Titanic Engine running time from Noon on April 14th.

[Michael H. Standart]

>>However, my point is, in order for the cover up to begin, it had to have started on Titanic.<<

Actually, it doesn't. All that's needed is a place and a time for everybody concerned to get together and compare notes. It could have started on the decks of the Titanic but it doesn't follow that it has to.

Of course, all of this assumes that these people may have contrived an organized effort to lie and to mislead, and it can be shown at least that Lightoller attempted to mislead the U.S. Senate when he asserted that the ship recieved no ice warnings. Senator Smith producing transcripts of the transmissions the Titanic recieved (it never occured to Lights that radio was a party line which anybody could listen to) put a quick end to that.

The problem here is that when you go over the transcripts themselves you see the usual mix of confusion and disagreement when different people try to bear witness to the same event. Hardly what you would expect to see if they were all in cahoots in an attempt to mislead any inquiry.

 

[David G. Brown]

Sometimes what appears to be a conspiracy is just the way things happen. If Scott, Jim, Michael, and I all get on a bus to Keokuk, is that a conspiracy? Or, could it be that we are all Titanic enthusiasts who happen for our own reasons to be going to Keokuk? I suspect what appears to be a dark and dirty conspiracy in the Titanic case is pretty much the same as that bus to Keokuk. Everybody needed pretty much the same outcomes from the inquiries. So, they all worked together.

There is a major legal difference between actually saying words you know are untrue and simply not telling all you know in testimony. The first gets you convicted of perjury, the second does not. The industry of witness counseling helps people know how to not step over the line when they're testifying.

Second Officer Lightoller certainly did know there were icebergs across Titanic's path, but in the context of the questioning he was correct instating he had no knowledge of any particular icebergs at 11:40 p.m. Fine point? Sure, but just enough of a distinction that the First Officer avoided perjuring himself.

As to whether or not Titanic's surviving officers met while on Carpathia, I think there is photographic proof. If memory serves there is a photo of several officers in discussion on the rescue ship. Human nature demands such meetings so the survivors can help each other shake off the effects of disaster. Sharing personal experiences helps excise the devils out of our memories. That's hardly a conspiracy. But, I suspect the officer of Titanic went deeper into the legal aspects of the sinking. They knew an inquiry was coming when they got home and it would only have been prudent to compare stories.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Scott Mills]

Sometimes what appears to be a conspiracy is just the way things happen. If Scott, Jim, Michael, and I all get on a bus to Keokuk, is that a conspiracy? Or, could it be that we are all Titanic enthusiasts who happen for our own reasons to be going to Keokuk? I suspect what appears to be a dark and dirty conspiracy in the Titanic case is pretty much the same as that bus to Keokuk. Everybody needed pretty much the same outcomes from the inquiries. So, they all worked together.

No, its is not. But if we were driving that bus, and decided to drive 100mph through a snow storm, then crashed that bus it might be. Particularly if while waiting for the highway patrol we all talked and agreed to not mention that we were speeding, and don't say anything about Scott being drunk, Jim being asleep at the wheel and David ignoring the tire pressure monitor light being on.

Agreeing to not remember, or omit any single one of those facts of our accident on the side of that road would constitute a conspiracy. And in the case of Titanic's officers, I find it exceedingly difficult to imagine that all four men would spontaneously forget to remember the same facts. It seems that one of those four men, without input from the others, would have slipped in this regard. Particularly if the speed increase as you've discussed it had actually happened.

Second Officer Lightoller certainly did know there were icebergs across Titanic's path, but in the context of the questioning he was correct instating he had no knowledge of any particular icebergs at 11:40 p.m. Fine point? Sure, but just enough of a distinction that the First Officer avoided perjuring himself.

The full passage from the inquiry is as follows

Senator SMITH.
You knew you were in the vicinity of icebergs; did you not?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Water is absolutely no guide to icebergs, sir.

Senator SMITH.
I did not ask that. you know you were in the vicinity of icebergs?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir.

There is no fine point of law here to save Lightoller. He is clearly being asked if he knew that he was in the vicinity of ice that night. Importantly not if he was aware of specific icebergs Titanic was likely to encounter at 11:40 at night. Lightoller's answer is no. He has here, by definition, perjured himself. What saves him from being charged with perjury as a crime is a number of variables, but the important one being that when being confronted to the direct evidence of the contrary, he amends his statement and admits that he was, in fact, generally aware that they were entering an area of reported ice.

Furthermore, you are not allowed to answer questions while under oath as you want them to be answered, otherwise you could always "lie" by not lying. For example:

"Did you give money or another incentive to the judge to get a favorable judgement?"
"No." (technically my friends at another business gave him a lucrative consulting job. Therefore *I* did not give her anything. or Technically speaking I simply wrote him a check, the bank paid him. or Technically speaking I merely placed the money in his hand, what he decided to afterward has nothing to do with me.)

"Did you kill the victim?"
"No." (I merely pulled the trigger, the projectile and trauma it caused killed him. Or I put the pillow over his face, but what killed him was lack of air.)

We could do this on infinidum.

It borders on the absurd to suggest that Lightoller could have answered as he did, and rightfully retreated to the position that he was not aware of the specific pieces of ice that might be floating in the Atlantic.

Human nature demands such meetings so the survivors can help each other shake off the effects of disaster. Sharing personal experiences helps excise the devils out of our memories. That's hardly a conspiracy. But, I suspect the officer of Titanic went deeper into the legal aspects of the sinking. They knew an inquiry was coming when they got home and it would only have been prudent to compare stories.

You are absolutely right about this. My own academic research focuses on this phenomena explicitly. Conversations like these actually cause people's memories of certain events to become fixed, even though they might not reflect reality. This is why police officers often separate witnesses to accidents to take statements. However, just because this is the case, it does not mean, by any means, that a group of people (in this case Titanic's officers) could not be colluding to lie, omit and obfuscate.

Also, going back a few steps, did anyone report feeling the hard over turn of the ship that night? And would Smith have had any reason to believe that a hard over navigational maneuver was scheduled for around the time Titanic struck the berg?

 

[Michael Kestner]

Also, going back a few steps, did anyone report feeling the hard over turn of the ship that night? And would Smith have had any reason to believe that a hard over navigational maneuver was scheduled for around the time Titanic struck the berg?

I haven't read about anybody specifically mentioning feeling the ship TURN. A few people mentioned a shudder or a slight bump, which I'd tend to think was the actual collision and not the turn. There was a discussion about something similar on the old board, as I recall, somebody (Sam Halpern, maybe?) posted that Titanic would only heel over about 4 degrees in a hard over turn. Somebody else, David Brown if my memory serves, mentioned that in his experience the average passenger won't notice anything is really amiss until the angle of heel reaches 6-8 degrees or so...I'm fuzzy on the actual numbers, but maybe the gentlemen who posted the information originally would be kind enough to refresh my memory?

 

[Scott Mills]

I haven't read about anybody specifically mentioning feeling the ship TURN. A few people mentioned a shudder or a slight bump, which I'd tend to think was the actual collision and not the turn. There was a discussion about something similar on the old board, as I recall, somebody (Sam Halpern, maybe?) posted that Titanic would only heel over about 4 degrees in a hard over turn. Somebody else, David Brown if my memory serves, mentioned that in his experience the average passenger won't notice anything is really amiss until the angle of heel reaches 6-8 degrees or so...I'm fuzzy on the actual numbers, but maybe the gentlemen who posted the information originally would be kind enough to refresh my memory?

It makes sense to me that the ordinary passengers might not notice the ship turning, but it seems that more experienced seaman--the officers and the crew--would have recognized the change in ship motion? Maybe not.

Basically, I'm just curious if it is probable that is Smith was in the officer chart room, didn't hear the bells, would he have noticed the turn?

Also, I tend to agree that most passenger reports probably refer specifically to the collision itself.

*edit

I hate to keep bringing this up, but I keep thinking about it. Regarding perjury. There are many occasions that Boxhall perjurs himself. He explicitly perjurs himself when he says he is on deck approaching the bridge at the time of the collision--sometime in the early 60s he tells a totally different story saying he was actually in his cabin, having tea. There are also things where perjury is heavily implied--like not knowing about Amerika's ice warning, or the fact they were near ice. The ice warning Lightoller claims is tacked up in the chart room for use by officers doing navigation there, Boxhall claims to spend most of the evening of the 14th in the chart room doing navigating, but doesn't notice the ice warning? He also says he's not informed by anyone about the presence of ice, but Lightoller (after first trying to deny he knew about the vicinity of ice) mentions ice orders explicitly given to lookouts and a conversation with Smith about ice. How can it be that Boxhall was totally unaware of this and not informed?

I can also point to where Lightoller's story and Boxhall's cannot possibly match, particularly the time after collision that Lightoller claims to be on the bridge.

Anyway, I'll stop bringing it up now unless we get into more specifics about it. -sm

 

[Doug Criner]

Lightoller could maintain the he didn't KNOW for sure that there were icebergs in the vicinity immediately before the collision. He could say the such certain knowledge could only be achieved by visually observing the 'bergs. Sen. Smith could have asked Lightoller if was aware of iceberg WARNINGS for the vicinity, but he didn't. The obvious strategy that Titanic depended upon is that ice would be seen be the lookouts in time to take evasive action. Bad assumption, of course, but it seems that it was endorsed by the captain.

Also, the question asks Lightoller about ICEBERGS, not just about ICE.

I think Lightoller might have had enough wiggle room to avoid perjury.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello there gentlemen!

Perhaps we should all carefully read the transcripts in their entirety? Otherwise, if we are looking for trees..we'll see trees!


First Boxhall.

Scott you wrote:

"He explicitly perjurs himself when he says he is on deck approaching the bridge at the time of the collision--sometime in the early 60s he tells a totally different story saying he was actually in his cabin, having tea"

No he does not Scott! He said, and I quote:

"At the time when the ice berg was reported from the Crow’s Nest, when they struck the bells… I was sitting in my cabin having a cup of tea, and immediately got up … And walked along to the bridge about sixty feet away on the same deck. I was about half way between the Officer’s Quarters and the Bridge when the crash came… and I didn’t break my step. She was doing Full Speed and it didn’t break my step."

Factually, he said he was in his cabin at the 3 bells and halfway [30 feet] to [from] the bridge when he felt the impact.

As for Lightoller's alleged prevarication... again read that part of the transcript in it's entirety.
Lightoller's 'crime' comes at the end of 46 questions concerning the taking of air and sea temperatures.

It all began with Senator Smith pricking up his ears when Lightoller said the possibility that the ship had hit ice had entered his mind when he was first aware that she had hit something.

At the word 'ice', Smith asked Lightoller if he had seen ice before.
Lightoller replied 'no'.
Smith obviously did not believe him and launched into the series of 46 inane questions I referred to.
These questions were all designed to reveal that the officers of the ship knew they were in ice long before she actually hit an iceberg.
Senator Smith revealed his ignorance of the subject by worrying it like a dog with a bone.
I quote the culminating questions:

"Senator SMITH.
And the fact,[readings of air and sea temperature] is not communicated to you directly after each test?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Not unless I ask for it.

Senator SMITH.
And you did not think it necessary to ask for it that night?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir.

Senator SMITH.
You knew you were in the vicinity of icebergs; did you not?[so why did you not ask for it?]
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Water is absolutely no guide to icebergs, sir.[ so there would be no point in me asking for the air and sea temperature for that purpose. ]

Senator SMITH.
I did not ask that. Did you know you were in the vicinity of icebergs?

At that moment, Lightoller should have asked the Senator "when?
At the time these readings were taken? Or later on that evening?
Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir,."[ because as I say, air and sea temperatures are not an idication of there being icebergs in the vicinity]

The bold text between brackets is, as I read it, the missing parts of the questioning and the kind of answer I as a mariner would have given to exactly the same questions.

You also write:

"There is no fine point of law here to save Lightoller. He is clearly being asked if he knew that he was in the vicinity of ice that night. Importantly not if he was aware of specific icebergs Titanic was likely to encounter at 11:40 at night."

As I pointed out Scott, there was nothing 'clear' about how Senator Smith put that question.
Smith latched-on to the sea and air sampling practice and connected it to the presence of ice.
Lightoller simply told him about the significance of such temperatures and that he had gone off Watch at 10pm without previously seeing ice.
Lightoller correctly told him that He did not know he was in the vicinity of ice. He had calculated that they would be up to the ice at about 11 pm that night.. over 30 miles ahead of the ship... but had alerted the lookouts long before then.
As far as he was concerned, there was no ice in the vicinity of Titanic when he was on Watch.
The fine point here is the word 'vicinity'. Titanic was in the vicinity of the Grand Banks but they were 60 miles to the north of her track.

Smith was a lawyer and asked lawyer's question.
Lightoller and the others were seamen who did not think like lawyers and who probably made the same mistake as many reasearchers do.. that the questioners were in search of knowledge of the affair, all such knowledge, and that they understood the answers they were getting!
In any case, Lightoller told the lookouts to start watching for small ice after 9-30pm, half an hour before he went off Watch. If they had seen ice of any kind, they would have reported it. Lookout Jewell who went off Watch at the same time as Lightoller specifically stated that he did not see any ice before 10pm.

Your point about not being allowed to answer a question in the way you would like to is valid in the type of cases you quote but you forget the alleged purpose of this hearing.
These were not courts of of law to determine guilt or innocence, but hearings to determine exactly what happened how it happened and what could be done to either prevent it happening again or at least to lessen the outcome should it happen again.
What you do not know is that sailors of senior rank and qualification...such as were most of the surviving officers of Titanic... were very much aware of the reasons for a UK Commisioner's Inquiry. It may be hard for you and others to understand, but the fear of the consequences of being found out to be lying about what went on that night were enough to ensure that these guys answered as honestly as their memories would allow.
The loss of employment with the White Star Company was the least of their worries.
They would not knowingly lie to the US Inquiry because that body did not have the power to cancel or suspend their Certificates of Competency thus removing their livelyhood.

"Also, going back a few steps, did anyone report feeling the hard over turn of the ship that night? And would Smith have had any reason to believe that a hard over navigational maneuver was scheduled for around the time Titanic struck the berg? "

Here are a few facts:

It is highly unlikely that anyone except the lookouts would notice a slight heel in an emergency turn. Titanic was fast but she was not a destroyer!
When a ship turns in the normal way to alter course, there is no sensation at all.
For Captain Smith in his chart room, the first indication of an emergency would be the shrill sound of the engine room telegraphs followed by the absolute, unaccustomed stillness the stopped engines would bring.
If that didn't get him onto the outer bridge then the sound of steam blowing off would most certainly do so.

Jim C.

 

[Scott Mills]

Lightoller could maintain the he didn't KNOW for sure that there were icebergs in the vicinity immediately before the collision.

Doug, you have the same problem of infinite regress no matter how you phrase the question. The meaning and intent of Smiths question is very clear, did you know you were entering an area of reported ice?

If you ask the question, did you know about the reported ice he still could have answered no to the question using your logic based on an infinite number of ways that he as a witness creatively interprets the question.

E.g. "I didn't know for sure because the position could have been wrong, or our position could be wrong, or x amount of time had passed so the ice could have cleared, or maybe the wireless operator transcribe the positions wrong..."

Again, to infinity. It is not useful to try and distort reality and protect Lights from the fact he lied. Face it we all knew that at the very least these officers circled the wagons to protect White Star to some extent. This has been accepted for years.

That Lightoller lied on the stand does not, in any way, impugn his character in my mind, nor does it detract from the heroic acts of he, his fellow officers, and crew.

What it does do is acknowledge his humanity. He was a person, with all the faults that entails, not a saint.

Recognition of this merely opens up new paths for us to tread when trying to fix exactly what happened that night 100 years ago. It frees us from the position of having to assume that all we were told in the inquiries by the offices is true, or that it constitutes the whole story.

In ligh of this I am not sure why it is so important to do whatever it takes, and put words and interpretations of questions into the mind of a man 70 years gone just to preserve the idea that Lightoller was a good man.

Man is the operative word, we just need to see how these men acted in the crises to know they are good men. That they lied about the accident itself in some way does not change this.

 

[Jim Currie]

I give you 10 out of 10 for trying Scott.

I think you have a problem with understanding human beings or have been in association with some very dubious ones. In fact, when 99% of us are asked a question, we answer it to the best of our ability. We are more likely to do so when that questions is direct and asked without attempted, but transparent guile.

Senator William Alden Smith opened his mouth and firmly placed both feet in it.
His line of questioning was disjointed and probably to Lightoller, as a seafarer...pointless.

Smith starts at the end.. with Lightoller assuming that the ship had hit ice then moves directly from asking the man about what he thought the ship had hit at midnight to asking him questions about ice detection in general.
In order to establish when Lightoller first thought he was in the vicinity of ice, He should have asked him that direct question. Instead, he askes a seaman a series of 46 questions concerning the asociation between water temperature and the presence of ice.

I suggest that Smith was behaving like a trial lawyer instead of trying to get quickly to the truth. Asking questions to determine guilt or innocence.... to determine or apportion blame. Instead of attempting to learn something that might help to prevent such an accident happening again.
He was further burdened by an abysmal lack of understanding of the answers he was getting. The result was...as is the case with many researchers who do not understand what they are reading or who can not paint a mind-picture of what is being described...he suspected the witness was covering something up.

By his line of questioning, Smith suggested to Lightoller that water temperatures were taken to determine proximity (vicinity?) of ice.
Lightoller correctly replied that this was not the purpose.
Smith obviously did not believe him despite Lightoller telling him this was normal practice on ships at sea. Smith persisted with that line of questioning. If he had asked Lightoller the purpose of taking the ice the latter could have explained it to him.
Let me explain it to you.

The reason for taking sea and air temperaure is for weather forecasting.. not for the detection of ice. Simply because the temperature of the surface water, largely determines the temperature of the air above it.
Since, in normal circumstances, the surface water is thoroughly mixed, it is not a good indicator of the presence of ice. All seafarers know this. Obviously Senator Smith did not!
At the time Smith was asking Lightoller these questions, the latter knew that he had had warnings of ice west of longitude 49West. He also knew that Titanic would not be up to that position before he went off duty and that she was well past 49 West when she hit the iceberg.
Added to that, knew that the lookouts during his Watch from 8 to 10 had not seen ice.
It follows that when he was asked if he knew or thought he was in the vicinity of ice before he went off Watch at 10pm, he answered 'No'.
I put it you councilor.... you would have answered the question in exactly the same way!

Here is another bits of nonsense from Senator Smith on the same persistent veign:

"Senator SMITH.
I did not ask that. Did you know you were in the vicinity of icebergs?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
No, sir.

Senator SMITH.
Did you know of the wireless message from the Amerika to the Titanic, warning you that you were in the vicinity of icebergs?"

The message from 'Amerika' was received before 1pm that afternoon. This is how Lightoller politely dealt with these daft questions a little later:

"Senator SMITH.
So that from the time this communication came to you you were not in charge of the ship until 6 o'clock that night?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Exactly.

Senator SMITH.
Who succeeded you as officer of the ship?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
The first officer, Mr. Murdoch.

Senator SMITH.
Did you communicate to him this information that the captain had given you on the bridge?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I communicated that when I was relieving him at 1 o'clock.

Senator SMITH.
What did you tell him?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
Exactly what was in the telegram.

Senator SMITH.
What did he say?

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
"All right.".

Senator SMITH.
So that the officers of the ship - the officer in charge, Mr. Murdoch, was fully advised by you that you were in proximity of these icebergs -

Mr. LIGHTOLLER.
I would hardly call that proximity.

Jim C.

 

[Jude]

Another excellent post Jim - thanks.

In his Titanic and other ships, Lightoller is scathing about the American inquiry, so I'm glad to have your agreement! Here's a bit:

With all the goodwill in the world, the "enquiry" could be called nothing but a complete farce. wherein all the traditions and customs of the sea were continually and persistently flouted.

Such a contrast to the dignity and decorum of the court held by Lord Mersey in London...who insisted, when necessary, that any cross-questioner should at any rate be familiar with at least the rudiments of the sea.... One didn't need to explain that "going down by the bow" and "going down by the head" was one and the same thing. Nor, that water-tight compartments, dividing the ship, were not necessarily places of refuge in which passengers could safely ensconce themselves, whilst the ship went to the bottom of the Atlantic, to be rescued later, as convenient. Nor was it necessary to waste precious time on lengthy explanations as to how and why a sailor was not an officer, though an officer was a sailor." (pages 178/9)

Scott, you have Titanic and other ships by Lightoller. He goes into a large amount of explanation about the sea conditions etc in pages 148-153. I'm going away and simply don't have time to copy any more, but I do encourage you to read it.

 

[Jake Peterson]

We have lots of anecdotal evidence that the ship's engines were running faster after 8 p.m. than they had earlier that day, or at any time during the voyage. If Captain Smith decided to increase speed, he would most likely have done it in conjunction with a fix. That way, the start of the new speed would coincide with the new dead reckoning from that fix. My suggestion is that this is exactly what did happen that night — Titanic increased speed after 7:30 stars. And, it was to avoid discussing this speed increase that Boxhall pointedly did not recall the coordinates of Titanic's evening fix. Had he recalled them, the increase in speed would have been obvious. Speeding up as the ship neared danger would have appeared extremely foolhardy in light of the iceberg incident.

I see my theory is being discussed. Glad I could raise some questions. I was just speculating myself, based on Mr. Brown's speculation here. If the officers knew they were in the general area of icebergs, and that they had hit one, without slowing down. Heck would hit the ceiling when the general public heard about this. Ok, yeah, it's true that in the BOT/AI testimonies, most of the captains interviewed claimed that the general norm was to speed until they spotted something, then to slow down. However, in this case, they did hit something. With all those rich people aboard, I'd be afraid of being sued and held liable too.

 

[David G. Brown]

Jake is on the right track with his overall thinking about the necessity for Titanic's surviving officers not to reveal everything they knew or tell everything about what took place that night.

However, I have to nip one incorrect assumption in the bud. Like so many others who do not have experience operating vessels on open water, Jake has made the assumption that slowing down was a correct response to the danger, if not THE correct response. This is not true. And. like so many other non-truths about Titanic, this "slowing down" assumption amounts to a mental roadblock preventing a clear appreciation of what took place.

First of all, the difference between 20 and 22 knots is only 2.3 land miles per hour -- or a fast walk for a healthy person. Put another way, the lookouts had a horizon distance of about 11 miles. At 20 knots the horizon was 33 minutes away. At the faster 22 knots, the horizon moved only 3 minutes closer to 30 minutes of steaming. But, there is a much greater reason why slowing down was contraindicated. In itself, slowing only delays the inevitable. No matter what the speed, the only way to avoid danger is to alter course. On land, vehicles are confined to narrow roadways. Ships at sea are free to maneuver without worrying about curbs or painted yellow lines. Titanic could and should have been miles south of where it was when the accident took place. This is where Captain Smith's prudence failed him. Dodging 44 miles south would have cost him less than two hours of time because even while going that south Titanic would still have been making healthy westing. And, if the ship had done that, we would all be on some other forum.

To illustrate the lesser importance of speed in avoiding collisions all we have to do is look at the International Rules of the Road. If you study them, you will find a "pecking order" of actions to be taken when there is risk of collision with another vessel. The first and most important action is to turn away from the danger. Slowing is only indicated as a secondary action and stopping is acceptable only when you have no other choice.

To give Jake his due, I believe that he is getting close to the "fear factor" that motivated some of the near-perjury by surviving officers (and in Boxhall's case, outright perjury). But, my view is that Captain Smith did alter course once prior to the accident a half hour before impact. That maneuver did not gain enough safety, so he chose to use the same tactic -- turning to port on starboard helm -- again a half hour later. It was this second attempt to skirt south of the ice that set up the inevitable collision. Turning once and not succeeding in gaining safety is not negligence because no one can see the future. But, when Captain Smith opened the door to liability issues when used the same failed tactic a second time that night and the result was loss of his ship.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Jake Peterson]

Thanks David!

Yeah, I have no experience with sea matters myself, so I'm just going by what I've read and seen discussed here.

I do know, however, that as humans, our first reaction is to stop in the face of danger. This, of course isn't a good idea, whether in a car or a boat. The chain of commands for what took place on the bridge is well debated in other threads on this message board. But, it is mostly likely true that the command wasn't full speed astern with one of the telemotors rung as to get Titanic moved in a circular direction, so that by the time the iceberg approached the ship, it would nearly miss it, instead of a glancing blow.

Also, I wonder what damage the ship would sustain, if we kept it full ahead, but the helm hard over? I would figure the momentum of the ship would be an advantage.

 

[David G. Brown]

I'm sorry if I appear to have come down hard on Jake because that was not my intent. He is hardly alone in being fooled by the spurious "slow down" argument. It makes soooooo much sense in much of everyday life ashore where maneuvering room for vehicles is limited by the width of the pavement. When I was teaching prospective captains this idea of turning to avoid danger was often difficult to get across even to people with years of experience. The U.S. Coast Guard is so aware of our human predeliction that questions on the master's examination are designed to trick wannabe captains into choosing "slow down" when the correct answer is simply to change course to avoid danger altogether.

Nobody alive today knows exactly what took place on Titanic's bridge. This is not only because of the grim reaper doing his work over time, but also because of what appears to be deliberately vague or mileading statements under oath by survivors. My real point in discussing the erronious thinking of "slow down" is to clear our minds of a century of wrong-headed conventional wisdom. Once that's done, we can look afresh at the known facts and sort them out in a way that fits the "ordinary practices of seamen." We can never even approach the truth with wrong assumptions.

The secret to high speed passages (ashore on the highway or at sea) is to keep moving toward your destination. Sailboat racers can't go straight into the wind, they must tack to one side and then the other. The key to winning is not the actual speed of the sailboat through the water, but rather what navigators call "Velocity Made Good," or "VMG." That's the straight-line speed the sailboat is making toward its destination. If Titanic slowed down that night, it would have reduced its VMG by every knot of speed taken off the ship's way. However, if instead Captain Smith had dodged 40 or more miles to the south by steering a different course from "The Corner," the ship's VMG to New York might have dropped by a half knot or less. On a trans-Atlantic passage that's a negligible change paid for a huge gain in safety.

It's my opinion that Captain Smith was trying to go around the ice by losing as little VMG as possible so as to satisfy his boss, J.Bruce Ismay, who appears to have wanted some sort of speed accomplishment for Titanic. The facts suggest to me that Smith's approach was to skirt the known ice field by keeping just within sight from the bridge and no closer. This is a technique borrowed from coastwise steamers rounding a headland. In daylight, it would have been a safe enough approach to the ice. But, it was not daylight and the field was not the only ice danger. There were outriding icebergs and one of them changed history.

The navigational evidence is that Titanic did not go south of the steamer track to New York soon enough. In that assessment Boxhall was correct. Captain Smith did not start to maneuver around the ice until a half hour before impact. By then his ship was in extreme danger even though the sea was calm and the night clear. Had the captain held the great circle course past "The Corner;" or, had Smith taken a slightly more southerly rhumb line from "The Corner;" this danger would not have existed. But Cuda, Wuda, and Shuda were not in Titanic's crew that night. The ship certainly could have been farther south, it would have been farther south, and it should have been farther south at 11:40 o'clock -- but it wasn't.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Jake Peterson]

Hi David;

No, I'm not offended, or anything. I enjoy reading these discussions. Obviously, the fact that Titanic was 46,328 tons worked against it that night. Look at the Californian: it's ship of 6220, and when the officer spotted icebergs directly ahead, Capt Lord had time to run the engines full astern, and then stop for the night. I don't believe that ship suffered any damage.

the larger the object, the longer it'll take for it to slow down or stop.