How much of a difference would it have made?

[Arun Vajpey]

Thanks Julian. I feel that the fact that many observers on the Titanic were able to see the lights of the Californian some 11 to 12 miles away is even more significant because that can be extrapolated into the hypothetical situation where the WSL liner was following the same course as the Leyland ship instead of being on a track well south of the latter.

Let us for come moment consider that Captain Lord did mean another ship on the same track when he referred to one of "those big fellows coming crunching along"; frankly, he could not have meant anything else. From that perspective, the Titanic was certainly a "big fellow" and if it had been on the same track as the Californian, would have been just over an hour behind when the latter stopped for the night at 10:30pm. As has been shown, after stopping the Californian started to very slowly swing clockwise in the current and by about an hour later was bearing ENE. That would have partially opened up its deck lights to any other ship following in its wake, as was the Titanic in this hypothetical scenario.

As the Titanic closed in, Fleet and Lee in their crow's nest 90 feet above the sea and Murdoch on Watch on the bridge some 55 feet high would have been scanning the sea ahead. Since the sea was calm and the night very clear, IMO the lookouts would have spotted the lights of the stopped Californian at least 10 miles away, probably a mile or two earlier. They would have alerted the bridge and Murdoch would have known, unless he too had already spotted the lights ahead. My view is that since in reality Murdoch almost managed to avoid a dark iceberg first spotted when it was only about 2500 feet away from the bow and even closer when the hard-a-port order was given, he would have had ample time and options in the hypothetical scenario to avoid the Californian, the lights of which were spotted at 10 miles.

 

[Bob Read]

Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?

Very likely because they - the lookouts and Murdoch - were looking ahead within a limited arc of vision. They would have been concentrating on an area that was in the Titanic's path and a wee bit on either side of it.

There is a chance that Murdoch did see the lights of the Californian off to the starboard side just as the Titanic was nearing its fateful encounter with the iceberg. If he had done, it would not have meant much to him at the time because he would have known that there were other - and mostly slower - westbound ships. Since he died in the sinking, we wouldn't know either way.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?

For the simple reason that Californian's masthead and side lights were shut in from Titanic as the latter approached. (The stern light would have been too dim at that distance to be noticed, and whatever few deck lights Californian carried, would also have been too dim to notice. We're talking a vessel about 12 miles off. It was only when Californian swung around enough to open her masthead lights up to Titanic that a light was first spotted. And even then, it was at the limit of visual acuity, as very few actually made out that she had two masthead lights with the naked eye. Most eyewitnesses from Titanic reported seeing only a single light.

The other thing to realize is that the lights of another vessel usually gets first noticed when they change their bearing relative to the background stars. As a private pilot who flew many times at night, I can attest to the fact that the lights of most other aircraft are first spotted by their relative motion much more so than by their brightness. The biggest danger is when the bearing of the lights stay in the same spot in the windshield. Then you are on a collision course and may not realize it except for the increase in brightness. That's why its always a good idea to have "flight following" with ATC active when flying at night under visual flight rules. They usually tell you what around and where to look.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?

For the simple reason that Californian's masthead and side lights were shut in from Titanic as the latter approached. (The stern light would have been too dim at that distance to be noticed, and whatever few deck lights Californian carried, would also have been too dim to notice. We're talking a vessel about 12 miles off. It was only when Californian swung around enough to open her masthead lights up to Titanic that a light was first spotted. And even then, it was at the limit of visual acuity, as very few actually made out that she had two masthead lights with the naked eye. Most eyewitnesses from Titanic reported seeing only a single light.

Thanks Sam. I agree with your reasoning and tried to put it in the right perspective so that I could picture the scene that night.

By about 11:30am that Sunday the Californian had been stopped for over an hour and had slowly swung clockwise in the current so that it was bearing ENE just as the Titanic arrived on the scene. The latter's course was considerably to the south of the Leyland liner but because of the relative headings of the two ships, the Titanic was 'approaching' the Californian obliquely as reported by 3/O Groves. Since he reported that soon after he saw the lights of the other ship it appeared to stop and put out most of its deck lights (which we now know was an optical illusion created by Titanic's maneuvers just before, during and just after the collision with the iceberg), can it be that Groves actually saw the other ship's lights later than he actually made it appear in his testimony?

I am thinking that because the Titanic and the Californian ended up about 12 miles apart after the former turned to port and then sharply to starboard before coming to a stop heading NNW. But as the WSL ship had approached earlier ie several minutes before the iceberg was seen, the two ships would have been further apart, perhaps 15 miles or more for most of that timeframe. Could that have been one of the reasons why no one on the Titanic reported seeing lights of another ship before the collision?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

By about 11:30am that Sunday the Californian had been stopped for over an hour and had slowly swung clockwise in the current so that it was bearing ENE just as the Titanic arrived on the scene.

Not sure what you mean 'arrived on the scene'? The first arrival would have been when a mast light was first sighted coming up over the horizon. That would have been around 11pm, and the two ships would be about 22 miles apart with Titanic's mast light looking like a rising star coming from the eastward. She would be changing her bearing as she steamed along getting more southward from Californian. Lord, who was occasionally watching this steamer from the lower bridge at times, admitted to seeing her green sidelight and some deck lights as the steamer continued to get nearer. Exactly what Groves saw vs. what he recalled seeing IMO is questionable. He recalled seeing lots of light on the steamer, and according to his testimony, reported that to Lord when he went to inform Lord that a steamer was approaching. Did he notice some changes in the appearance of the lights to suggest that the steamer maybe directly approaching them at that time? Probably. It would explain why he went down to report around 11:30. Did he say at that time anything about the steamer shutting in her lights? I don't know, but a few minutes later Lord came up to the upper bridge to see the stopped steamer himself, and that is when the exchange about it being a passenger vessel, or not, came up.

At the time of the iceberg encounter, around 11:30 on Californian, the distance between vessels would have been closer to 12-14 miles, and Californian was then pointing around NE magnetic (which Groves noted), and Titanic would have appeared a bit more than 2 pts abaft her beam, enough to have Californian's lights shut out. (Grove apparently said that it came up about 3 points abaft the starboard beam in his deposition because the AG said something to Lord about that the day before Groves was questioned.) Californian didn't swing onto ENE magnetic until about the time 2/O Stone arrived.

 

[Julian Atkins]

May I say how much I appreciate both Sam and Arun’s posts on all this and particularly their last posts.

Given that we now have primary source documentary evidence of problems with certain bits of Groves’ eyesight (which was never mentioned at the time), it does make me wonder whether Captain Lord at the time had better eyesight and could distinguish a starboard green light better than Groves. (Others may cite as a contrary view some 16 years later the purported medical reasons why Captain Lord retired).

It seems in retrospect quite significant that Captain Lord identified 2 masthead lights and a green starboard light of this other vessel approaching them to the south and eastward of them.

Groves, who stayed on the flying bridge until he went down to the chart room briefly at 11.30pm to report to Captain Lord, saw a glare of deck lights of this other vessel. Only one masthead light (this might have been later) and no starboard light. I don’t think anyone apart from Groves and THE BOARD OF TRADE knew at the time that Groves had failed part of an eyesight test.

Anyway, 11.30pm on The Californian was 11.42pm on Titanic. Groves’ 11.15pm is 11.27pm on Titanic. Groves’ 11.15pm is 13 minutes before Titanic hit the iceberg.

When Groves went to Evans’ cabin and put the headset on at say 12.20/12.25am Californian time it was 12.32/12.37am Titanic time - just around the time Cottam received the CQD and when Phillips had been tapping out CQD for awhile.

Clearly, when Groves went down to the chart room he reported to Captain Lord a ship approaching them showing lots of lights. No turn(s) of this other “passenger steamer”, but when Captain Lord then joined him on the flying bridge, all that had then changed, and all Groves could see was the other ship had changed by it’s lights to not much at all compared to previously [a rather vague timing by Groves of seeing a red port side light] which mutually both he and Captain Lord both corroborated but in different ways [except for the red side light which by then Captain Lord slightly later and being on the flying bridge only briefly with Groves didn’t see].

The British Inquiry didn’t grasp any of this. They were unaware of a potential issue with part of Groves’ eyesight (despite what would these days have required the Board of Trade to disclose such details). The British Inquiry assumed wrongly that Californian ships time was the same as Titanic ships time. And they failed to grasp that Titanic ended up heading northwards after the iceberg had been hit. Those were significant failures of the British Inquiry and the Board of Trade.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Not sure what you mean 'arrived on the scene'? The first arrival would have been when a mast light was first sighted coming up over the horizon. That would have been around 11pm, and the two ships would be about 22 miles apart with Titanic's mast light looking like a rising star coming from the eastward.

I meant more or less exactly what you are saying. I was using the phrase "on the scene" colloquially to denote when each ship could first have seen any light from the other, even if observers on one or both ships did not recognize them as such immediately.

Exactly what Groves saw vs. what he recalled seeing IMO is questionable.

Yes, especially as he only testified a month later in England a lot happened and/or was revealed in between.

Given that we now have primary source documentary evidence of problems with certain bits of Groves’ eyesight (which was never mentioned at the time), it does make me wonder whether Captain Lord at the time had better eyesight and could distinguish a starboard green light better than Groves. The British Inquiry didn’t grasp any of this. They were unaware of a potential issue with part of Groves’ eyesight (despite what would these days have required the Board of Trade to disclose such details).

Since there are a lot of different eyesight issues, "better eyesight" is difficult to define in relation to what the two men could or couldn't see that night. The same thing applies to Groves failing the eye test; what part of the test did he fail? Did it have something to do with colour or night vision?

As I have explained before, night vision depends almost exclusively on Rod photoreceptor cells which are ultra sensitive to light but have almost no ability to separate colours. Daytime vision, or more specifically colour vision, depends upon Cones, which are not as light sensitive but excellent in colour perception. There can be individual differences in activity of Rods and so vision at night; some are better than others. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that a person who demonstrates a slight deficit of visual acuity during an eye test actually has better night vision than someone who shows a 20/20 result.

That is the reason I strongly feel that there would have been a significant difference between being able to see masthead or deck lights of another ship at 12 miles on a very dark night and to do so with its coloured sidelights. Distinguishing a spot of red or green (especially the former) at that distance would have been extremely difficult (everything appears 'white') and so I continue to be skeptical about if Lord or Groves really saw those sidelights at various stages like they claimed or simply thought that they did.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

It seems in retrospect quite significant that Captain Lord identified 2 masthead lights and a green starboard light of this other vessel approaching them to the south and eastward of them.

Lord never said he saw two masthead lights. It was Groves who made that claim.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

The spotting of sidelights from Californian, where the color was clearly made out, was usually through the use of binoculars. As Gibson wrote, "The light on the other ship, however, was still the same, so I looked at her through the binoculars and found it was her masthead light flickering. I also observed her port sidelight and a faint glare of lights on her afterdeck."

 

[Julian Atkins]

Lord never said he saw two masthead lights. It was Groves who made that claim.

Thank you Sam for your correction and apologies for an aberration on my part.

 

[Jean-Claude]

Arun you shouldn't include my name with to regards to nautical experience. Yes I spent time at sea aboard a warship but my duties were in the aviation branch. What I know about running ships is mostly what I've read or saw. Never stood the type of watches that were required to run/handle a ship. That being said what I'm going to say next is just an observation. I did witness 3 rescues at sea. 2 man overboard and 1 pilot recovery from ejection. Even with modern technology it took time to get them back aboard. 15-25 mins or so. That was with helo's, trained rescue swimmers and knowing their exact location. Also it was warm water. My point is it took time with what I would describe as ideal rescue conditions.
I'm just going on what I know of the Californian to be accepted as true, the distances established, the conditions that night. And the time it would take for everything to fall into place. I just don't see it happening that the Californian would have been able to pull it off. Is it impossible? No as mitfrc has pointed out it has been done before but conditions were different and again time is the key. I also don't think Captain Lord would have taken the risks putting his own ship in danger to try and pull it off with the conditions that night. Just my opinion of course. This all falls into the "if only" situation. If only one thing out of 20 had been different.....Cheers.

I think like you that Captain Lord would never have done something that may put his ships and his crew in danger, but it does not mean that he would not have try to do something if he have known that Titanic is sinking. He would have to determine the exact position of the Titanic, the one from the distress calls or the one from the vessel firing rockets over the horizon. He would have to navigate very carefully to get out of the icefield. He would have to slow down when getting near the Titanic to avoid endangering the passengers and the crew members in their lifeboats who were rowing toward his ship. It is very doubtful that Captain Lord would have the opportunity to get his ship alongside the Titanic, before passengers and crew members started to jump out from the sinking Titanic. I am not a seamen and even less an expert on nautical matter, my experience at sea being limited to be a passenger only once on a very nice cruise, but I am inclined to think like you.

 

[marina_irc]

@Arun Vajpey I do owe you this from quite some time ago -- a review of the available sources on self-rescue swimming. A lot of the assumption that this is extremely dangerous dates back to research from the 1960s and 1970s, for example, Sudden Failure of Swimming in Cold Water. The example shows a small scale study (only four participants) in which the swimming ability of the participants was not highly validated. So official guidance in many cases remains that self-rescue swimming should not be attempted.

But in recent years, and this is what I was referencing in anecdote about the fact that there were documented reasonable (yes, I know that's a terrible thing, up there with "not great but not terrible") survival rates for shipwreck survivors in the North Atlantic who swam, there has been some pushback against this guidance, viz: 553 SELF-RESCUE STRATEGIES DURING ACCIDENTAL COLD WATER IMMERSION: PERFORMANCE AND THERMAL CONSIDERATIONS which showed a mean distance covered of 890 meters when swimming with a PFD on by 15 participants (at, granted, 14 degrees C). Self-rescue swimming in cold water: the latest advice provides the following in the abstract:

Recent evidence from the literature shows that the initial factors identified as being responsible for swimming failure can be either easily overcome or are not likely the primary contributors to swimming failure. Studies over the last decade reported that swimming failure might primarily be related not to general hypothermia, but rather to muscle fatigue of the arms as a consequence of arm cooling. This is based on the general observation that swimming failure developed earlier than did systemic hypothermia, and can be related to low temperature of the arm muscles following swimming in cold water. All of the above studies conducted in water between 10 and 14 °C indicate that people can swim in cold water for a distance ranging between about 800 and 1500 m before being incapacitated by the cold. The average swimming duration for the studies was about 47 min before incapacitation, regardless of the swimming ability of the subjects. Recent evidence shows that people have a very accurate idea about how long it will take them to achieve a given swimming goal despite a 3-fold overestimation of the absolute distance to swim. The subjects were quite astute at deciding their swimming strategy early in the immersion with 86% success, but after about 30 min of swimming or passive cooling, their decision-making ability became impaired.

Now, the water in the vicinity of Titanic was colder still, but certain interesting conclusions present themselves. For example, wearing clothing is actually detrimental to swim performance as per "Swim performance and thermoregulatory effects of wearing clothing in a simulated cold-water survival situation". It's worth noting that half the men who survived swims to lifeboat 4 were engine room crew who were presumably dressed more lightly than the passengers due to their working conditions.

Here is another 2000s study on the matter of self-rescue swimming versus the HELP posture: SWIMMING SURVIVAL - PERFORMANCE AND JUDGEMENT IN COLD WATER.

I remain convinced both parbuckling with cranes and cargo nets and lowering the lifeboats alongside to use as recovery platforms could have recovered many men alive.

To provide more relevant information on this, I'm going to try and retrace the movements of Lifeboat 4. I think it is one of the most interesting neglected stories left in the tale of the Titanic, why and how so many men got out of the water onto that boat, and ever since we last had this conversation I've been going back to musing on it time and time again.