Lifeboats 13 and 15


A

Alyson Jones

Guest
There was an incident between L/B #13 and #15 when being lowered in to the sea. Apparently #15 nearly ended on top of #13 with full of passengers.What/Who caused this mishap or was it the Techolghy?Has anything been change to provent this from happening again?
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,040
296
353
It was possibly caused by the ship being at an angle, or maybe #13 drifted back a little and got under #15.

Could it happen again? Of course it could. Lifeboats are still lowered close together and shipwrecks are often disorganised messes. The sea laughs at theory!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
There was a discussion on this matter on the TRMA board before the thread was lost many years ago. Theres a picture of the Titanic leaving Southampton
- smaller version is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/legacies/myths_legends/england/lancashire/index.shtml
- in a large version, besides the condensor discharge, there are a couple of smaller water vents. Now, I don't recall what these vents were for, but a discussion of how the engines worked indicated that these vents would possibly have been working the night of the collision. There was a sketch showing that, with the list the Titanic possibly had at the time, the bow of lifeboat no.13 would have wound up near the discharge of one of these vents, and this may have forced no.13 backwards down the hull, under no.15. I believe Beesley said something similar in his book.

I don't think the ship being at an angle alone would have been the sole reason for no.13 to wind up under no.15. The falls would have been parallel as the boats were lowered.
 
Dec 6, 2000
1,384
12
221
One possible reason for this mishap was a lack of control by the officers.

According to Beesley, an officer, who he thought was Murdoch, ordered 13 and 15 to be lowered, but immediately left that portion of the deck. According to Lookout Lee, an unknown person was supervising the loading down on A Deck, probably the 5th or 6th officer. Since we know Lowe had been busy over to the port side, it could have been Moody doing this.

As said above, the pump discharge caused 13 to float backwards, right under 15. Lack of enough supervision from above, being the lowering was done on the Boat Deck, but the officer on A Deck (probably Moody) could easily cause 15 to lower before it was known things were clear below it.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>Could it happen again? Of course it could<<

Dave Sir.Life boats on todays ships are located near the sea,infact a close distance to the sea.
I just can't see this mishap happening again?



>>One possible reason for this mishap was a lack of conrol by the officers<<

And this was caused by having no life boat drill?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,090
1,407
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>I just can't see this mishap happening again?<<

I can envision much worse. Titanic was a relatively stable platform for more than 2 1/2 hours. Not so in many other ships in a damaged condition. Good example is Andrea Doria in 1956. Half her lifeboats were unusable. As Dave said, shipwrecks are often disorganised messes.
 

Tad G. Fitch

Member
Dec 31, 2005
579
6
111
I agree with what Sam said. I believe many of the Britannic's lifeboats were similarly unusable, due to the heavy list, continuing forward motion of the ship, and rapid rate of flooding when compared to Titanic. In many ways, and this will probably sound odd, but the Titanic disaster could have been far worse. Imagine the what ifs, such as the Carpathia not receiving the distress call, the ocean not being calm, the possibility that the ship could have listed more heavily than it did, sank in less than an hour, etc. As things were, the evacuation was reasonably orderly until the later stages of the sinking, and was about as good as could be expected given the context and circumstances as they were. The loss of life could have been significantly higher, and we would be talking about far less that 700+ survivors.

Take care,
Tad
 
T

Trevor Rommelley

Guest
The Wilhelm Gustoff had a huge list making half the lifeboats unusable, and we all know the horrendous loss of life on that ship.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Myself quote-
.
>>Life boats on todays ships are located near the sea,infact a close distance to the sea.
I just can't see this mishap happening again? <<


Fella's. What i meant by that is, Modern ships today and the 90's ships, i was not talking about ships in Titanic's time or the 50's. If you take notice of the ships today, all there life boats and life rafts are near the sea, so the life boats and rafts take a shorter amount of time to reach the sea and save time.
Have any one of you fella's took any notice of where the life boats are place?

When you think about where the life boats and rafts are place now, it all makes sence. Hardly no chance for a life boat or raft to be stuck under another life boat or raft.

Do you understand me now? or have i gotten all of you confussed?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,608
641
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Have any one of you fella's took any notice of where the life boats are place?<<

Yes I have and I can still see much worse happening. The boats being closer to the sea don't make the difference you think it does. If the ship takes a signifigent list, the problem will be getting half of the boats to go down the side...over the hull...to get it down to the water. If the list is greater then what the davits and boats are designed to deal with, then half of what you have won't be going anywhere.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Michael Sir. well yes true about the list can cause problems.Technolghy today is lot faster to deploy lifeboats in to the sea,and passenger's are located to there own lifeboat even before the ship leaves port.Plus today crew member's are well train to do the job, plus there is life boat drills so the crew is well prepare for the worst.Titanic had only a little list,but the crew had to do manually deployment of the lifeboats.The list was not the problem,it was the life boats deployment that was the problem,it was to slow.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,608
641
483
Easley South Carolina
>>well yes true about the list can cause problems.<<

It can do worse then that. A list can slow things down, or if it's bad enough, stop the show dead cold in it's tracks.

Don't get too cozy with technical advances. They're not quite the cure-all you might think, and there are some very severe limitations as to what can be achieved when most of your boats are arranged along the ship's side. If the slope of the listing hull is too great, that boat is going nowhere.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>Don't get too cozy with technical advances. They're not quite the cure-all you might think, and there are some very severe limitations as to what can be achieved when most of your boats are arranged along the ship's side. If the slope of the listing hull is too great, that boat is going nowhere.<<

That's true. Anything man made is never perfect, even if it's built in modern days.Still today 's technolghy can help against list but can't prevent it happenning.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,090
1,407
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
If you take notice of the ships today, all there life boats and life rafts are near the sea, so the life boats and rafts take a shorter amount of time to reach the sea and save time.
Have any one of you fella's took any notice of where the life boats are place?

YES.
135335.gif
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
Samual. Don't forget when a modern ship does hit an iceberg, they are not going to wait around for the ship to start sinking.When the mishap happends most of her lifeboats would have been deployed in to the sea way before the ships half way gone.Also don't forget that life boats are deployed in to the sea much faster than Titanic's life boats were.
If Titanic had life boats that close to the sea, that would have been a different situation, meanning *bad*.

Do you really think who is in charge of saftey would put life boats that close to the sea, if it was going to be a danger to passenger's life's NO!.Plus there is a way to avoid that situation that Samual picture states and it's quite easy to get around it.The designer's are not stupid!

The first boats closest to the bridge would automatic be deployed first, then the next life boats closets to the bridge goes next and so on. So when the ship is sinking lower were the life boats were ,those life boats have allready been deployed
happy.gif


It just plain com and sence falla's
wink.gif
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,608
641
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Do you really think who is in charge of saftey would put life boats that close to the sea, if it was going to be a danger to passenger's life's NO!.<<

They may not have a choice. Alyson, any ship is a study in compromises and the key reason the lifeboats are arranged lower down is to avoid topweight problems. Unfortunately, there's a tradeoff such as what you see in the illustration above.

>>The designer's are not stupid!<<

But they're not omnipotent either.
 
A

Alyson Jones

Guest
>>They may not have a choice<<

Yeah, True michael.

Even so,about topweight problems which i belive you,they still won't put lifeboats that close to the sea, if it going to endanger passenger's lives,not aloud to buy law. I do get what you are pointing out

Tradeoff what does that mean? and omnipotent mean? Sorry!
 

Similar threads

Similar threads