in charge of the bridge, the senior officer, is to see that she is steering the course that has been given, is it not?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER. The senior officers can not go inside of the wheelhouse to look at the compass after nighttime; they would be blinded. ...
To me this suggested, at least, that Groves may have had no means to *see* his watch -- especially on that dark, moonless night -- without jeopardizing his night vision. (And he was basically alone; Lord was in the chart room for most of that time, according to Groves.) So even striking a match for the purpose of checking the time would risk reversing the night vison acclimation needed for good observations in the only "ranking" pair of eyes that apparently had it. Since there was a nearby vessel in sight -- potentially a hazard that needed to be carefully observed (among other things) ...
What applied to Groves would apply equally to Stone later on, though obviously Stone could have occasionally employed Gibson as a time-keeper (when Gibson was actually *on* the bridge to have this task delegated to him.) Groves, however, was essentially alone.
(This same notion leads me to wonder how Stone could manage to take those implied continuous compass bearings on the nearby ship without impacting his night vision.)
Any thoughts on this? I know that *red* lights were later used on submarines for the specific reason that they don't impair night vision. But was this knowledge even available (or utilized in any way) in 1912?
