Navigational Refutation of Titanic's CQD Position

[Alicia Coors]

In a monograph published on the E-T site, Capt. L.M. Collins provides a meticulous cross-check of Fourth Officer Boxhall's arithmetic in computing Titanic's position when the ship began to sink. He demonstrates with egregious precision how a position of 41°46'N 50°14'W is calculated by dead-reckoning from her last position determined by stellar observation, 4h19m prior to the collision.

Navigational Confirmation of Titanic's CQD Position

Explore why Titanic’s CQD distress position was accurate, despite a 13-mile drift to the wreck site, according to navigational analysis.

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

Dave Gittins suggests that Boxhall misread his Traverse Tables while crunching the numbers, and therefore the CQD position is suspect. I think there is a far simpler explanation.

Titanic's SOS Position

The word "current" is not found in Duke's article at all; Dave mentions it exactly once (in the context of the 1990-92 computation, not his own).

A reasonable person would dispute the contention that Titanic drifted ~13 nm. from her presumed position at the moment of collision to the wreck site. If the distance/time equation is solved for ~13/~2, the current would have to be around 6 knots(!) This is unlikely the case. An explanation for the 13 miles must lie elsewhere.

Since Boxhall's computation apparently works if the current is ignored, I believe that the drift should be applied over the total time between the evening shoot and the sinking (an interval of 6h39m) giving an average velocity of a little less than 2kt.

Applied to the time between the celestial shoot and the collision, a drift of 8.5 nm at this rate would have occurred; from collision to wreck site, the remaining distance of 4.5nm would be traversed.

Titanic encountered her fate at 41°44'N 50°W.

 

[Paul Visser]

Alecia,

>>Dave Gittins suggests that Boxhall misread his Traverse Tables while crunching the numbers, and therefore the CQD position is suspect. I think there is a far simpler explanation.<<

Lets not forget that Captain Rostron, Master of the Carpathia, found and rescued the survivors on the position given by the Titanic. There is no doubt that Officer Boxhall's dead reconing was absolutely correct give or take a few miles taking drift into consideration and the distance Titanic went ahead after she struck the iceberg.

Paul

 

[Alicia Coors]

Rostron ran in the direction he thought Titanic was from him and happened to find Boxhall (and about an hour sooner than he expected to!). On a course of 308° true to the CQD coordinates, Carpathia would have passed within 5 miles of the wreck site.

Dave Gittins says that when Carpathia picked him up, "Boxhall was probably no more than a mile or so south of the wreck, having drifted on the southerly* current..."

That puts him 14 miles from the CQD position.

* Actually, the current seems to have been a little south of due east.

 

[Charles B. Weeks Jr.]

Hello All:
A check of the North Atlantic Pilot Chart for the Month of April in the location of the accident shows the current as E x N at 0.5 kts. In the 2.6 hours generally used as the elapsed time from collision to sinking that would indicate an E'ly drift of 1.3 miles.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Capt. Weeks: Any idea as to the currents between "the corner" turning point and the collision point?

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

In the 2.6 hours generally used as the elapsed time from collision to sinking that would indicate an E'ly drift of 1.3 miles.

Capt. Weeks,

That would be, of course, surface currents. Do you have any info on underwater currents? My info, from a hydrographer friend, is Gulf Stream (North Atlantic current) in conjunction with Labrador current is up to max 6 knots ENE

Regards,
Collins

 

[Alicia Coors]

Something doesn't compute.

If Boxhall's navigation was accurate (but failed to account for a .5 kt current affecting the ship since the sundown observation), then the wreck site should be 3.33 miles from the CQD position.

Could Boxhall really have been as much as 10 miles off in computing something as important as the position to be broadcast in a distress call?

I would have to question the validity of the NAPC.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>Could Boxhall really have been as much as 10 miles off in computing something as important as the position to be broadcast in a distress call?<<

Yes. He did the best with the information he had, but unfortunately, his calculations were only as good as the information he had. The GIGO factor applies. However, in fairness to Joe Boxhall, I think David Brown said it best at a gathering I attended when he pointed out that all that's been "proven" is that they didn't have GPS.

In addition to This Link which you provided, you may find it useful to read through the Next Part of Dave Gittins site if you haven't done so already. The mistake in position was recognized even then by both the Mount Temple and the Californian, but nobody wanted to listen.

Carpathia's Rescue Mission

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

if you haven't done so already,read pages 176 -179 of my book: breakwater.nf.net/nonfiction/thesinkingofthetitanic.html, for a professional mariner's viewpoint of The mistake in position was recognized even then by both the Mount Temple and the Californian, but nobody wanted to listen

 

[Alicia Coors]

Follow me through here:

1. It is safe to assume that Titanic's position was known with a high degree of accuracy when the stellar observation was made at 22:21 GMT (civil twilight). As a cross-check on this computation, Lowe's testimony confirms that the evening position was consistent with the ship's course and speed since noon.

2. Boxhall could quickly dead-reckon Titanic's position as 41°46'N 50°14'W following the collision by drawing a line 95 nm long (4h19m @ 22 kts) on a course of 266° true from the twilight position. Boxhall would use his GMT clock to determine the elapsed time, so the ambiguity of ship's time wouldn't have affected accuracy.

3. But the CQD position was not corrected for a west-to-east current of about 2 kts (so it was, in fact, incorrect); the actual location of the collision was 41°44'N 50°W - 8 miles east of the computed position. This is the error noted by Mount Temple.

4. By the time the fantail disappeared, the current had carried the ship another 4 miles, to the place the wreck lies today.

5. Carpathia's fortuitous encounter with Lifeboat 2 may have resulted from Rostron starting from east of where he thought he was, but it may also have been because the current carried him eastward as he neared the sinking site.

 

[Charles B. Weeks Jr.]

Alicia:
Pilot Charts were started by Matthew F. Maury in the mid 19th century, by extracting information from ship's logs. Today they are produced by National Imagery and Mapping Agency, over the years I and many other mariners have found the information on them to be very accurate. As Capt. Dave Brown has said in others posts, Boxhall's method was correct by his answer was wrong. Fortunately Carpathia's trackline to the CQD position brought them on to the lifeboats, and Boxhall ignited a flare to give them timely warning of their presence. How Boxhall got the wrong answer has been the topic of much discussion. Unfortunately the evening star fix position is unavailable to us. Only comments about it.
Duke, you are correct the Pilot Charts only show surface currents, but Titanic max. draft of 34' would have been effected by them not deeper currents.
Sam, my Pilot Chart shows the same currents at both locations. The Labrador Current is south bound till it gets in this area then it starts to turn and run E'ly. Other sources claim the Labrador Current dives under the Gulf Stream.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Boxhall's method was correct by his answer was wrong.

Charlie:

What logical reason can be given for Boxhall's answer to be wrong on a run of 4 hours 10 minutes?

Duke, you are correct the Pilot Charts only show surface currents, but Titanic max. draft of 34' would have been effected by them not deeper currents

I am quite aware of that, but don't you think the underwater currents would have had an effect after Titanic submerged?

Regards,
Duke

 

[Bill Wormstedt]

I find it very hard to believe that underwater currents would have much affect on a boiler, heavy and dense, after the boiler fell out of the broken ship. I believe the boilers pretty much fell straight down, and they landed pretty much below where the ship disappeared on the surface.


Other parts of the broken ship could be affected by an underwater current, depending on their shape and weight.

 

[Charles B. Weeks Jr.]

Duke:
I don't know why Boxhall's answer was wrong, but it certainly was, by 13+ miles. There are many possible reasons, the current being part of one. I know Dave Brown has been wrestling with this question for years. And no I don't think the underwater currents would have had much effect on her as she sank. I'll go with Bill Wormstedt on that one, boilers are probably directly under the spot where she broke open. Also I piece I saw on Discovery Channel , showed them sinking a model hull ( simulated fwd half of Titanic)in a pool and it didn't drift very far afield, so I doubt the Titanic did.
Regards,
Charlie

 

[Paul Lee]

Hi Charles,
Don't forget the pool didn;t simulate the true distance to the bottom.... but in the meantime, I agree with Dave Gittins. Don't forget that Boxhall was under pressure to produce "a" position. The fact that he went back and recomputed it may be symptomatic of this.

Best wishes

Paul