Professional California Consensus

A

Amanda Ratliff

Member
I'm just curious. I know there are a lot of authors and extensive researchers here. Is there a general consensus based on modern research as to whether or not the Californian would have been able to save Titanic or if Captain Lord had any responsibilty to not acting? In all reality no one is to blame for shutting off the wireless any more than they are to blame for not having enough lifeboats. But what about the rockets etc. I'd be interested in the consensus among the members of this board
happy.gif
 
I think that about the only think that we agree on is that Captain Lord could have done very little to help in the time available, even if he'd acted promptly and managed to reach Titanic without wrecking his ship. There was a little problem called hypothermia.

Other that that, it's swords for two and coffee for one.
 
Well, if you really want to get nit picky, there's no way the Californian could have saved the Titanic herself. The ship itself was a goner as soon as it hit the iceberg.

Whether the passangers and crew could have been saved in signifigent numbers above the ones who actually did survive is a very good question. Any way you look at it, time itself would have been the enemy.

My personal opinion is that it's likely that the Californian could have arrived on scene on or shortly after 2 in the morning. This assumes (A dangerous passtime as I always say!) that
a)She got underway on or about 1:10 to 1:15 in the morning,
b)She managed to work her way up to her best speed
c)That they managed to see and avoid any low lying icebergs which may or may not have been in their path, and
d)They figured out that the rockets saw were in fact from the Titanic instead of being snookered by the Titanic's Radioed position which was something like 14 miles off in the wrong direction.

The trouble is that the time remaining would not have been sufficient to evacuate the approximately 1500 to 1600 people still trapped on the ship. The Californian would have had to use every one of her extremely limited resources to fish swimmers out of the ocean befor they froze to death.

How many she could have saved...if any...has been a subject of some ferocious debate and there is no end in sight. 50, 100, 200 maybe?

A moot point since it never happened.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
You might want to read the article that Mike Standart, Captain Erik Wood, and I wrote for the Encyclopedia Titanica Research section. It's called "The Californian Incident: a Reality Check". It addresses much of what you have asked.
 
I think it is significant that both the American and British investigating bodies pointed a finger at Capt. Lord. They occured very quickly after the sinking and all evidence was fresh in everyone's mind. Some suggest that the English just rubberstamped America's findings. It is evident that the English held America's investigation and Senator Smith in great disdain and not likely at all to agree with any American findings unless the evidence overwhelmingly suggested otherwise.
 
This of course is the one faction of the disaster that shall be debated and hashed over for years to come.
And, unfortunately, we will never reach an answer to appease everyone.
As Michael has stated, it is a moot point.
Yet, a point we all love to talk about and sometimes argue about.
We agree to disagree on the subject over and over again.
The would have, could have, should have, scenarios are plenty.
And the more we discuss the matter, the more we gain in knowledge and insight.
Every facet is broken down and disected to the amsuement and sometimes shagrin for all.
Titanic will never really die for those captured by her, just as the Californian will remain a very heated topic of discussion.
Just my opinion, Don
 
If it had been left to Captain Alfred Young, the Nautical Advisor to the Board of Trade, Captain Lord would have been prosecuted. He thought that Lord had committed a 'gross misdemeanor'. It was the non-nautical officials who decided to take no action, before they had even received Captain Young's advice.

They seem to have done this because of the difficulty of getting a fair trial, after Lord had spilled the beans in Mersey's court. At least one lawyer thought a jury would not convict. The case would hinge on Lord's word against Stone's. Besides, enough dirty linen had been publicly displayed already. The disaster had done nothing to help the British reputation for seamanship and a trial of Captain Lord would make matters worse.
 
The issue with Captain Lord has always been an intriguing one with me.

I see his reasoning for not getting back underway. Yet at the same time I can't see why he didn't make some offical statement to his watch. One never knows.
 
The main issue we have here is the fact that Captain Lord never woke Cyril Evans, and did not say "See what you can pick up".

If Evans had picked up the distress signals, then maybe the ship could have started underway.

I don't wish to state that the ship could have arrived in time to save all of the victims; I am not a Maritime or navigational expert.
My thought is that the ship might have helped save some of the people in the water.

We'll never know what "could have been".

All we do know is that, for want of a better term, Captain Lord's big mistake, that night, was a poor display of inaction, IMHO.

John Clifford
 
John Clifford said: "My thought is that the ship might have helped save some of the people in the water."

John that is a great point. I think I can say with relative certainty that had Californian gotten underway when Lord was made aware of rockets she would have been able to pick up some survivors. Not a lot.

The central question I think is should Lord have risked his crew to possibly save as few as 10 passengers. Most non-mariners and some mariners would say yes. I would say maybe. There is a moral lesson here.

Had Lord attempted to go to Titanic's aid and sunk in the process he would be labled a yutz. If we take things into todays context Captain Rostrom wouldn't have a job or a license after the stunt he pulled on Carparthia. I agree with what he did, but that is today. With 90 years of hindsight it is easy to see what he should have done. On April 14th 1912, on a dark, cold open bridge and after running his ship almost into an ice field the situation would seem a lot different to him, then it does to us from our cozy computers. Just my thoughts.
 
It's ironic that the cautious, prudent captain who shut down his ship for the night because of the evident danger to his ship and crew,is vilified by history for not attempting to save those who were aboard a ship that was obviously captained by a man who thought that safety was a secondary issue. I do believe however that Lord should have attempted to do Something rather than just roll back over and attempt to get some sleep.
Time is money whether it's shipping or trucking and I'm sure the owners of the Californian would have preferred Lord to be underway rather than stopped for the night. My point being that the surviving officers of the Titanic testified that "Full speed ahead was the normal practice"
(A paraphrase). Captain Wood should be able to shed some light on how much pressure ship's captains are under to keep on schedule.
 
Think of a Captain of a ship has a taxi driver. He/she is getting paid to get carry as much cargo during the open season as humanly possible. Dave Brown call the tell the story of a Captain who sailed into a storm hatches open. Because he had been told that he was late again he wouldn't have a ship next year.

Charles says:

"It's ironic that the cautious, prudent captain who shut down his ship for the night because of the evident danger to his ship and crew,is vilified by history for not attempting to save..."
Click to expand...

By the same token had Lord decided to get underway and damaged his own ship he would have been labeled a yutz. Most decisions a Captain makes are catch 22's. If you slow for safety you cost the company money and possibly loose your command. If you keep the schedule and people get hurt in the process your loose your license and your job. It is finding that happy middle.
 
Think of the captain as a taxi driver ... Mmmm...Maybe as a human being too .
I wonder captain , just what kind of nonsense you'd be prepared to take from a local doctor you called for help .
Just what would be your reaction if the man decided to stay in bed ? You'd probably punch his nose in the morning , and try and get some help from someone else .
Unfortunately , in the case of Captain Lord , there was no help at hand .
I don't question Captain Lord's professional attitude . He was right because afterall he brought his ship into harbour .
What I'm not convinced about is his human nature .
You may be a Captain but I'm a doctor and I know the difference between helping a man in need and failing while trying , and remaining on the chartroom settee .
Regards.
JP
 
Capt. Erik, correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading that when Capt. Lord heard about Titanic's sinking when he arose in the morning, it still took them until 10:00 a.m. to reach the site, having to negotiate around the pack ice. And this was in broad daylight! So even if they had tried at night to attempt to reach the coordinates (which we now know were not even correct) it would have taken even longer in the dark to reach them and they still wouldn't have gotten there in time to make any difference. Frankly, I don't think Capt. Erik would presume to second guess a doctor performing his duties. Perhaps conversely, we shouldn't presume to tell a captain how to do his?

Kyrila
 
Burel Jean Pierre said: Think of the captain as a taxi driver ... Mmmm...Maybe as a human being too .

In a certain sense Captains (although human) can't afford to think like one. You have to be able to make decisions in a split second that will effect those in your charge. Like naval officers they have to be prepared to sacrifice one life to save the many, something I have had to do. Command isn't a 9 to 5 job, it is a 24 hour, 7 day a week job. You are required to be on call, you can go days without sleep or little to eat, but you are expected to remain vigilant, competent, and most importantly in command.

Burel Jean Pierre said: I wonder captain , just what kind of nonsense you'd be prepared to take from a local doctor you called for help.

I think you are asking the wrong captain about that. I personaly don't commonly listen to doctors advice (unless of course my wife is with me then I have no choice). Hence I don't call of doctors help. I am a little confused as to how this came into the discussion. Could you help me out??

Burel Jean Pierre said: Just what would be your reaction if the man decided to stay in bed ? You'd probably punch his nose in the morning , and try and get some help from someone else.

To me this is hindsight. Lord didn't know what was going on that night because in my opinion he didn't receive the proper information in a manner which made the situation clear. This being said IT DOES NOT EXCUSE CAPTAIN LORD FOR NOT CHECKING ON THE SITUATION FOR HIMSELF, NOR DOES IT EXCUSE MR. STONE FROM BEING MORE PROACTIVE. I suggest you check the Titanic Book thread where this conversation is currently going on. To answer your question, from a investigation point of view the questions would be:

1. Why didn't you go the bridge to check on the situation for yourself.

2. (To Mr. Stone) Why didn't you wake your captain and ensure that he made it to the bridge if you thought that this was something important.

3. (To Mr. Stone) Why did you wait for 30 to 45 minutes (I think don't quote me on the time frame) to wake your captain.

4. (To Captain Lord) Why didn't you go and wake the wireless to ensure the situation was clear.

SPECIAL NOTE:

Note that I didn't ask him why he didn't get back underway and what his conditions were. Only he could have made the decsion on whether it was safe or unsafe to navigate his why to Titanic. I will get back to what Kyrila asked a little bit later.

Burel Jean Pierre said: and I know the difference between helping a man in need and failing while trying , and remaining on the chartroom settee

Again in my opinion this is hindsight. We know now that there were things wrong he didn't. The fact that Captain Lord is in the chartroom and not in his cabin is a indication that he expected to be up or at least awakened during the night. We can't blame him for not knowing something he didn't know that he needed to know. We can blame him and Mr. Stone for not properly checking out the situation.

Kyrila asks: when Capt. Lord heard about Titanic's sinking when he arose in the morning, it still took them until 10:00 a.m. to reach the site, having to negotiate around the pack ice. And this was in broad daylight! So even if they had tried at night to attempt to reach the coordinates (which we now know were not even correct) it would have taken even longer in the dark to reach them and they still wouldn't have gotten there in time to make any difference.

This is a very key thing in understanding the entire event. I think you are spot on. Remeber that ships don't have headlights and navigating in the dark in a one screw ship in an icefield isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. That is why Captain Lord stayed put after he ran his ship head long into an icefield that he could not see all that well.

Kyrila said: Frankly, I don't think Capt. Erik would presume to second guess a doctor performing his duties. Perhaps conversely, we shouldn't presume to tell a captain how to do his?

Interesting and good point.
 
Back
Top