Why no audio distress signal


Status
Not open for further replies.
May 5, 2005
216
1
183
I was wondering, Why no use of Titanic's whistles? I have heard that the Queen Mary's horn could be heard for 10 miles. If rockets were observed from at least one vessel, especially on a clear night like that, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that a series of blasts could be heard by someone? It could have been enough for someone to wake Cyril Evans (of the Californian) Of course, the rockets should have done that! But it may have gotten someone's attention.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I don't suppose it would have done any harm Steve. However the twin reports of those distress rockets would have been heard 10 miles away as well.
There would probably have been enough noise from the steam escaping and thereafter, not enough steam to blow the whistle for long.
However, it's an interesting question.
They would have most certainly blown that whistle if they thought there was a ship near enough to hear it. Which opens another huge can of worms since they were confident that by using the signal lamp they would get a response from the vessel Boxhall saw approaching. Now that one was close enough to see and hear any kind of distress signal!
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
835
563
Easley South Carolina
One reason may have been that with only a few boilers runing to provide steam for the dynamos, there may not have been that much to spare for the whistles. Still another may well have been a desire to avoid spooking the passengers. The potential for an extremely costly panic...realistic or not...was a threat which was taken very seriously.
 

Jim Kalafus

Member
Dec 3, 2000
6,113
35
398
Another probably being that distress rockets are not ambiguous...except to Lordites... and sounding the whistle is. They had a wireless and distress rockets, and by the time it became obvious that neither was going to rouse the...peculiar...crew of the Californian, the crowd was already moving into a rather edgy state. Sounding the whistle, if it was still possible to do that, could have made a deteriorating situation worse.

>They would have most certainly blown that whistle if they thought there was a ship near enough to hear it.

The Californian was already pointedly ignoring two forms of distress signal, or so it would have been perceived. Why risk making things worse aboard the Titanic by adding a very dischordant third?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
A bit unkind there Jim!

We're discussing sound signals here.

If the people on Californian are to be brought into the discussion then other facts must also be considered. For instance:

1. Those on Californian did not hear any sounds.

2. The rockets they saw did not go any higher
than the masthead light of the nearby vessel.

3. Titanic did not follow the prescribed
method of showing distress signals.
(Continuous sounding of the fog horn.
Rockets showing stars of any colour fired
at SHORT intervals).

4. Principally because of (3), the people on
Californian did not know there was a vessel
in distress at that time - what they saw
was not the text book representation of a
vessel in distress therefore they did not
see it as such.

In fact the signals used by Titanic were most certainly ambiguous. They are not so nowadays therefore today's values should not be used to judge actions taken during past events.

The regulations were very much tightened up after 1912 - probably as a result of the combination of how Titanic and Californian interpreted the regulations. Later versions of the Rules specifically warn:

"The use of any of the above signals, except for the purpose of indicating that a vessel (or seaplane) is in distress, and by the use of any signals which may be confused with any of the above signals is prohibited"

That was as a direct result of how Titanic's signals were misinterpreted.

Unlike present day pundits; the marine society of 1912 recognised the problem of misinterpretation. Lord in his interview with Harrison many years later referred to this when he remarked that the use of distress rockets as a form of salutation or as a warning was common practice.
Californian's Chief Officer Stewart made a veiled reference to the same when he said that he though the other ship might have been communicating with a ship further to the south.
Also, it should not escape researchers that Rostron actually used his distress rockets as a means of communication in his own words;to 'comfort' Titanic.

Here's a hypothetical question:

If Titanic had followed the prescribed rules and the wireless operator of Californian had been called and learned of the CQD position - what course should Lord have steered?
Bear in mind that by the time Evans arrived at his instrument and got it fired up, Titanic would most likely have fired her last rocket. Also bear in mind that Evans would have learned that Titanic had hit the berg somewhere in a SW'ly direction whereas the signals Stone saw were in a SE'ly direction.

"The Californian was already pointedly ignoring two forms of distress signal, or so it would have been perceived. Why risk making things worse aboard the Titanic by adding a very dischordant third?"

Again unfair comment Jim.

As I said above ; they did not ignore a visual distress signal, they simply did did not recognise it as such that's why Stone contacted Lord and described what he had seen. Obviously Lord did not recognise these signals as distress signals either.
In his interview with Harrison many years after the event; Lord described having used distress rockets as a means of salutation between vessels.
As for the wireless distress call - well a sleeping operator with a closed down station could not be construed as ignoring the call - now could he?

However, they should most certainly have properly used every signal in the book including the continuous fog signal. If for nothing else than to convince those on the nearby ship they had a problem. It is the responsibility of those aboard the vessel in distress to ensure that everyone is informed of the problem. There should be no room for guesswork.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,437
1,726
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>1. Those on Californian did not hear any sounds. <<

The vessel in distress was too far away from Californian to hear the reports of the signal. But that didn't matter. They saw rockets fired at short intervals and even admitted to that.

>>2. The rockets they saw did not go any higher than the masthead light of the nearby vessel. <<

That is what Stone claimed at the inquiry. He actually said they didn't go higher than 1/2 the masthead light. But Gibson gave no support to that. In fact, just the opposite. Gibson was able to see the flash of the detonator and follow the shell upward until it exploded into stars when looking through a pair of glass.

>>3. Titanic did not follow the prescribed method of showing distress signals. (Continuous sounding of the fog horn. Rockets showing stars of any colour fired at SHORT intervals). <<

Titanic was NOT required to sound the fog horn. The rules were very specific about the four types signals of distress used at night. It specifically said they could be used or displayed either together or separately. As far as intervals are concerned, Titanic was firing them off every 5 or 6 minutes as judged by those doing it. Stone admitting seeing rockets which he thought were sent up in about those intervals. According to QM Rowe, Capt. Smith told him to send them up about every 5 minutes. Stone said he saw 5 in about 1/2 hour time. Stone also admitted to Gibson that a steamer is not going to fire rockets at night at sea for nothing. The problem with Stone is that he got the impression from speaking with Lord that his Capt. was not too concerned, so why should he be.

>>4. Principally because of (3), the people on Californian did not know there was a vessel in distress at that time - what they saw was not the text book representation of a vessel in distress therefore they did not see it as such. <<

The text book representation of a vessel in distress was repeated to Stone at the inquiry and he admitted that what he saw would be distress except for the bearings to the rockets changing. But the truth is those bearings to the rockets didn't change. The vessel firing those rockets did not move.

>>Obviously Lord did not recognise these signals as distress signals either. <<

Stone was happy to throw the entire responsibility onto Lord's back. It had nothing to do with what he saw. It is questionable as to exactly what Stone actually told Lord about what he saw when he called down on the speaking tube initially. Lord did not recognise these signals as distress signals because according to him Stone told him about seeing just 1 rocket.

>>Later versions of the Rules specifically warn: "The use of any of the above signals, except for the purpose of indicating that a vessel (or seaplane) is in distress, and by the use of any signals which may be confused with any of the above signals is prohibited" <<

Hate to say this, but the rules as far back as 1897 had a similar statement about making the master of vessel liable should he display or allow someone under his authority to display such signals that can be taken as signals of distress.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
"The vessel in distress was too far away from Californian to hear the reports of the signal. But that didn't matter. They saw rockets fired at short intervals and even admitted to that."

You're doing the same thing Sam- bringing Californian into a thread that is only vaguely associated with her! This was about why they didn't use the fog signal.

However I will take the bait and answer your post:

"As far as intervals are concerned, Titanic was firing them off every 5 or 6 minutes as judged by those doing it. Stone admitting seeing rockets which he thought were sent up in about those intervals."

Now who's talking nonsense?

No one denies Stone saw those rockets being fired at intervals of between 5 and 6 minutes. However these intervals could not by any stretch of imagination be described as being 'short intervals'.

The regulations specified that distress rockets should be fired at short intervals. Now what is the definition of 'short'?

Think about the purpose of these signals:
they were, and still are, designed to convey a sense of urgency - of dire distress - of a need for immediate assistance to anyone seeing them.
Because of this, the term 'short interval' should be construed with the purpose of the signal in mind i.e. to convey urgency.
The actual length of the interval will depend on the individual circumstances of the distress and the degree of difficulty that might be encountered by the person firing the signal because of these circumstances. These people on Titanic were operating in almost text book circumstances - two people on a clear, stable platform with but one principal duty - to send up signals of distress.


The sound signal was, and still is designed to communicate the same message that's why it has to be 'continuous' not a 'toot' every five or six minutes.

Explosive sounds 'bangs'are to be at intervals not exceeding 1 minute! Now why would that be?

In fact Titanic could travel 2 miles in the time interval of 6 minutes. you could boil an egg and make coffee in that time!

The real 'problem Sam was that what Stone saw, did not convey 'urgency' to him. Nor would it have done so to anyone else for that matter.

"Titanic was NOT required to sound the fog horn."

So that makes it all right then? C'mon Sam, you can do better than that!

I would suggest to you, and anyone else who has nothing better to do than read this; that supreme confidence reigned on board Titanic for the early part of the disaster. The fact that a junior officer had to suggest to Captain Smith that it might be a good idea to let off rockets is an example of this as was the suggestion to the captain that it might be a good idea to fill the boats or even send them away.
There were at least two men handling the rocket firing process and Titanic had enough rockets on board to keep firing them for well over an hour at 'short intervals' of about 2 minutes .
Now that would have been a sight which would have left no doubts in the minds (or eyes) of the beholders.

"The text book representation of a vessel in distress was repeated to Stone at the inquiry and he admitted that what he saw would be distress except for the bearings to the rockets changing. But the truth is those bearings to the rockets didn't change. The vessel firing those rockets did not move."

'The truth' according to you, Sam!

Stone was brow-beaten into his final collusion with the Commissioner concerning distress signals.
At first he said his first impression was that the other vessel was communicating information. Apparently from his answers he did not get a sense of immediate urgency.

Here's how it happened:

" 7856. (The Commissioner.) You know, you do not make a good impression upon me at present.

7856a. (Mr. Butler Aspinall.) Did you think that they were distress signals?
- No.

7857. Did not that occur to, you?
- It did not occur to me at the time."

The guy was being 'ganged-up on". He was not telling The Commissioner what the man wanted to hear.

In fact Stone's words 'at the time' say it all!

"The problem with Stone is that he got the impression from speaking with Lord that his Capt. was not too concerned, so why should he be."

Not a 'problem' more of a natural response.

I put it to you, if you were not too sure about something and therefore discussed it with someone you believed was more knowledgeable about it - would you be happy if that person's response settled your uncertainty?

Nothing strange at all in Stone's response.
Would it perhaps be confirmation of his belief that what he was seeing was no big deal and Lord confirmed it to him.

I quote from the British MN officer's 'bible':

'Standing Rules for Steam Vessels at Sea.

The Master when leaving the deck for rest, shall see that the chart is on the desk for use of the officer in charge, with instructions to be called on all occasions of doubt!'

The real truth Sam is that Stone was a very good conscientious officer who went by the book.

As for your version of 'truth':

"But the truth is those bearings to the rockets didn't change. The vessel firing those rockets did not move."

'Truth' is stranger than fiction Sam.

You have to appreciate that when a Man like Stone (or any other junior officer for that matter) was told by his Captain to take bearings of a vessel it is not open to an arbitrary decision on the officer's part - it is an order. Stone was ordered to do what he would, as a conscientious officer have done anyway i.e., occasionally, throughout his watch, take a bearing of that nearby vessel:

Example:

"7815. Did he [Lord]say anything to you when he pointed her out?
- He asked [told] me to tell him if the bearing of the steamer altered or if she got any closer to us."
i.e., if the other vessel moved or headed straight for Californian.

He obviously obeyed that order because Gibson confirmed it:

7741. Could you [Gibson] see whether she was steaming away?
- No. The Second Officer was taking bearings of her all the time.

From the foregoing we seem to have two liars Sam?

Sure Gibson did not 'see' the vessel steaming away. The only way he could have been sure of that was if he was taking the bearing himself or if his ship was not swinging and the other vessel was close and moving across his field of vision. It is rather 'thin' to suggest that because Gibson did not actually 'see' the vessel moving, it was proof that it did not do so.
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
289
278
I am probably looking at this from a standpoint of later technology...but.

Were there any "auto alarm" circuits in use on the wireless receivers of the time ? In the first place, they would have had to decode a "CQD" signal, which was the norm at the time. In the second place even if the receiving equipment was connected to an antenna, there was a possibly the detector, which was spring wound , would have run down anyway, so it wouldn't have made any difference whether Evans had left his equipment connected to the antenna(s) or not after he had retired. I am also assuming that the wireless equipment(s)were switched to "grounding" as depicted in "A Night To Remember."

This is all hypothetical, but just a matter of curiosity ?

I am also assuming that if the horns or sirens or Titanic had been continually sounded (as in the 1953 "Titanic") they would have caused more panic than good.

Just a question for Michael Standart. Were there any "auto detector" circuits on U.S. Navy vessels ?
I can't recall any on the ships on which I was stationed, although there were receivers and transmitters were always kept tuned up on the 500 KHZ Distress Frequency.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,649
835
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Just a question for Michael Standart. Were there any "auto detector" circuits on U.S. Navy vessels ?<<

I can't give you a straight answer to that one. When I was in service, it was at a time when radio was run 24/7 including holidays. The autodetector was the guy who was manning the sets.

In 1912, the situation was likely very different. Military vessels with radio would most likely have never been off line, but I don't have any references to back that up.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Sam, you obviously have never been subjected to cross examination otherwise you would know how it feels to be surrounded by 'experts' putting words in your mouth, suggesting that you did not in fact see what you thought you saw.
Otherwise, you would not put forth such an argument to make your point.

Have another look at what you use as supporting evidence.

"7849. You had been keeping this vessel under close observation and saw five rockets go up in fairly quick succession. What did you think at the time they meant? You applied your mind to the matter, did you not? - Yes.
7850. Now, what did you think at the time? - I knew they were signals of some sort.
7851. I know; of course - signals of what sort did you think? - I did not know at the time.
7852. (The Commissioner.) Now try to be frank? - I am.
7853. If you try, you will succeed. What did you think these rockets were going up at intervals of three or four minutes for? - I just took them as white rockets, and informed the master and left him to judge."

Let's analyse the foregoing for what it's worth:

'Fairly quick succession' -
A manipulation of the facts. In a distress situation,5 or 6 second intervals could not have be described as 'fairly quick'.

'You applied your mind to the matter, did you not?' -
School master sarcasm.

'I did not know at the time.' -
Can anything be plainer than that?

'Now try to be frank? -
Actually the implication here is that Stone was not being candid, open or honest.

Then the supreme manipulation:

"7853. If you try, you will succeed. What did you think these rockets were going up at intervals of three or four minutes for?"

'If you try you will succeed'
Succeed in coming round to our pre-concieved point of view?

'Three or four minutes' (who suggested quick succession?)

Five or Six minutes have now been reduced to 'three or four minutes' along with young Stone's confidence. Even you joined in on that one!

Splitting the difference, 8 rockets fired at 3 or 4 minute intervals would have taken a total of 28 minutes. If the first one was fired at 0047hrs (Boat launch sequence), the last one would be seen by an observer at around 0115 Titanic 14th April time, 0103 Californian time. That's 27 minutes before the last rocket according to the Boat launch sequence and 1 hour 5 minutes before Titanic went down. In the extra 27 minutes, Boxhall could have fired at least 7 or 8 more rockets!
How can you change the 'goalposts' and not blush?

Was it in preparation for the coup de grace?..

" Do you mean to say you did not think for yourself?" quickly followed by...
"You know, you do not make a good impression upon me at present."

Sam, you ask:

"Now are we to feel sorry for this poor guy by the way he was treated here?"

You're damn right we should feel sorry for him. God forbid that we should ever find ourselves in such a nest of supercilious snakes. These guys were some of the slickest trial lawyers in the land and they treated this lad without mercy. By the end of the questioning, they could have convinced him Californian rammed Titanic!

You remarked:

"Yes, that's the truth if the vessel firing those rockets was Titanic. If the bearing to those rockets did indeed change, as Stone said they did, then surely those rockets could not have come from Titanic."

I'm glad you now agree. You, like every one of us on this site, and all the shore- examiners were never there so can't possibly know what Stone saw.

Meanwhile on Titanic:

"And as for Capt. Smith, what an idiot. He should have known that short intervals meant 1 to 2 minutes, not 5 to 6 minutes that they used."

I will ignore the sarcasm Sam!

Of course Smith knew all about the meaning of 'short intervals' and the fact that distress rockets were meant to convey urgency. So you tell us why; if he knew that, he allowed them to be sent up at 5 or 6 minute intervals? Surely you're not going to suggest such intervals are short?
You keep avoiding the obvious.

You wrote:

"The J/O who told him that he sent for some rockets was the same J/O that was told by Smith that the ship had only an hour to an hour and a half left to live.
But you say supreme confidence reigned on board Titanic, so I guess even if they were informed about how much longer the ship had left, why rush things? "

Sam, you really should read what I wrote and not be so selective about your evidence. I'll save you the trouble of looking back. I wrote:

"I would suggest to you,....that supreme confidence reigned on board Titanic for the early part of the disaster."

The word 'early' is the clue here.

The first mention of 'sinking' in any of the distress messages came at 10-25pm New York time.
Using a 2 hour 2 minute time difference, that would have been 0028 April 14th time on board Titanic. However previous research shows /suggests that the first rocket was sent up at 0047 - almost 10 minutes after that.
This means that although Titanic told the world she was sinking in her corrected CQD, she did not start firing off rockets for another 10 minutes after that - over an hour after she hit the ice and in plain sight of a vessel which had been approaching Titanic for the previous 15 minutes - since Boxhall went in to the chart room to work his CQD position. Urgency?

Historians should bear in mind that because a ship sends out a distress call, it does not mean that she is actually sinking, she might merely be disabled and need assistance.
If they had sent people away as a precaution,which was actually the belief of not a few people at that time, there was apparently not the inevitablity of sinking behind that precautionary act. On the other hand, if Smith was so certain that Titanic had a mere hour and a half to live at that time, He would have ordered the immediate firing of those rockets.

"Now how does one convey anything of the sort by sending up rockets? Did he [Stone] really expect them to believe that?"

Why not? Rostron was doing exactly that!

I suppose I may as well 'indulge' in a little 'acidity'. You know what they say: " If you can't beat them...."

Consider Boxhall:

15394. Could you see how far off she was?
- No, I could not see, but I had sent in the meantime for some rockets, and told the Captain I had sent for some rockets, and told him I would send them off, and told him when I saw this light. He said, "Yes, carry on with it." I was sending rockets off and watching this steamer. Between the time of sending the rockets off and watching the steamer approach us I was making myself generally useful round the port side of the deck." (this was at 3 to 4 minute intervals by the way!)

Mr. BOXHALL.
At first I saw two masthead lights of a steamer, just slightly opened, and later she got closer to us, until, eventually, I could see her side lights with my naked eye."

Of course! why didn't I see this before?
It as the J/O who was the idiot! Why else would he have given such false evidence and expect any those learned people who just knew he was not being 'candid' to believe him, particularly when they and anyone else who was not there knew all along that it was Californian he had seen, 16 + miles away and stopped.
He must have been an idiot or supremely confident that all those people 'round the bridge' who saw the same vessel, would not have seen what he saw and would therefore not contradict him when they gave his evidence.

You will have noted that he was never confronted with the statement/question (I don't know which):

As for Boxhall's approaching ship:
Perhaps, despite being an Extra Master who had been sailing that particular route since he was 19 years old, he did not understand that a stationery vessel will actually come closer to you and her lights will become clearer if you just wait long enough? Dah!!!
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,437
1,726
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>Sam, you obviously have never been subjected to cross examination otherwise you would know how it feels to be surrounded by 'experts' putting words in your mouth, suggesting that you did not in fact see what you thought you saw. <<

You obviously have no knowledge of what I've been subjected to during my lifetime, or what experience I've had in a court, both as a witness and as a juror.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine. The transcripts are available to anyone who wishes to read them. I will let people form their own opinions. And as far as the meaning of short intervals are concerned, even today "short" is not specified.

ANNEX IV - Distress signals
1. The following signals, used or exhibited either together or separately, indicate distress and need of assistance:

(c) rockets or shells, throwing red stars fired one at a time at short intervals;

It doesn't say 1 to 2 minute intervals or 3 to 4 minute intervals or even 5 to 6 minute intervals. It says "short intervals" which is subjective measure and certainly open to interpretation. Five rockets in a 1/2 hour is about 6-7 minutes between. But so what? Whether subjectively it felt like it was 3 or 4 minutes apart, or 5 or 6 minutes apart, rockets were sent up one at a time at intervals. I would imagine that such a display would cause some concern, and according to Gibson, they did express some concern amongst the two of them with Stone saying that a steamer was not going to send up rockets at night for nothing. But Stone told the commission, "I just took them as white rockets, and informed the master and left him to judge...It did not occur to me [to think the ship was in distress] because if there had been any grounds for supposing the ship would have been in distress the Captain would have expressed it to me."

It simply did not matter what Stone thought at the time. Stone shifted all responsibility onto the lap of Lord. And exactly what he told Lord or didn't tell Lord is the crux of the issue of why Californian stood still all night.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
"(c) rockets or shells, throwing red stars fired one at a time at short intervals;"

The fact that the signals are now distinctively red and not 'of any colour' makes the interpretation of short less pressing in fact almost redundant except that that to be effective, the interval between one being extinguished and the other being fired should be kept to a minimum to ensure capturing the attention of a potential observer. The minimum burning time for a parachute flare is 40 seconds which means they can be fired at a minimum of 1 minute intervals by a single person. This minimum burning time gives you a very good idea for a definition for 'short interval'. The short interval was meant to convey urgency yet you write:

"Five rockets in a 1/2 hour is about 6-7 minutes between. But so what?"

By this Sam, you are suggesting that it was perfectly all right to guess how these signals might be interpreted by an observer.

I agree with you and many others before you who criticise the use of the nebulous word 'short' in the regulations. That's one of the reasons why modern distress signals cannot be mistaken for any other signal.
However, the 'so what' does not explain what happened to the last rocket? Since rocket 6 was fired no later than 01-23? Was the interval between that one and the last one 27 minutes? Because I understand from the boat launching sequence, the last one went off at 1-50am. Did they think 'so what,everyone will know we are sinking'?
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,437
1,726
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>Was the interval between that one and the last one 27 minutes? <<

You are assuming that there were only two between the 6th one seen and the 8th one seen. Eight is what Stone counted. It does not mean they saw every rocket that was sent up. To see it you have to be looking all the time over the weather cloth. That is not necessarily the case. Nobody on Titanic was counting how many were sent up.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
That's strange Sam because according to both Stone and Gibson they continued to watch that vessel until it was out of sight.

Gibson's evidence:

7737. Did he say he [Stone] saw her?
- He said, "She is steaming slowly away towards the S.W."

7738. Steaming away?
- Yes.

7739. Towards the S.W.?
- Yes.

7740. Did you fix your glasses on her at this time?
- Yes, I was signaling her continuously."

Obviously Gibson was watching this vessel during the time Stone said she was steaming away. Equally obviously; if that ship had fired any more rockets, one or other of them would have seen them since both were using glasses. Indeed, I understand that Stone used his glasses over the pelorus when taking the final bearings since the other vessel was, by that time, almost out of sight - a very common practice by navigators!

In any case, if Titanic was sending up rockets at 'short' intervals - the 'almost continuous' type, there would have been no doubt as to what was wrong with her.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,437
1,726
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
That comment did not happen until after the 7th rocket was seen, after the red sidelight had been shut out. The only thing we have to go on is what we were told. Boxhall thought he sent up from 6 to 12. Did he also include the ones sent up by Rowe? Rowe said somewhere that he fired 7 himself. Pitman thought about dozen were fired. The truth is that we don't really know. And nobody apparently was timing the interval between every one of them. Stone said he though 3-4 minutes but he also said he saw 5 in 25 minutes time, and that the interval of the last three he saw were about the same as the first five he saw. He also estimated that last one he saw was at 1:40, about 55 minutes after the first one.

What matters is that rockets were sent up at intervals and Stone left it entirely to Lord to decide what that all meant. And who knows what Stone really told Lord when he called down the speaking tube? If you believe Lord, it was a single rocket. If you believe Gibson, it was either one or at most two rockets. If you believe Stone, it was five rockets in 25 minutes. I personally don't believe Stone's account here. As I've said elsewhere, I think there was bad communications between Stone and Lord. But if you want to make excuses for Stone's actions or inactions, that's your call.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,506
1,323
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Not excuses Sam - logical reasons based on what Stone described seeing. If 'Bangs' indicating distress were to be displayed at 1 minute intervals to indicate dire need - why should white rockets sent up at 5 or 6 minutes intervals convey the same extent of need?

The communications were fine - carried out according to orders.
Bottom line is that based on the information Lord had, he did not deem it necessary to wake up the Wireless man to find out 'just in case'.
Even later, Lord did not charge off into the sunrise on a wild goose chase. He did all the right things that a prudent commander would be expected to do.
Being wise after the event is a luxury!
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
289
278
Thanks,Michael -

>>I can't give you a straight answer to that one. When I was in service, it was at a time when radio was run 24/7 including holidays. The autodetector was the guy who was manning the sets.<<

Probably the same when I was in service. One receiver and one receiver was always tuned to the distress frequency which I believe was 500 KHZ at the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads