Why didn't the Titanic's lookouts see the Californian?

[PeterChappell]

As we say in aviation circles, severe clear.
Can't say about Californian's masthead lights because I don't have specific information about them, but Titanic's masthead light seen at a distance of 15 miles would appear to be about as bright as the pole star Polaris, which is a star of magnitude 2 in the constellation Ursa Minor.

Presumably we can assume the Californian's (unsighted) stern light was much less bright to the Titanic's bridge, perhaps a tenth or even an hundredth that of the Titanic's masthead light to the Californian? That would be equivalent to stars of magnitude 4.5 and 7 respectively, since each magnitude change accounts for a change of 2.518 the brightness.

If the height of the stern light was at a similar height to Titanic's bridge at around 22 metres and at 15 NM distance, it would place it around 11 minutes of angle above the horizon as seen from the bridge. This is based on this formula from this 'beyond horizon' calculator. The horizon itself would be just a couple of minutes lower than the horizontal at the height of the Titanic's bridge.

This is how mast lights of 4.5 and 7 magnitude would appear against the background of stars in the general direction of the Californian, 7 minutes after the collision. These are labelled just above the horizon, indicated by the lower green line.

Notice how few stars are within this 2 degree band. This is due to the effect of light extinction, as the starlight passes through a greater mass of atmosphere near to the horizon. Also labelled is a normally bright 2.9 magnitude star reduced to 6.57, and a 3.74 magnitude star reduced to 6.48 magnitude due to these extinction effects.

There are no stars below 2 degrees of altitude/elevation brighter than the 5th magnitude after allowing for extinction. So a light of 4.5 magnitude (a tenth as bright as of Titanic's mast light) shouldn't be easily confused with the stars.

The 7th magnitude light (a hundredth as bright as Titanic's mast light) is more challenging, as there are 12 stars brighter than the 7th magnitude within 2 degrees of the horizon at that time. Ideally a planisphere would have been useful to identify the stars on the horizon, as these would be be printed as 3rd and 4th magnitude objects.

The gradually increasing angle of the ship would make the position of the horizon more difficult to determine, although the abundance of stars above a certain elevation would act as a guide. Note also that mast lights would also be affected by extinction to some extent, so I'm unsure if that is allowed in Sam's calculations.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Why didnt the lookout see the Titanic? For the simple reason there were miss inform from the British inquiry who claimed the Californian was only a few miles away. As for the real truth it was nearer to 14-19 miles way.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Once again, I think the reason why the Titanic's lookouts did not see the Californian is relatively simple; like MHS said, they were not really lookng........in that direction and would not have noticed a tiny light in the horizon among the stars before the accident. The six lookouts worked on a 2-hours-on and 4-hours-off rotation; during their 2-hour stint, Fleet and Lee's job would have been to constantly scan the sea ahead of the speeding ship within a narrow visual field, which is what they would have been doing. The ultra-calm nature of the sea with the resultant difficulty in spotting icebergs and IF Fleet really thought that there was a haze ahead would have made them concentrate harder on the job and not really register a tiny and rather insignificant light well outside their field of peripheral vision. Before the collision occurred, the Californian's light, even if they could have discerned it, would have not been of any significance to the lookouts.

In the first few minutes following the Titanic's collision with the berg, Fleet and Lee would have looked at the iceberg, thought about the implications etc; that would have been natural. Furthermore, the inertia meant that the ship was still moving forward and turning even with the engines stopped and so, scanning ahead would still have been important and as professional lookouts, they would have done just that. Then the Titanic's engines were briefly restarted and by the time they were stopped again and the ship came to its final stop, it would have been very close to midnight and the end of Fleet and Lee's shift.

Hogg and Evans, the lookouts who briefly relieved Fleet & Lee, would have known about the collision and preoccupied with the implications on a stopped ship. Moreover, they remained in the crow's nest for less than 15 minutes before coming down to the boat deck; Hogg helped with preparation and loading of Lifeboat #7 and was rescued on it. Evans remained on board the Titanic longer but was likely delegated other tasks; moreover, he was NOT called in to testify during either Inquiry.

But IMO the perspective of other crew, starting from the Captain and working down, would have been different. Once the collision occurred, even without knowing that the damage was fatal it would have been natural for them to scan the horizon all around to see if they could potentially spot another vessel, which would explain why several people then saw the Californian's light.

As for the real truth it was nearer to 14-19 miles way.

That probably is a slightly longer distance range than that actually prevailed between the two ships that night. I have never believed in the nonsense about a "mystery vessel" between the two or anywhere else within visual range but based on what I could work out from various sources on the subject, believe that the Titanic and the Californian were between 12 and 15 miles apart.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Whether or not Californian was between 12-15 miles away. Its amazing to think how four profession lookout men who were in the best position up in the crow nest and didn't see the Californian light. So want where the others looking at? Perhaps another ship! In other words why should the Californian be the only ship out there.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Its amazing to think how four profession lookout men who were in the best position up in the crow nest and didn't see the Californian light.

It wouldn't be so amazing if you bother to talk to someone who actually was trained and did that job. A stationary, inconspicuous stern light far out on the horizon is not what they are trained for.

 

[Mike Spooner]

It wouldn't be so amazing if you bother to talk to someone who actually was trained and did that job. A stationary, inconspicuous stern light far out on the horizon is not what they are trained for.

Yes I would agree it would a be amazing if some in the inquiry had there experience as a lookout person and there working condition they had to put up with. As the thread is why they didn't see the Californian? Well it was just too far away or considered not a threat to Titanic progress to give a positive ring on the bell.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I'll put it simply. A lookout's sole purpose is spot potential danger in time for the OOW on the bridge to take whatever action they decide is appropriate. There field of scanning is typically about 4 points to either side of dead ahead for ship that is moving. If your ship is stopped, then a wider scan is used around looking for moving objects that may endanger your vessel. Lookouts are not trained to recognize stellar constellations, or individual stars within. They are trained to recognize a moving light(s) relative to the background stars.

 

[Mike Spooner]

So where did the idea come from. Why didn't the Titanic lookouts see the Californian. As for the lookouts to see the Californian in the pitch dark about 15 miles away is quite frankly a mission impossible. If any such light on a stationary ship would be very difficult to sort out from twinkling stars. And clearly was no threat of collision. I can only think this has come from the British Inquiry. Where a very clever smart intelligent barrister Sir Rufus Isaac who would make claims that the Californian was only a few miles away.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

So where did the idea come from. Why didn't the Titanic lookouts see the Californian.

The question about why the lookouts didn't see Californian came from those who want people to believe that there was a mystery ship that came, saw Titanic sinking, and then mysteriously went away just as Carpathia arrived on the scene.

 

[Mike Spooner]

The question about why the lookouts didn't see Californian came from those who want people to believe that there was a mystery ship that came, saw Titanic sinking, and then mysteriously went away just as Carpathia arrived on the scene.

Just clear up the matter of mystery ship. Are you including the light of a ship about 5 miles away where the early lifeboats are told to row for, as a mystery ship?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Just clear up the matter of mystery ship. Are you including the light of a ship about 5 miles away where the early lifeboats are told to row for, as a mystery ship?

Yes. The same one that Smith told people to row to, drop passengers off, and then come back for more. By the way, 5 miles is what some judged it to be. Some said it was as close as 3, while others said it was a far as 10. Some said it was one light, others said it was two lights. You really can't judge distance by the brightness of lights alone, and nothing but the lights of the steamer could be seen.

 

[PeterChappell]

Whether or not Californian was between 12-15 miles away. Its amazing to think how four profession lookout men who were in the best position up in the crow nest and didn't see the Californian light. So want where the others looking at? Perhaps another ship! In other words why should the Californian be the only ship out there.

It depends how bright the stern light was, and no-one seems to know. If it was only a hundredth as bright as Titanic's mast light, this would be equivalent to a 7th magnitude star, which is invisible to the naked eye. Even with binoculars a 7th magnitude light could get confused with a star on the horizon.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Peter, for what its worth, the requirements that were in effect at the time stated that masthead lights had to visible for a distance of at least 5 nautical miles, sidelights for at least 2 miles and a stern light for at least 1 mile.

 

[Mike Spooner]

I wander if the lookouts men even knew what the Californian ship was in the first place! Let alone giving any information of her position.

 

[PeterChappell]

Peter, for what its worth, the requirements that were in effect at the time stated that masthead lights had to visible for a distance of at least 5 nautical miles, sidelights for at least 2 miles and a stern light for at least 1 mile.

One might assume stern lights are 1/25 = 1/(5squared) as bright as masthead lights, then assume the Californian light was as bright as Titanic's. However, I'm still worried about the attenuation of the ships lights through distance. Are there any standard nautical tables, and was that accounted for in your calculations? Note this isn't allowance for mist, but Rayleigh scattering by molecules of nitrogen and oxygen which is always present. This is why there are so few visible stars on the horizon, under normal (non-mirage) circumstances.