Titanic's Achilles Heel History Channel

[Parks Stephenson]

According to his testimony in London, Lightoller knew when to expect to encounter ice around lunchtime on the 14th, 9 hours before the collision. He updated his lunchtime estimate later that evening and events would prove his estimate to be fairly close on. That bit of knowledge does cast doubt on his claims about not knowing the proximity of the ice during the US Senate Enquiry.

Parks

 

[Steven Hall]

"My conclusion after looking at hours upon hours of wreck imagery is that the expansion joint had nothing to do with the falling of the No. 1 funnel."
I agree with you on that.
Regarding Lightoller. You have to laugh, maybe he'd signed a NDA.
Anyway mate, I have not seen the show yet. I don't watch them anymore either way, but I'll watch something with someone in it I know.

Steve

 

[Bob Read]

I'm not sure what to make of posts by David G. Brown and Parks Stephenson as they relate to the conclusions of the Titanic's Achilles Heel program's engineering experts. The conclusion of Roger Long and the engineering firm given at the end of the program was that Titanic did not have an Achilles heel. The conclusions that the hull girder of Titanic was designed sufficiently strong to operate safely within design parameters. I guess I would ask both David and Parks if they disagree with that conclusion. Perhaps I am misinterpreting what your posts said but they seem on the surface to be at variance with the aforementioned conclusion of the design experts.

Regards,
Bob Read

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Bob,

I believe that there were some deficiencies in Titanic's design that were improved upon in later ships, including Britannic. This is not an original observation on my part; rather, it was stated as such in a BOT memo (?...my reference is not with me at the moment) that was shown briefly during the show. I do not believe that any of the design deficiencies brought out in the show could be considered "Achilles heels," but were rather symptoms of an evolution of large ship design. I maintain -- my stance has not wavered on this for many years -- that Titanic was actually over-engineered for, and therefore sufficiently strong to operate safely in, her expected operating environment.

I also believe that despite the very real problems brought out by Roger concerning the expansion joints, the forces at play during the break-up were a much larger issue. From what I have seen in the wreck imagery, I am not convinced that the expansion joints played a significant role in the break-up. However, the H&W engineers would tried to pull lessons learned from the disaster did not have that reference available to them. The question then becomes, what did H&W conclude about the break-up and how did that influence design changes to Olympic and Britannic?

Parks

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Steve,

All the evidence I see that brings into question some of Lightoller's statements comes from Lightoller himself. His contradictions causes one to question his motives but to be honest, I don't really care what he was thinking. All I want from Lightoller are those observations of his that relate to my ongoing forensic analysis. I'll leave the analysis of the political manoeuvring that may have been going on after the sinking to others.

Parks

 

[Denise A. Hunyadi]

I enjoyed the special. I thought it had a lot more "meat" to it than TFM:MP. It was, by far, the most technically focused Titanic special EVER. While it may not satisfy some, I think we need to give the HC some credit for moving into this area of Titanic research. Television networks are looking for ratings--the reality is that they will never produce a special that gets into all the nitty gritty technical minutia that some crave. That kind of discussion is better suited for a symposium, not a prime-time television production.

The importance of made-for-television specials like "TAH" is that they serve as springboards for the in depth discussion that inevitably follows on forums like ET. They are worth watching (and supporting, IMO) for that reason alone! It's been sad to read some of the posts here and elsewhere about this HC special, some before it ever aired. I'm hoping the tone will change so that what was presented last night can be discussed and analyzed in a productive way.

Since the expansion joints are going to be in the cross hairs for much of the discussion here, I would like to ask a favor of my good friend Sam Halpern: would you be willing to post one of your terrific diagrams of the expansion joint area, showing both their location and how they differed on Olympic/Titanic and Britannic?? It would be a great help for me, and I suspect many others reading this thread!

Thanks to everyone who gave so much of their time and effort to make TAH possible. I hope it turns out to be a ratings success, and that John Chatterton is right in his prediction that they (i.e., the History Channel team) aren't finished with Titanic yet. If so, that's great news because every expedition to the wreck has the potential to be the one that finds the next "missing pieces."

Denise

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Failure of topside structures on large vessels of the size of Olympic and larger has been noted and documented by ship surveyors to be concentrated in close proximity to expansion joints immediately above. This has led to recommendations for increased number of expansion joints to help distribute the flexing over a larger area. As Parks and David mentioned, although these joints did not physically penetrate into the hull structure, they did influence the formation of cracking in the hull underneath those joints.

As far as an Achilles heel in the design, there was none as pointed out at the end of the program. (So much for that Sunday Times article getting it right.) The hull girder of Olympic and Titanic was designed strong enough to operate in the worst conditions of the North Atlantic with some margin of safely built in. In other words the ship did not sink because it broke; it broke because it was sinking.

One of the questions that was brought up near the beginning had to do with the possibility of the ship staying afloat long enough for the Carpathia to arrive in time had it not broken in two. The answer to that is simple NO. Within the last 10-15 minutes the pitch of the ship had just about doubled from the previous 2-1/2 hours. It was starting to loose longitudinal stability very fast at that point. It was then that the stresses on the hull started to build up rapidly as the pitch angle steepened. Even if the ship had not broken in two, it was going down right then and there. It is my personal belief that a few people holding on in the stern may have lived a minute or two longer because the stern settled back toward an even keel after the break for 2 to 3 minutes before it finally tilted back up and went under.

Denise: I'm still down in FL right now on a combined business/pleasure trip, and had to convince my brother-in-law to watch the program with me last night by telling him that he might see me in few scenes near the end. My interview wound up on the cutting floor. Anyway, I don't have access to my references right now.

 

[Steven Hall]

Parks,
you sort through the rubbish (of all the witness statements)and pair-up what you know is the fact.
Like Lightoller talking of the angle of the ship, and seeing the level of the crowsnest (re water hieght). That gives and angle from bridge to crowsnest.
I believe he told a few porkie-pies. But given the situation, maybe we would all have looked at the big picture.
The chap they should have grilled was AB Hitchen's.
Another thing I found interesting is that one witness said they seen 'coal' blown up into the air from the sinking ship.
The answer lies within the wreck. And even more answers lie with closer examination of the stern. To often neglected.
Like I said once before, it would make great viewing to take a few inflatable icebergs out there, a few of different brightness and have a ship approach them out of the darkness. Run all your simulations.
Great dramatic television. Achieve very little, but that could be the hook to use to fund another expedition. Get the public feeling like they are part of the show, no passengers.
I still believe, lift the port, starboard and centre anchors off the wreck. Put one at Belfast, one at Southampton and one at New York.
Now that would make great TV.
Tell them to give me a call, they can have all my ideas in exchange for a dive to the wreck. Sounds a fair deal. LOL.
I'll even give them a signed (first addition) copy of the new book.

Steve

 

[Tad G. Fitch]

I have yet to see this special, but did have someone tape it for me, so hopefully I can watch it today.

Parks wrote:
"Titanic was actually over-engineered for, and therefore sufficiently strong to operate safely in, her expected operating environment."

I definitely agree with this statement Parks, the Titanic surpassed several benchmarks for safety and design that were currently the standard when she was built. One mistake many people have made over the years is calling into question the adequacy of the design of the vessel by comparing its safety features to modern vessels or vessels once the new safety regulations were instituted after the sinking, while the Titanic, although obviously having far too few lifeboats, exceeded the required number at the time. Another example is calling the steel brittle, when by today's standard, it did have a lot of slag in it, but by standards of the day, it was the best quality steel allowed by the manufacturing process that existed, etc.
The same can be said regarding a number of other designs features of the ship.

Was the vessel safe? In hindsight that answer is a resounding no, but engineers and company officials ensured that she met and in some cases, surpassed the requirements of the day, and never envisioned the scenario that led to her sinking and breakup. Judging her quality by modern standards would be like judging 1912 medical treatments by today's standards. The doctors could be using the most state of the art procedures or treatments possible at the time, but to compare them to modern treatments isn't really fair, since doctors wouldn't have had that knowledge or level of technology at the time. The same is true of the Titanic's design. It did turn out to have significant flaws both in safety and design, but it wasn't because she was build with sub-par materials or design compared to other vessels of the day.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Steve, QM Hitchens was grilled at the inquiries and his testimony was full of inconsistencies, especially with regard to when he received those famous helm orders that we all know about.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Tad, you said: "Was the vessel safe? In hindsight that answer is a resounding no." How you define safe? I can argue that safe is a vessel that will keep its passengers free from harm under any and all situations imaginable. Vessels can always be built safer, but you need to define the situation that sets the standard to which they are built for. Colliding with an iceberg along the side that would open the first 5 compartments was not part of the design equations.

 

[Steven Hall]

Oh yes they grilled him Sam.
What I should have added to what I wrote, if he'd told everything that he'd seen and what happened, we'd all be better informed. But it was convenient for the WSL to let what he said remain unchallenged.
They should have given him the old 'salt and pepper'. For those not sure of the term. Hung (or held) upside down and shook him - and seen what fell out.

 

[David G. Brown]

Hey Bob, it's OK to take off your hair shirt and enjoy a Titanic documentary or two. They aren't harmful to your health, and we all rely upon them to gain deeper understanding of what took place. In fact, without TV we would all be a lot less knowledgeable about Titanic. But, to understand how and why documentaries are important to all of us it is necessary to look beyond what appears on the screen.

As consumers of television, we should be aware of the financial constraints under which it operates. TV networks do not produce programs as their primary product, rather they sell eyeballs (mostly women 18-34) to advertisers. If enough eyeballs could be gathered without program content, History Channel wouldn't spend a nickle on Titanic or any other subject. The game is to attract viewers and that requires something to interest them. In TV, the eyeball attractant is programming. Relatively large sums of money are spent on program content which is then given a bit of "circus" to make it more interesting.

Attracting just a few hundred Titaniacs to watch a program is not enough to stimulate production of a Titanic documentary. The network has to attract and hold an audience in the millions to make a profit. It is naive to expect an entertainment industry to produce programing with the boring excitement of an academic paper. That explains words like "Achilles heel" in titles, etc. They help attract an audience of non-afficionadoes.

What is often overlooked by those who naively expect academic perfection from TV is that academics spend hundreds of dollars on research. TV budgets are in the tens and hundreds of thousands. Think: What paid the freight to send Parks and the other members of the dive team to Greece? Where did the money come from for the computer study in Groton? That money came from History Channel's expectation of selling millions of viewers to advertisers.

The result of all this was an entertaining documentary that pretty much gets things right. That program attracted viewers, which were (and will be in future airings) "sold" to advertisers to pay for the research underpinning the documentary. The side benefit of this loop is the nuts-and-bolts research. A lot has been learned that can become the basis for more academic endeavors.

Without the "circus" of the entertainment world, most of us would know little more about Titanic than was contained in Walter Lord's ANTR. Public interest in the entertainment movie named after the ship raised more research dollars than all of the academic research attempts put together.

Sit back and enjoy these TV productions, understanding their true purpose...and...how much we in the Titanic community benefit from them.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Denise A. Hunyadi]

Sam,

Glad to hear you're getting some R&R in Florida! If you have the time to do a diagram after you get home, that would be great. Thanks in advance.

Sorry you didn't make the final cut. Still, I'm sure you made many good contributions which, for whatever reasons, were not included in the final version. John and I did see you twice at the very end!

Maybe next time...

Denise

 

[Bob Read]

David:
If everybody was entertained then that's all that counts. The other day you pressed me to address your question. I'll return the favor.
Since you were a principal in this program, for the record, do you agree with the conclusion of the marine experts that that the hull girder of Titanic was designed sufficiently strong to operate safely within design parameters?
Also, since you are privy to the behind the scene realities of this particular program, who originated the expansion joints as Achilles Heel theory. Roger Long?
Or was it suggested to him?

Regards,
Bob Read