The Californian Incident A Reality Check

[Teri Lynn Milch]

Dear John,

More food for thought: Might Rostron have been scorned if he had NOT gone to the rescue of those stranded people in the Titanic lifeboats? If those people in the lifeboats had not survived, we would not have ANY survivor accounts or survivor technical information to dissect. I personally, am very glad he DID go the aid of the lifeboats.

Also, he was Captain of a ship, and he went to the aid of another Captain's ship. I see this as one Captain going to the rescue of another Captain. Sort of like one brother going to the aid of another brother, if I could put forth any type of analogy. True, Captain's have their own passengers to think about, but I think Captain Rostron had a few more smarts than Captain Smith simply for the reason that he took great heed in the ice that surrounded him as he neared Titanic's latitude whereas Captain Smith didn't take the ice as seriously. Captain Rostron even stated his awareness of ice and danger in his book on page 54:

"Racing through the dark towards we knew not what danger from bergs, standing on the bridge with everyone keeping a bright look-out, I was fully conscious of the danger my own ship and passengers were sharing."

While I can't say much of his endangering his own passengers, I think he did what he had to do. And that was to save as many lives as he possibly could. Could I say that there was a little bravery on his part for that? The surviving passengers thought so. On page 228 of Wyn Craig Wade's "The Titanic ~ End of a Dream" we find a picture of Mr. Rostron receiving a cup from the surviving passengers, and was presented to him by Mrs. J. J. Brown of Denver.

Sincerely,

Teri

 

[Inger Sheil]

Have now had a chance to go through and read the article, and found it very interesting although I cannot agree with all the conclusions it contains. I'm always pleased, however, to see any work that attempts to move beyond reductive hero/villain polarities. Takes a lot of courage to tackle this subject these days - you three are braver blokes than I am, Gunga Din(s).

Caught the reference to American and international legislation at the time - So you have the UK wording of the equivalent, here's where the Britain stood on the rescue of lives at sea in 1912.

The Maritime Conventions Act (1911) imposed a general duty to masters to render assistance to persons in danger at sea. This was passed in order to bring British law into agreement with the terms of an International Convention agreed to by the principal maritime nations. While apart from statute law it had always been a duty of masters to proceed to the assistance of a vessel of distress, it was - after the 1911 Act - a misdemenour not to go to the relief of a vessel in distress when possible to do so.

The Act provides that:-

6.(1) The master or person in charge of a vessel shall, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his own vessel, her crew and passengers (if any) render assistance to every person, even if such person be a subject of a foreign State at war with His Majesty, who is found at sea in danger of being lost, and if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of a misdemenour.

~ Inger

 

[Erik Wood]

Good very sleepy morning to all,

Mr. Feeney and Mr. Billintizer bring up a very valid point. Let me explain it to you the best I can.

We have to remeber a couple of things in comparing the Carpathia and the Californian.

1. The Carpathia had many more resources and a lot more bodies then did Californian.

2. Carpathia as one of you gentleman pointed out had no idea of the ice conditions on scene. Lord had a first hand account.

To gain a better understanding we have to delve into the minds of not only two different Captains but two different industries. Rostrom had a pretty good idea of the pain that Smith must have been going through as that is his industry. Lord on the other hand was only a freighter Captain and only had to worry about 50 men and cargo. Absoultly nothing like being a Captain of a freight ship.

The question asked was "... was Rostrom wrong for making his decision". Well in my eyes yes and no. Realize that if Carpathia had rushed to Titanics rescue and hit a berg herself and lost even one life Rostrom would have been deemed reckless. Remeber that those on the decks of Titanic that will soon be in the water are not Rostroms problem they are Smiths. It was the fact that he MADE the effort and it just so happened he didn't hit anything on the way.

Rostrom made a correct decision in going to the aid of another ship. Lord didn't make a decision. Whether his speed was reckless or not really can't be said with any fairness.

Another key issue is that Lord had had a run in with the ice that night. Rostrom didn't. When most think of the incident they think of a single berg. Probably what Rostrom thought.

The resources a passenger ship have are a lot different from the resources on a freight ship. I have been on and run both.

It was pointed out that we wrote that Lord made a decision. Well, that isn't the truth and it will be corrected before it goes to the next publisher. That is a mistake on my part.

Thanks Mr. Feeney and Mr. Billitzer you have pointed some things out that needed to be fixed and revised. I hope that I have helped you understand our intentions.

Inger, could you possibly quote the resource in which you got that. I would like to put in the article before it goes to publishing. It would be a great help.

Erik

 

[Henning Pfeifer]

To Paul´s question: "Is Titanic time also Californian time?".

Californian Donkeyman Ernest Gill reported to the inquiry that he had seen the rockets around 12.40; Stone said, he informed 1.10 the Captain (consequently he saw the rockets before 1.10, we don´t know how much time before). The Californian was heading for Boston, the Titanic was heading for New York and they were in the same area in the same night, they probably had the same time on board. It is interesting to see what Titanic fireman Charles Hendrickson has reported: he was rescued in the first boat that was lowered at 1.10 (Titanic) time. A few minutes before he had been ordered to enter this rescue boat he saw "an officer" (Boxhall) firing rockets. For this, I believe, there were the same time used on both ships.

And to the authors: thanks for this article (and the furtherleading explanations in this board), I know that this is a special point of view, but I have learned a lot and I am glad to add this "big piece" to my knowledge.

Best regards Henning

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

Hello everyone,
I join all of you in commending the authors of this article for their time and efforts, and attempt to look at this subject from a different angle. I do not agree with several points, but do respect the amount of thought that was put into it. However, I do have a major problem with at least one of the authors' conclusions in the article. My biggest problem with the article would have to be the idea that it would have taken the Californian 30 minutes to free itself from the ice. The Californian stopped facing northeast *before* reaching the main icefield, with the "mystery ship" off its starboard side, and on the same side of the icefield as it. The Californian was not hemmed in the icefield. The ship had kept up steam during the night, per Captain Lord's orders, and would have been able to get underway fairly quickly had the crew taken proper action and been alerted to the Titanic's plight. In the article, the authors seem to believe that the Californian was stuck amongst the ice, effectively hampering it from trying a rescue attempt, but this is not really the case as can be seen by several sources, including Captain Lord himself. That being the case, I still believe that if proper action had been taken, the Californian would have arrived alongside the stricken Titanic much sooner than in the worst-case scenario given in the article, and would have been able to save a significant amount of lives (although not all as suggested in the inquiry). I will agree that the work put into this article is admirable, but I find this point in particular to be a major flaw in the article. I hope that this letter finds all of you doing well.
All my best,
Tad Fitch

 

[Erik Wood]

The idea that Californian could have "pulled along side" the Titanic is just not a correct statement. In fact it is better to estimate that Captain Lord would have stayed at the minum of 150 yards off. That is a football field and a half.

Time wise it is possible given the correct circustances for Californian to arrive and aid Titanic. There are any number of possible scenarios. I think we took one that we felt best suited the situation.

There has also been a lot of talk about our use of a "worse case scenario". I think what is being forgotten is that Californain would not have been pulling into a ideal situation. By the time Captain Lord arrived most of the boats would have been gone. Those remaining where in the beginings of panic. Once they could see any possible hope for escape mob like actions would have occured. People don't think when survival is at stake. 1500 people with no place to go would have sought any safety (which at that point was clear it wasn't Titanic) and killed each other to get to it.

The Califorian would have been navigating in the dark through a icefield which they now unlighted lifeboats are in. All during this Lord is lowering his boats or at the least getting them "to the hip". It was an extremely complicated situation. A situation that I think we attempted to describe in detail through the eyes of two trained mariners. One of which is "master" mariner.

There is no doubt that things need to be corrected and rest assured we are taking all of your suggestions and putting them to good use. Please keep them up.

But Mr. Fitch points out something that needs to be clarified. The 30 minutes put in the article has absoultly nothing to do with getting up steam or actually getting underway. While it would have taken some time for the ship to have gotten up to full speed that isn't the point we intended to make.

Our point was that Lord had to navigate his way out of what he deemed to be a dangerous icefield in the dark. George Behe and I have discussed the validity of exactly how dangerous the ice that Lord was in was. Since none of us really know I think that it is safe to assume that it was a fairly large amount of thick ice. It had to be thick enough to cut the "bobber". So Lord would have steamed ahead then had to navigate his way through the remaining ice and move torwards the sinking Titanic then navigate his way into and through the icebergs etc that where near Titanic.

It would most definitly agree that it could be and will be clarified before it is published again. In fact all three of us are taking most of the suggestions and applying them now.

I hope that this helps a little.

Erik

 

[Inger Sheil]

G'day Erik -

The italicized quote is from the Maritime Conventions Act (1911), Section 6. Sub-section (1).

The background derives from The Shipmaster's Handbook to the Merchant Shipping Acts, S. D. Cole, James Brown & Son, 1913 edition p. 197. A very useful guide for shipmasters, which presents the Merchant Shipping Acts with annotations to explain them point by point. Originally published in 1907, my 1913 edition also includes amendments arising as a result of the Titanic disaster, both those already enacted and those pending in 1913.

Hope this is of assistance.

~ Inger

 

[Colleen Collier]

Can I add something here?? When Rostrom learned of the accident, he got up and took action. I believe that it is a persons conscience, and soul to do what they can do to help. That holds true for Lord and all else who learned of the accident, no matter what time that was. Rostrom had everyone up and available that he could positioned to watch for icebergs and prepare for the survivors. It is a COMPLETELY different feel between a "possible" dangerous situation, to knowing fully that the danger is there and is confirmed. Here is my point, and in my case and faith, carries allot of meaning. (I read this in a book, but I can't recall which one it was, so hold tight here) Rostrom stood on the bridge, in the quiet darkness, with his hat off, and asked for whatever he asked for, from the Good Lord. That is not to say anything about the faith of Captain Lord, or Smith, but this man believed he was doing the right thing, and being guided from a higher source.
Just my opinion here. I know there is allot more to the mix, but this is overlooked so often, and I believe is important to understand the mans character.
Colleen

 

[Paul Rogers]

Hello Henning - thanks for your reply.

I have taken the following points from your post, and wanted to clarify my thinking, and that I understood your arguments:

(1) Ernest Gill saw rockets at 12.40am Californian Time.

(2) Charles Hendrickson saw rockets launched "a few minutes" before he was ordered into the lifeboat, which was subsequently launched at 1.10am Titanic Time. I would think it could easily have taken 20 minutes to (a) load, and (b) launch a lifeboat - so maybe he was ordered into the boat at circa 12.50am? If so, "a few minutes" before could easily be 10 minutes, making Titanic Time the same as Californian Time.

(3) The fact that they were in the same area probably, IMO, does not necessarily mean that the times were also the same, and can therefore be put aside. I seem to remember an old thread where Dave Gittins advised that Titanic's clock was due to be adjusted at around midnight - but that this probably didn't happen. (Hope I haven't mis-quoted you, Dave!) Also, I remember reading that ships didn't necessarily change their clocks at the same time during a crossing. Therefore, any ships that happened to be in the same area didn't necessarily need to be on precisely the same time.

To my mind, a lot hinges on Hendrickson's definition of "a few minutes," and how long it took between filling the boat and launching it at 1.10am. I feel a bit of reading coming on...

Michael Standart said: "I had that impression, but I couldn't find anything conclusive on the time difference if any. I'll have to investigate this one further. On the whole however, I don't think it would have made as signifigent a difference as we all might hope."

Hi Michael. I fully agree, but I was actually looking at things from the other viewpoint.

My reason for raising the issue was because I thought the time differentials might reduce the time available for Californian to mount a rescue attempt, thus putting Capt. Lord in an even better light!

Regards,
Paul.

 

[John M. Feeney]

Hello, all: I don't want to seem the "crank" on this. Though I do disagree with several of the conclusions reached, I also admire the amount of effort that went into this article as well as the guts it took to attempt a middle-of-the-road type analysis of the Californian situation.

Still, the conundrum of "Rostron 1, Lord 0" remains largely unaddressed, and several points in the response seem to be in error. For instance, Erik replied:

To gain a better understanding we have to delve into the minds of not only two different Captains but two different industries. Rostrom had a pretty good idea of the pain that Smith must have been going through as that is his industry. Lord on the other hand was only a freighter Captain and only had to worry about 50 men and cargo. Absoultly nothing like being a Captain of a freight ship.

But unless I'm totally off the mark in my prior research -- or somehow have the wrong "Californian" -- that ship was NOT strictly a freighter. In fact, it was technically a "cargo liner", with some very good First Class accomodations, which simply wasn't carrying any passengers that particular voyage. True, it wasn't a "super-liner" like Titanic, but it really wasn't ALL that different from Carpathia in that regard. Lord had ample experience of passengers; there's even a photo in circulation taken of him and other Californian officers with a passenger's children!

Also, The Maritime Conventions Act (1911) excerpt posted by Inger (thanks) seems without a doubt to put the shoe entirely on the opposite foot from where the article places it. Rather than demanding "safety first" (above all else), the wording indubitably imposes a moral obligation on any captain for the preservation of lives at sea, *barring* the incurrence of serious danger to his own vessel. The onus there is definitely on the humanitarian aspect, with the safety issue a mere caveat. And *potential* dangers don't seem to apply at all. Again, Lord wasn't "hemmed in", just "held back" (from further westward progress).

One last thought, and it something I've run past Michael previously. Much ado is made in the article of the potential for panic, but little of the impact of hope! Had the Californian promptly headed for the Titanic, isn't it possible that many more people might have been saved just by the alteration of perspective induced in those already in the lifeboats? With an approaching rescue ship in close proximity, there's a good chance that the mindset of many of those adrift might well have shifted from "We can't go back. We might be swamped if we do" to "We must go back. It would be murder not to!"

Regards,
John

 

[Tracy Smith]

Erik has answered many of the questions much as I would have answered them, but I'll add a few points of my own.

1. As a former law enforcement officer, I give little credence to anything Ernest Gill said, either in the newspaper or under oath. He was a paid informant, and as every law enforcement officer knows, such folks tend to be highly unreliable. When I was on the police force, we never accepted any information from paid informants without first going over it with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately, it would seem that both the American and British hearings took his comments at face value.....

2. Colleen: Captain Lord was brought up in a Christian home. When he died, he left half his estate to his church and the other half to the humane society, as his wife had died five years before him. 32 years later, his son did the same thing: half to the church, the other half to the humane society.

Captain Lord was a very private man, an introvert, so I would imagine that he was private about his religious beliefs as well. But I have no doubt that he had an active faith.

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Erik!

>Our point was that Lord had to navigate his way >out of what he deemed to be a dangerous icefield >in the
> dark. George Behe and I have >discussed the validity of exactly how dangerous >the ice that Lord was in
> was. Since none of us really >know I think that it is safe to assume that it >was a fairly large amount of thick
> ice.

I'm afraid your last statement is a non sequitur, since I could just as easily say, "Since none of us really know I think that it is safe to assume that it was a fairly thin scattering of ice."

The ice surrounding the Californian was described by Captain Lord as being *loose* ice -- which is not the same thing as "a large amount of thick ice."

>It had to be thick enough to cut the "bobber".

I'm afraid that's not the case at all. Leslie Harrison himself said that "the log line had gone, either dragged away by the ice or more probably destroyed by the propellor as the engines were put astern." ("A Titanic Myth, page 20.) I'm afraid the missing log line cannot be used as a reliable gauge of the thickness of the "loose" ice that surrounded the Californian.

(Note to "Nefarious Dave" Billnitzer: How ironic it is to find oneself quoting Leslie Harrison in order to bolster one's viewpoint.)

All my best,

George

 

[Tracy Smith]

Well, you see that I quoted Leslie Reade to bolster my opinion, George, so I guess we're even.

John, the Californian was rated for 47 Second Class passengers, which hardly puts it in the class of the Carpathia, which carried at least several hundred people on each and every voyage. It was basic transportation, and had few of the amenities that were standard on a typical passenger liner of the day.

 

[George Behe]

Tracy wrote:

> Well, you see that I quoted >Leslie Reade to bolster my opinion, George, so I >guess we're even.

Hi, Tracy!

Hey, as long as we're being ironic, we might as well be ironic among friends.

By the way, Tracy, you've written a very fine summary of Captain Lord's life -- I'm sure a lot of folks will refer to it in the future when they want to know something about the man.

All my best,

George

 

[Tracy Smith]

Another point: The Mount Temple had turned and was steaming toward the Titanic's reported position. However, Captain Moore ordered the ship stopped only 14 miles from the Titanic's position, because he felt it was unsafe to proceed any further at that time because of the ice. So, apparently, there was enough ice in the area to pose a possible threat to ships.