Why Did Murdoch Order Full Speed Astern?
and...@erols.com
Given that none of the officers including Captain Smith had much
experience manuevering ships of this size, why didn't Murdoch know
reversing the engines would reduce his ability to turn the ship? He
was an experienced officer (actually was the Chief Officer on the
Olympic). Furthermore, since ice was expected and speed was not
reduced they had to expect they would be required to steer the ship
clear of any encountered obstacles. But they really didn't know how to
steer the ship, did they?
To me, this is equivalent of a commercial airlines pilot not knowing
how to fly the plane when wind or storms are encountered.Can anyone
imagine that! I mean, they all should have known how to drive that
ship! Another thing strikes me as ridiculous. If Murdoch couldn't
hard-a-starboard around the berg when he was 1/4 mile away, how the
hell did he expect to swing the after part of the ship with his
hard-a-port command when he was right on top of the berg?
I'm not blaming Murdoch, he was unluckily on duty. I'm not sure any of
the officers including Smith would have done any better. But I would
like to know from any historians, what was the explanation for
reversing the engines and how was that poor navigation handled by the
inquiries.
AC
Tom Pappas
and...@erols.com wrote in article <3533d836....@news.erols.com>...
Your first two questions assume that swinging the stern faster would have
given the ship a better chance of missing the iceberg. This is probably not
the case, since a ship rotates around an axis determined by its Center of
Longitudinal Stability, not the way an automobile does, with the rear
following the front around the corner (with a symmetrical hull such as
Titanic's, this point would have been slightly forward of the ship's
center.) More rudder effectiveness would simply have moved the point of
impact further aft, since the ship's inertia would have carried it into the
iceberg along its original course line. Your last question can be answered
by Murdoch's desire to avoid further contact by swinging the stern to the
right after the midships point had passed the ice. In the event, the engine
speed was not a factor, as the reverse command was not executed until after
the collision.
I have done a little nonnumeric analysis on this very topic - you can see
it at http://home.att.net/~tompappas/collision.html
A number of marine architects and engineers have told me that I'm probably
on the right track (pun deliberate). They are working on modeling the event
mathematically to see if my intuition is correct.
Tom
Tom Pappas
Center of Lateral Resistance
Jerome Bigge
On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 03:02:03 GMT, and...@erols.com wrote:
>Given that none of the officers including Captain Smith had much
>experience manuevering ships of this size, why didn't Murdoch know
>reversing the engines would reduce his ability to turn the ship? He
>was an experienced officer (actually was the Chief Officer on the
>Olympic). Furthermore, since ice was expected and speed was not
>reduced they had to expect they would be required to steer the ship
>clear of any encountered obstacles. But they really didn't know how to
>steer the ship, did they?
>
>To me, this is equivalent of a commercial airlines pilot not knowing
>how to fly the plane when wind or storms are encountered.Can anyone
>imagine that! I mean, they all should have known how to drive that
>ship! Another thing strikes me as ridiculous. If Murdoch couldn't
>hard-a-starboard around the berg when he was 1/4 mile away, how the
>hell did he expect to swing the after part of the ship with his
>hard-a-port command when he was right on top of the berg?
>
>I'm not blaming Murdoch, he was unluckily on duty. I'm not sure any of
>the officers including Smith would have done any better. But I would
>like to know from any historians, what was the explanation for
>reversing the engines and how was that poor navigation handled by the
>inquiries.
>
>AC
Having considered this myself, the following considerations may apply.
The Titanic is going about 21 or 22 knots (roughly 25-27 mph).
*DATA*
To make the quickest turn to port given three screws, you apply
full reverse to the port screw, full ahead to the center and starboard
screws. The rudder is more effective with the force of the screw now
forcing water against it. This swings the stern of the ship more quickly
around. There is also a torque effect to be considered, but you'd have
to know whether or not the Titanic's screws went clockwise or counter
clockwise. I think it showed them clockwise in the movie, but I could
be wrong. A ship with clockwise screws (if all of them turn in the same
direction) will tend to turn easier to port than it will to starboard. However
a ship turns around its center of gravity (axis), and while the bow would
swing away from the iceberg, the stern would now swing towards it.
Murdoch is on the bridge seeing the iceberg coming towards the
Titanic. He has no way of knowing whether or not the Titanic can
turn sharply enough to avoid the iceberg or not. If the Titanic hits
the iceberg bows on, any reduction in speed is a big help as the
force of the impact is greatly reduced with any reduction in speed.
A reduction in speed to 15 knots would reduce the force of impact
by half. Question: Do you apply the "brakes" or try to steer away?
Remember here you only get one chance to decide as to what is
the best thing to do... Murdoch gives the command to turn the ship
to port (orders rudder turned to starboard), and orders the engines
to full reverse. So was this the best command he could given? It
is easy to say that he should have used the engines to help turn
the Titanic faster, thus avoiding the iceberg. However, this means
that the Titanic might hit the iceberg at nearly full speed, instead of
at a slower speed. By reversing the engines however he has now
increased the size of the Titanic's turning circle considerably, and
the ship ends up striking the edge of the iceberg on the starboard
side towards the bow. And causing enough damage to eventually
sink the Titanic at 2:20 am after striking the iceberg at about 11;45pm.
The closest parallel to Officer Murdoch's situation is a person driving
a car and having a child dart out in front of them. The normal instinctive
reaction is to slam on the brakes. This however often destroys or at
least hinders your ability to control the car, to turn it away from the
child. This is the situation Murdoch found himself in. He didn't
have TIME to ponder WHAT TO DO, he only did what panic now
directed him to do. He "slammed on the brakes" and turned the
steering wheel (with wheels locked you can't steer) and hit the "child".
I would expect that after this happened, Murdoch then realized that HE
was the one responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. No doubt being
well aware that about two thirds of those aboard were going to be going
down with the ship. That having to shoot a passenger and everything else
might have well driven him to the point of committing suicide just as it showed
in the movie. He was carrying a terrible burden of guilt, and suicide no doubt
seemed to be the only way out. I think he did the best job he knew how to do.
-
Jerome Bigge (jbi...@novagate.com) NRA Life Member
Author of the "WARLADY" series of SF fantasy novels.
And of the "alternative history" WARTIME series where
history was just a little bit "different" from our own!
Download them all at http://www.novagate.com/~jbigge
A bee gets "respect" because she has a "sting"...
Andrew and Rebecca Hall
Jerome Bigge wrote:
> By reversing the engines however he has now
> increased the size of the Titanic's turning
> circle considerably. . . .
My reference on shiphandling -- _Merchant Marine Officer's
Handbook_ (Cornell maritime Press, Fourth Ed.) -- is very clear
on this point, that a ship's turning circle is minimized at slow
speed. Further, it makes sense: to use your automobile analogy,
you can turn a car in a tighter circle at slow speeds rather than
fast.
I should also mention that Dr. Denis Griffiths, a professor
of marine engineering history at John Moores Univeristy in
Liverpool (http://www.livjm.ac.uk/~etmdgri1/), has concluded
that Titanic's engines were so cumbersome to reverse that, in
the actual event, they had no real effect on the ship's speed
through the water before the actual collision.
-------> Andy Hall
Ian Maione
In article <6gmtks$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Tom Pappas <TomP...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Your first two questions assume that swinging the stern faster would have
>given the ship a better chance of missing the iceberg. This is probably not
>the case, since a ship rotates around an axis determined by its Center of
>Longitudinal Stability, not the way an automobile does, with the rear
>following the front around the corner (with a symmetrical hull such as
>Titanic's, this point would have been slightly forward of the ship's
>center.) More rudder effectiveness would simply have moved the point of
>impact further aft, since the ship's inertia would have carried it into the
>iceberg along its original course line. Your last question can be answered
Perhaps an automobile sliding under low traction conditions would be
a reasonable analogy?
>A number of marine architects and engineers have told me that I'm probably
>on the right track (pun deliberate). They are working on modeling the event
>mathematically to see if my intuition is correct.
>
It would also be interesting to work backwards to find out, for example,
how far the Titanic would have had to have been for Murdoch's actions to
have been effective. If Titanic really didn't reverse engines until after the
collision because of lack of time, what would have happened if reverse
engines could have been engaged immediately, or if there was enough time
to do so before collision? It would be also be interesting to determine
if there are any plausible scenarios in which Titanic could have avoided
collision, given earlier sighting of the iceberg, etc.
Regards,
Ian
Christopher Hall
Andrew and Rebecca Hall <tig...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>Jerome Bigge wrote:
>> By reversing the engines however he has now
>> increased the size of the Titanic's turning
>> circle considerably. . . .
>My reference on shiphandling -- _Merchant Marine Officer's
>Handbook_ (Cornell maritime Press, Fourth Ed.) -- is very clear
>on this point, that a ship's turning circle is minimized at slow
>speed. Further, it makes sense: to use your automobile analogy,
>you can turn a car in a tighter circle at slow speeds rather than
>fast.
>I should also mention that Dr. Denis Griffiths, a professor
>of marine engineering history at John Moores Univeristy in
>Liverpool (http://www.livjm.ac.uk/~etmdgri1/), has concluded
>that Titanic's engines were so cumbersome to reverse that, in
>the actual event, they had no real effect on the ship's speed
>through the water before the actual collision.
>-------> Andy Hall
I do not imagine that logic or planning was much in evidence on the
bridge during those fateful seconds. If you have ever been in a
similar situation in a car, when death seems only just over the
bonnet, no matter what training you have you just hit the brakes and
wait for the bang.
Most people in the same situation have a first reaction to lose speed
before they attempt avoiding action. I think Murdoch panicked.
Chris. (who drives a car with no ABS, no air bags, and lots of hard
sharp things inside!)
(opinions are my own, not necessarily those of my employer)
Please remove the anti-spam measure from the return address.
RFSMBSYA
In article <6gtj3a$m...@bbcnews.rd.bbc.co.uk>,
christopher.hall@REMOVE_THISbbc.co.uk (Christopher Hall) writes:
>when death seems only just over the
>bonnet, no matter what training you have you just hit the brakes and
>wait for the bang.
>
>Most people in the same situation have a first reaction to lose speed
>before they attempt avoiding action. I think Murdoch panicked.
Reading Marcus' 'The Maiden Voyage' and a description of an earlier close call
Murdoch had and the way he avoided it, I don't think Murdoch was the sort to
panic. That particular incident did involve a split second decision, and he
made the right one so quickly that there was not time to issue an order, he
pushed the helmsman aside and avoided a collision with a sailing schooner in
the fog. On the Titanic there was a good bit more than a split second to
decide, and it is hard to picture that he made a panic decision and then stood
in a daze for the next 30 seconds while the wrong manoever was being carried
out. I have not yet found any contemporary criticisms of his helm orders--that
he had 'panicked' or otherwise used poor judgement in trying to avoid the
iceberg.
Ian Maione
In article <6gp6cq$j85$0...@205.138.137.44>,
Jerome Bigge <jbi...@novagate.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Apr 1998 03:02:03 GMT, and...@erols.com wrote:
>
>To make the quickest turn to port given three screws, you apply
>full reverse to the port screw, full ahead to the center and starboard
>screws. The rudder is more effective with the force of the screw now
>forcing water against it. This swings the stern of the ship more quickly
>around. There is also a torque effect to be considered, but you'd have
>to know whether or not the Titanic's screws went clockwise or counter
>clockwise. I think it showed them clockwise in the movie, but I could
>be wrong. A ship with clockwise screws (if all of them turn in the same
>direction) will tend to turn easier to port than it will to starboard. However
>a ship turns around its center of gravity (axis), and while the bow would
>swing away from the iceberg, the stern would now swing towards it.
>
If I remember what I read about the communication between bridge and
engine room correctly, Murdoch couldn't have ordered this using the
telegraph - he would have had to call down to the engine room and
explain to someone what he wanted them to do; something which would have
taken far longer than the 37 seconds before impact.
>The closest parallel to Officer Murdoch's situation is a person driving
>a car and having a child dart out in front of them. The normal instinctive
>reaction is to slam on the brakes. This however often destroys or at
>least hinders your ability to control the car, to turn it away from the
>child. This is the situation Murdoch found himself in. He didn't
>have TIME to ponder WHAT TO DO, he only did what panic now
>directed him to do. He "slammed on the brakes" and turned the
>steering wheel (with wheels locked you can't steer) and hit the "child".
>
I don't know if this is that great an analogy. The only real
parallel between them is that the amount of time available in each was
insufficient to avoid collision. In the car situation, we're talking
about something occurring at the limits of human reaction time. In
Murdoch's case, he had about 30 seconds to think about exactly what he
was doing. If there had been other options, he certainly could have
thought of them. Panic is extremely unlikely.
>I would expect that after this happened, Murdoch then realized that HE
>was the one responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. No doubt being
>well aware that about two thirds of those aboard were going to be going
>down with the ship. That having to shoot a passenger and everything else
>might have well driven him to the point of committing suicide just as it showed
>in the movie. He was carrying a terrible burden of guilt, and suicide no doubt
>seemed to be the only way out. I think he did the best job he knew how to do.
>
The only way I can see Murdoch feeling guilty about the collision is
if he thought there was something else he could have done to avoid it.
Since, decades later, no one has come up with a convincing case for
an alternative course of action that would have made a significant
difference, I doubt Murdoch had one either. Your statement that Murdoch
did the best job he knew how to do contradicts the notion that he had
anything to feel guilty about. If he did the best job possible, he is
not to blame, and thus should not feel guilty. If Murdoch really was the
officer who shot one or more passengers, then he might have felt remorse
sufficient for him to commit suicide, but either way I doubt that the
collision itself had much to do with it.
Regards,
Ian
Zephyos
I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried to
turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
compartments water tight.
Buy trying to aviod the iceberg, the side of the ship was exposed, and the
resulting damage allowed water into five compartment. This was too many
for the Titanic to stay aflot.
Tom Pappas
[snip]
> The only way I can see Murdoch feeling guilty about the collision is
> if he thought there was something else he could have done to avoid it.
> Since, decades later, no one has come up with a convincing case for
> an alternative course of action that would have made a significant
> difference, I doubt Murdoch had one either. Your statement that Murdoch
> did the best job he knew how to do contradicts the notion that he had
> anything to feel guilty about. If he did the best job possible, he is
> not to blame, and thus should not feel guilty. If Murdoch really was the
> officer who shot one or more passengers, then he might have felt remorse
> sufficient for him to commit suicide, but either way I doubt that the
> collision itself had much to do with it.
In every way, the proximate cause of the collision was the speed of the
ship. She was outrunning her ability to see and avoid obstacles, and that's
what got her into the situation Murdoch faced.
But there was nothing unusual about this. Ships were commonly operated in
this fashion, so "S.O.P." is really to blame. I have always regarded Smith
as negligent, but I am beginning to temper that assessment with the insight
that he was unaware of the danger to the ship, plus the fact that "he had
the experience of 40 years at sea working against him".
Murdoch, poor fellow, was heir to all of this. It is easy to see how he
might feel, in hindsight, that he should have slowed the ship down. And
how, as the situation worsened, he lost control of himself and shot at
passengers. Then, having been on the brink of despair all night, this last
straw would make it easy for him to end his agony. So the apocryphal tales
are, at least, imaginable.
His order for Full Astern would probably have been appropriate if the
warning had come in time, because he would have had no way of knowing
whether the iceberg was narrow enough to avoid, and slowing the ship would
have offered the best chance for minimizing the damage. Rudder
effectiveness would only have been a consideration if it was absolutely
clear that there was time to maneuver around the berg.
In any event, the collision was unavoidable. No combination of rudder
action and engine change could have affected the outcome, given the
distance (= rate x time) to the obstacle, and the inertia of the vessel
carrying it towards the ice.
Ian Maione
In article <01bd67a4$e8719fe0$5732...@gdarcy.dot.net.au>,
Zephyos <gda...@dot.net.auREMOVE-TO-E-MAIL> wrote:
>
>I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried to
>turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
>front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
>compartments water tight.
>
I thought this too, but comments I've received from a number of people,
including a few from this newsgroup, suggest that this is at best
uncertain. I find the evidence that Titanic's engines did not go into
reverse until after the collision fairly convincing, so a head-on
collision would have occurred at nearly a full 22 knots.
Furthermore, even assuming that the ship would have survived such
a scenario, for that to be relevant to Murdoch, he would have to have
*known* that such a maneuver was viable. I have not yet seen anyone
come up with any documentation that would suggest that the head-on
collision was part of any operational procedure or other guiding
regulations for a naval officer in Murdoch's situation, in 1912 or any
other time. There has been some suggestion that a head-on collision
is considered an option if avoidance is completely impossible, but
I haven't seen anything that would have been directly relevant to the
events on Apr 14, 1912. If Murdoch had survived, and had been subjected
to an inquiry into his actions say, could he have possibly been found
negligent? I highly doubt it, and such a case would be very difficult to
make. So, it's correspondingly unlikely Murdoch would have felt a sense
of guilt over his decision.
Regards,
Ian
Eric Smith
mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>Zephyos <gda...@dot.net.auREMOVE-TO-E-MAIL> wrote:
>>I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried to
>>turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
>>front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
>>compartments water tight.
> I thought this too, but comments I've received from a number of people,
>including a few from this newsgroup, suggest that this is at best
>uncertain.
The 1996 RINA paper "The Sinking of the S.S. Titanic - Investigated by
Modern Techniques" concluded that it is "almost certain" that the ship
would have survived, and that
"We can be sure that, at the least, she would have floated much
longer allowing the passengers to remain on board for rescue by the
ships coming to her assistance.
"On the other hand, there would have certainly been casualties if a
decision not to change course had been taken as the fireman's quarters
were forward and almost certainly those who were there would have been
lost together with possibly some third class passengers."
>I find the evidence that Titanic's engines did not go into
>reverse until after the collision fairly convincing, so a head-on
>collision would have occurred at nearly a full 22 knots.
And again from the RINA paper,
"It is our opinion that the response of the engine room staff would not
have been quick enough in the circumstances to have had any significant
effect on the steering in the 37 seconds between sighting and hitting
the iceberg, bearing in mind the time taken to divert the steam from
the non-reversible exhaust steam turbine which drove the centreline
propeller."
However, they do say that "in view of damage incurred, he [Murdoch] did
the right thing in bringing the ship to a stop as quickly as possible."
> Furthermore, even assuming that the ship would have survived such
>a scenario, for that to be relevant to Murdoch, he would have to have
>*known* that such a maneuver was viable. I have not yet seen anyone
>come up with any documentation that would suggest that the head-on
>collision was part of any operational procedure or other guiding
>regulations for a naval officer in Murdoch's situation, in 1912 or any
>other time. There has been some suggestion that a head-on collision
>is considered an option if avoidance is completely impossible, but
>I haven't seen anything that would have been directly relevant to the
>events on Apr 14, 1912.
From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
"*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
the danger rather than her broadside.
Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
[emphasis in the original]
There couldn't have been any doubt that the Titanic was "in danger of
collision."
>If Murdoch had survived, and had been subjected
>to an inquiry into his actions say, could he have possibly been found
>negligent? I highly doubt it, and such a case would be very difficult to
>make. So, it's correspondingly unlikely Murdoch would have felt a sense
>of guilt over his decision.
I don't think we can answer whether or not Murdoch felt guilt that night,
and to what extent. As to whether Murdoch may have been considered negligent,
when the question of hitting the berg head on came up at the U.S. Senate
inquiry, his boss Ismay had this to say:
"She might not have sunk [had she met the berg bows on]. I think it
would have taken a very brave man to have kept his ship going straight
on an iceberg. I think he should have endeavored to avoid it."
Of course Ismay had a major agenda; he wanted to remove any implication
that there was any negligence on the part of the White Star company and
the Titanic's officers. The U.S. inquiry had no power over individual
officers. (The only legal threat to White Star from the U.S. inquiry
came from the possible finding of corporate culpability on White Star
and IMM's part, which would have allowed American citizens to sue the
company under the Harter Act. While Senator Smith may have had that in
mind, he was not able to find that Ismay or IMM officials had been
cognizant of negligence, and thus could not satisfy the Harter Act's
provisions.)
The British inquiry on the other hand would have had the power to find
Murdoch, or any of the other officers, negligent. But they could just as
well have made that finding even though he did not survive. The British
inquiry seemed fairly anxious to absolve White Star of blame, so it's
unlikely they would have found negligence in Murdoch's actions in any
case. As Sir Robert Finlay, counsel for White Star, argued, Murdoch
would have been pilloried for not taking the action he did:
"No one would have known what the result of starboarding [i.e. turning
to port] would have been and any Court would have said that Mr. Murdoch
was guilty of the grossest possible negligence in not trying to avoid
that berg. ... He could not have brought home to the Court that if he
had starboarded he would have been caught by this point of ice which
would have ripped up his side like a sardine knife."
[of course we now know the "sardine knife" to be incorrect]
IMO they would not have found any negligence on Murdoch's part for trying
to miss the berg. And it would be quite unfair, as well, to blame any one
individual for the series of oversights, lapses in judgment, and simple
lack of preparation that resulted in the tragedy.
-----
Eric Smith | "They were like travellers unwillingly
erics @netcom .com | returned from brilliant realms, not yet
http://www.catsdogs.com | adjusted to their return." - Olivia Manning
This was posted with an altered address to thwart bulk email programs.
To respond by email, take out the ".remove.this" part.
Tom Pappas
> > The only way I can see Murdoch feeling guilty about the collision is
> > if he thought there was something else he could have done to avoid it.
> > Since, decades later, no one has come up with a convincing case for
> > an alternative course of action that would have made a significant
> > difference, I doubt Murdoch had one either.
> I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried
to
> turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
> front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
> compartments water tight.
>
> Buy trying to aviod the iceberg, the side of the ship was exposed, and
the
> resulting damage allowed water into five compartment. This was too many
> for the Titanic to stay aflot.
--
Nope. Bad call. Might have sunk the ship.
See: http://home.att.net/~tompappas
"But this script can't sink!"
"She is made of irony, sir. I assure you, she can. And she will."
copelius
On 14 Apr 1998 15:06:18 GMT, "Tom Pappas" <TomP...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> The only way I can see Murdoch feeling guilty about the collision is
>> if he thought there was something else he could have done to avoid it.
>> Since, decades later, no one has come up with a convincing case for
>> an alternative course of action that would have made a significant
Absolutely agree with the above, Tom.
Cop
copelius
>mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>
>>Zephyos <gda...@dot.net.auREMOVE-TO-E-MAIL> wrote:
>
>>>I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried to
>>>turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
>>>front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
>>>compartments water tight.
>
>> I thought this too, but comments I've received from a number of people,
>>including a few from this newsgroup, suggest that this is at best
>>uncertain.
>
>The 1996 RINA paper "The Sinking of the S.S. Titanic - Investigated by
>Modern Techniques" concluded that it is "almost certain" that the ship
>would have survived, and that
>
> "We can be sure that, at the least, she would have floated much
> longer allowing the passengers to remain on board for rescue by the
> ships coming to her assistance.
>
> "On the other hand, there would have certainly been casualties if a
> decision not to change course had been taken as the fireman's quarters
> were forward and almost certainly those who were there would have been
> lost together with possibly some third class passengers."
<SNIP>
HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, Eric
>From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
>
> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
>
> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
> the danger rather than her broadside.
>
> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
>
<SNIP>
Now hold on a cotton pickin' minute there, Eric......
I think you're taking this regulation out of context.
SURELY these rules are referring to collision with a MOVING object. eg
another boat. floating debris, whale etc.. The idea being to present
as small a target to an oncoming vessel as possible.
I do not believe they were written with a large immovable chunk of
ice or other real estate in mind.
Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
Cop
Ian Maione
In article <ericsEr...@netcom.com>,
>Modern Techniques" concluded that it is "almost certain" that the ship
>would have survived, and that
>
Oh great, another 70+ page paper to read :-) Is this online anywhere?
The RINA site has a copy of the abstract, but that's it.
> "We can be sure that, at the least, she would have floated much
> longer allowing the passengers to remain on board for rescue by the
> ships coming to her assistance.
>
> "On the other hand, there would have certainly been casualties if a
> decision not to change course had been taken as the fireman's quarters
> were forward and almost certainly those who were there would have been
> lost together with possibly some third class passengers."
>
Finally, someone comes up with something significant to support the
idea that the ship would have survived a head-on impact...gee, where were
you when I was arguing the other side of the issue? :-)
>>I find the evidence that Titanic's engines did not go into
>>reverse until after the collision fairly convincing, so a head-on
>>collision would have occurred at nearly a full 22 knots.
>
>And again from the RINA paper,
>
> "It is our opinion that the response of the engine room staff would not
> have been quick enough in the circumstances to have had any significant
> effect on the steering in the 37 seconds between sighting and hitting
> the iceberg, bearing in mind the time taken to divert the steam from
> the non-reversible exhaust steam turbine which drove the centreline
> propeller."
>
>
This would seem to also support the other sources I've seen that
conclude that the full astern order would not have been effected until
after collision.
> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
>
> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
> the danger rather than her broadside.
>
> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
>
Okay. Now we have something to deal with. Now, we are discussing
Murdoch's possible mistake in the context of him feeling guilt about said
mistake, so this sort of evidence would have to establish that not only
did Murdoch make a serious mistake, but it's one that he's likely to have
realized at the time. This implies to me that it probably would have to
be a serious one, and would have to be fairly common knowledge for a
senior officer (not just a technical finding of fault that might be
determined by a formal inquiry). Keeping this in mind, I'd ask the
following questions:
(1) Is Knight's Modern Seasmanship a definitive reference as to what
proper procedure by an officer was? (What formal procedures
were there back then, and who defined them anyway?). Would such
procedures general knowledge among officers on the sea? Would
KMS be admissible in a formal inquiry? Does KMS only give
"reccomendations", or would violation of them be considered a serious
error by an officer?
(2) In this context, is "such dire situations" precisely defined? Does
it definitely apply to Titanic's situation, or are there specific
factors which might mitigate its applicability? (i.e. Titanic's
large size, fast speed, etc...)
(3) What does "as far as other considerations of law and seamanship
permit" cover? Would certainly condemning a number of people in
the fore of the ship to certain and immediate death qualify, for
example?
>There couldn't have been any doubt that the Titanic was "in danger of
>collision."
>
True.
>I don't think we can answer whether or not Murdoch felt guilt that night,
>and to what extent. As to whether Murdoch may have been considered negligent,
>when the question of hitting the berg head on came up at the U.S. Senate
>inquiry, his boss Ismay had this to say:
>
We can't of course definitively answer this question, because Murdoch
didn't survive. But this is par for the course for most of the things that
happened that night. We can, however, make some strong inferences as to
its plausibility. However, I think to do so it's necessary to do some
fairly detailed digging into exactly what types of policies governed the
actions of officers in order to answer the type of questions I posed
above. *If* Murdoch really did overlook a viable option, *and* *if*
it seems reasonable that he would have realized it that night, then
there's support for the notion that he felt guilt over a mistake.
Note that we can't prove that, even if both of the above turn out to be
true. On the other hand, if either is not supported by the evidence,
then we can eliminate the guilt hypothesis.
>The British inquiry on the other hand would have had the power to find
>Murdoch, or any of the other officers, negligent. But they could just as
>well have made that finding even though he did not survive. The British
>inquiry seemed fairly anxious to absolve White Star of blame, so it's
>unlikely they would have found negligence in Murdoch's actions in any
>case. As Sir Robert Finlay, counsel for White Star, argued, Murdoch
>would have been pilloried for not taking the action he did:
>
Yes, this is why we can't simply rely on the inquiries themselves to
answer the question - neither was intended to specifically answer this
question, and there's plenty of reason to believe the conclusions of both
on this point would be somewhat suspect.
> "No one would have known what the result of starboarding [i.e. turning
> to port] would have been and any Court would have said that Mr. Murdoch
> was guilty of the grossest possible negligence in not trying to avoid
> that berg. ... He could not have brought home to the Court that if he
> had starboarded he would have been caught by this point of ice which
> would have ripped up his side like a sardine knife."
>
> [of course we now know the "sardine knife" to be incorrect]
>
>IMO they would not have found any negligence on Murdoch's part for trying
>to miss the berg. And it would be quite unfair, as well, to blame any one
>individual for the series of oversights, lapses in judgment, and simple
>lack of preparation that resulted in the tragedy.
>
Probably not. On the other hand, what did Murdoch himself believe?
That's what we're trying to make educated guesses about. If he believed
something like the above quotation, then that would argue against him
feeling guilt.
Regards,
Ian
pigcop
I really don't know what your point was the discussion seems a bit long
winded. But what about the possible scenario of a Direct collision Full Steam
ahead with the iceberg, could have possibly caused the Titanic to Capsize,
Hey just like the Posiedon Adventure.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mgr...@sonic.net
copelius wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 19:50:25 GMT, er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric
> Smith) wrote:
>
> >From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
> >
> > "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
> > Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
> >
> > ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
> > any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
> > the danger rather than her broadside.
> >
> > Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
> > course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
> > suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
> > and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
> >
> <SNIP>
>
> Now hold on a cotton pickin' minute there, Eric......
>
> I think you're taking this regulation out of context.
> SURELY these rules are referring to collision with a MOVING object. eg
> another boat. floating debris, whale etc.. The idea being to present
> as small a target to an oncoming vessel as possible.
> I do not believe they were written with a large immovable chunk of
> ice or other real estate in mind.
> Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
> speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
> or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
> Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
>
> Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>
> Cop
No--I am afraid you are flat wrong. Given the proximity, Murdoch should
not have turned. It is an understandable impulse to try to avoid a
collision altogether, but it was too late. He exposed the side of the
ship to a catastrophic injury, instead of staving in his forepeak in an
embarrassing (but not fatal) collision.
Even more significantly, he should not have ordered full astern, nor
stop. The ability of a ship to turn is a function of its speed.
Knight's accurately describes (then and now) that the right thing to do
when facing an impending collision is not to slow down, but to speed up,
increasing slipstream past the rudder and enhancing the abilf the ship
to turn.
Murdoch blew it--twice. Which is why it is not hard for me to believe
that he may have killed himself.
copelius
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:33:33 -0600, rha...@dbm.state.md.us (pigcop)
wrote:
WOW now THERE"S a good premise for a movie............any one want to
back it? *ROFLMAO*
Cop
Eric Smith
mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>Eric Smith <er...@netcom.remove.this.com> wrote:
>>mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>>The 1996 RINA paper "The Sinking of the S.S. Titanic - Investigated by
>>Modern Techniques" concluded that it is "almost certain" that the ship
>>would have survived, and that
> Oh great, another 70+ page paper to read :-) Is this online anywhere?
>The RINA site has a copy of the abstract, but that's it.
Not online, as far as I know. It's 60 pages, but only 15 of those are
text. The rest are charts, drawings, tables, and diagrams. But the text
is pretty dense. :) I'm actually still working through it, myself.
Many interesting facts, and they also take on the counter-flooding as
well as the "hitting the berg head on" theories. (Many thanks to Matt
Preston for forwarding a copy to me.)
>> "We can be sure that, at the least, she would have floated much
>> longer allowing the passengers to remain on board for rescue by the
>> ships coming to her assistance.
>> "On the other hand, there would have certainly been casualties if a
>> decision not to change course had been taken as the fireman's quarters
>> were forward and almost certainly those who were there would have been
>> lost together with possibly some third class passengers."
> Finally, someone comes up with something significant to support the
>idea that the ship would have survived a head-on impact...gee, where were
>you when I was arguing the other side of the issue? :-)
Must have missed that. :)
Well, maybe you are. :) I just think we don't have a lot to go on to
decide whether Murdoch felt guilt. We could probably study the man's
life for a long time and still not even be sure of that. I do think
we can say that he probably believed that attempting to "port around"
the berg was the right course of action, as he had done that once before
in avoiding something (another ship?, I forget), and it had worked.
So I believe in his mind he thought he did the right thing.
>so this sort of evidence would have to establish that not only
>did Murdoch make a serious mistake, but it's one that he's likely to have
>realized at the time. This implies to me that it probably would have to
>be a serious one, and would have to be fairly common knowledge for a
>senior officer (not just a technical finding of fault that might be
>determined by a formal inquiry). Keeping this in mind, I'd ask the
>following questions:
>(1) Is Knight's Modern Seasmanship a definitive reference as to what
> proper procedure by an officer was? (What formal procedures
> were there back then, and who defined them anyway?). Would such
> procedures general knowledge among officers on the sea? Would
> KMS be admissible in a formal inquiry? Does KMS only give
> "reccomendations", or would violation of them be considered a serious
> error by an officer?
All good questions. Don't know.
>(2) In this context, is "such dire situations" precisely defined? Does
> it definitely apply to Titanic's situation, or are there specific
> factors which might mitigate its applicability? (i.e. Titanic's
> large size, fast speed, etc...)
>(3) What does "as far as other considerations of law and seamanship
> permit" cover? Would certainly condemning a number of people in
> the fore of the ship to certain and immediate death qualify, for
> example?
I can't answer that either, and Wade does not go into much more detail.
He does, however, also give this quote from Knight's (which he says is
in italics in the original): "To turn away and slow is the surest
possible way of bringing about collision."
>>There couldn't have been any doubt that the Titanic was "in danger of
>>collision."
> True.
>>I don't think we can answer whether or not Murdoch felt guilt that night,
>>and to what extent. As to whether Murdoch may have been considered negligent,
>>when the question of hitting the berg head on came up at the U.S. Senate
>>inquiry, his boss Ismay had this to say:
> We can't of course definitively answer this question, because Murdoch
>didn't survive. But this is par for the course for most of the things that
>happened that night. We can, however, make some strong inferences as to
>its plausibility. However, I think to do so it's necessary to do some
>fairly detailed digging into exactly what types of policies governed the
>actions of officers in order to answer the type of questions I posed
>above. *If* Murdoch really did overlook a viable option, *and* *if*
>it seems reasonable that he would have realized it that night, then
>there's support for the notion that he felt guilt over a mistake.
>Note that we can't prove that, even if both of the above turn out to be
>true. On the other hand, if either is not supported by the evidence,
>then we can eliminate the guilt hypothesis.
Well, any ideas on where to look for these policies? The questions that
you pose are certainly logical, and as I can't remember reading anything
which direactly answers them, it strikes me that this might be a useful
addition to Titanic research.
As I said, I believe that Murdoch believed he made the right choice.
To the extent that argues against his feeling guilty, so be it. But he
may well have felt guilty over going to fast, or just over the general
blame assigned because it happened on his watch. I don't think we can
know.
Eric Smith
copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>>mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>>>Zephyos <gda...@dot.net.auREMOVE-TO-E-MAIL> wrote:
>>>>I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried to
>>>>turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
>>>>front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
>>>>compartments water tight.
>>> I thought this too, but comments I've received from a number of people,
>>>including a few from this newsgroup, suggest that this is at best
>>>uncertain.
>>The 1996 RINA paper "The Sinking of the S.S. Titanic - Investigated by
>>Modern Techniques" concluded that it is "almost certain" that the ship
>>would have survived, and that
>> "We can be sure that, at the least, she would have floated much
>> longer allowing the passengers to remain on board for rescue by the
>> ships coming to her assistance.
>> "On the other hand, there would have certainly been casualties if a
>> decision not to change course had been taken as the fireman's quarters
>> were forward and almost certainly those who were there would have been
>> lost together with possibly some third class passengers."
><SNIP>
>HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, Eric
Of course, it's all hindsight. There's nothing we can do in foresight
at this point. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze the decisions
which were made and the actions which were taken.
>>From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
>> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
>> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
>> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
>> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
>> the danger rather than her broadside.
>> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
>> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
>> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
>> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
><SNIP>
>Now hold on a cotton pickin' minute there, Eric......
>I think you're taking this regulation out of context.
I don't think it was a regulation; this book of Knight's, _Modern
Seamanship_, seems to be merely some kind of compendium of general
knowledge. And I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm merely
posting what Wade's book said. Possibly Wade is taking something
out of context, but his book has a pretty high reputation as a Titanic
chronicle.
>SURELY these rules are referring to collision with a MOVING object. eg
>another boat. floating debris, whale etc.. The idea being to present
>as small a target to an oncoming vessel as possible.
> I do not believe they were written with a large immovable chunk of
>ice or other real estate in mind.
I don't know. From what Wade quotes, it's not clear if any particular
type of "collision" is intended.
> Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
>speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
>or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
>Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
Does it? If you couldn't avoid it, maybe "common sense" would be wrong
in that case. I always thought it was "common sense" that in an auto
accident one should try at all costs to avoid a head on collision,
until I took an auto safety class and found out that is not true.
>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
bringing about collision."
-----
RFSMBSYA
In article <ericsEr...@netcom.com>, er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric
Smith) writes:
>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>
>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>bringing about collision."
Heading straight toward something at 22 knots seems like an even surer way.
Eric Smith
rfsm...@aol.com (RFSMBSYA) writes:
>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) writes:
Not necessarily. The stem is a much smaller target than the broadside.
Colin Tan
and...@erols.com wrote:
: experience manuevering ships of this size, why didn't Murdoch know
: reversing the engines would reduce his ability to turn the ship? He
: was an experienced officer (actually was the Chief Officer on the
: Olympic). Furthermore, since ice was expected and speed was not
Actually the Chief Officer on the Olympic was Henry Tingle Wilde.
Officer Murdoch was originally Chief Officer of the Titanic, but
Smith and the White Star line thought it dandy that Officer Wilde
should replace Murdoch. So Murdoch and Ligtholler were demoted
to First and Second officers respectively, and the original
Second Officer Davy Blair was displaced, taking with
him the knowledge of where the lookout's binoculars were.
As for the full-speed astern/hard-a-starboard order,
when Murdoch was on duty on another ship he had given
the same orders to avert a collision with another ship.
That order saved the day.
Having had that experience, he must've thought that
it would save the Titanic too. However what he didn't
know was that Thomas Andrews had miscalculated the size
of the rudder, and it was somewhat too small.
The full-speed astern wasn't the biggest mistake that
Murdoch made. IMHO that would've been the decision
to turn off the centre screw, which was the one that
provided the rudder with the most water, since the rudder
was directly behind the centre screw. But of course
I've never piloted a row boat in my life, much less
a super-liner.
If Andrews had provided a proper-sized rudder, if
Murdoch had left the centre screw on, we would likely
be discussing the virtues of long toenails right now
instead of their mistakes.
Eric Smith
Colin Tan <tank...@luakt-r2.iscs.nus.edu.sg> writes:
>If Andrews had provided a proper-sized rudder, if
>Murdoch had left the centre screw on, we would likely
>be discussing the virtues of long toenails right now
>instead of their mistakes.
Calling Tom Pappas! :)
Tom Pappas
| Having had that experience, he must've thought that
| it would save the Titanic too. However what he didn't
| know was that Thomas Andrews had miscalculated the size
| of the rudder, and it was somewhat too small.
|
| The full-speed astern wasn't the biggest mistake that
| Murdoch made. IMHO that would've been the decision
| to turn off the centre screw, which was the one that
| provided the rudder with the most water, since the rudder
| was directly behind the centre screw. But of course
| I've never piloted a row boat in my life, much less
| a super-liner.
First of all, to suggest that Titanic's designers provided her with
insufficient rudder area is to slander the skill and experience of the
finest marine architects and engineers of that day. The rudder may have
been too small to dodge icebergs, but for normal operations, it was more
than adequate.
Second, there is absolutely no way that the ship could have been maneuvered
around the iceberg. Even if had been possible to slew the stern faster, the
ship's inertia would still have carried her into collision. I have done a
little nonnumerical analysis at http://home.att.net/~tompappas - and my
marine engineer friends (who are in general agreement with my findings) are
working up the mathematical model.
Tom
pigcop
In article <6h45va$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Lets not forget that 90% of an Icebergs mass is Underwater. No one knows
how big and what shape this Iceberg was. and the Titanic had a draft of 35
feet, right ? Personally I would have installed bright Searchlights
on the Bow of the Titanic and do cross sweeps looking for Distant Icebergs.
But I have the advantage of Hindsight.
lonely
>copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>
>>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>
>>>mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>
>>>>Zephyos <gda...@dot.net.auREMOVE-TO-E-MAIL> wrote:
>
>>>>>I thought the general concensus was that the ship should not have tried to
>>>>>turn but instead hit the iceberg head on. This would have smashed the
>>>>>front of the ship and the first compartment but left the remaining
>>>>>compartments water tight.
>
>>>> I thought this too, but comments I've received from a number of people,
>>>>including a few from this newsgroup, suggest that this is at best
>>>>uncertain.
>
>>>The 1996 RINA paper "The Sinking of the S.S. Titanic - Investigated by
>>>Modern Techniques" concluded that it is "almost certain" that the ship
>>>would have survived, and that
>
>>> "We can be sure that, at the least, she would have floated much
>>> longer allowing the passengers to remain on board for rescue by the
>>> ships coming to her assistance.
>
>>> "On the other hand, there would have certainly been casualties if a
>>> decision not to change course had been taken as the fireman's quarters
>>> were forward and almost certainly those who were there would have been
>>> lost together with possibly some third class passengers."
>
>><SNIP>
>
>>HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, Eric
>
>Of course, it's all hindsight. There's nothing we can do in foresight
>at this point. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze the decisions
>which were made and the actions which were taken.
Well no but you have to take a moment and try standing in Murdoch's
shoes before minutely analysing his decisions with 85 years of
hindsight. There is no seaman alive before, at the time, or since who
would not have tried to turn his ship away fom an immovable obstacle.
(IMHO)
Is there?
Would you?
>>>From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
>
>>> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
>>> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
EXACTLY what dire situations?? Quote the rest for us.
>>> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
>>> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
>>> the danger rather than her broadside.
>
>>> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
>>> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
>>> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
>>> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
>
I do not accept that Murdoch "chose the worst course possible"
He chose the only sane course open to him. The ship was doomed even
before the berg was spotted. (IMHO)
>
>>Now hold on a cotton pickin' minute there, Eric......
>
>>I think you're taking this regulation out of context.
>
>I don't think it was a regulation; this book of Knight's, _Modern
>Seamanship_, seems to be merely some kind of compendium of general
>knowledge. And I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm merely
>posting what Wade's book said. Possibly Wade is taking something
>out of context, but his book has a pretty high reputation as a Titanic
>chronicle.
>
Don't agree.
I admit right away that I haven't read this tome, but the text that
you have quoted here (and I'd like to seee what you have omitted in
your snip) clearly implies the sense of something heading towards your
vessel. Note "PRESENT her stem TO the danger" (not "steer her
towards.............", or "aim the stem at......." The implication
being of some danger moving your way and your trying to minimise your
cross section as a target.
Now a large immovable chunk of ice (IMHO) is not in the same
category at all. It is NOT going to head toward you and there is no
point in minimising your cross section. You may as well "present your
bow to" a very large rock.
>>SURELY these rules are referring to collision with a MOVING object. eg
>>another boat. floating debris, whale etc.. The idea being to present
>>as small a target to an oncoming vessel as possible.
>> I do not believe they were written with a large immovable chunk of
>>ice or other real estate in mind.
>
>I don't know. From what Wade quotes, it's not clear if any particular
>type of "collision" is intended.
>
>> Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
>>speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
>>or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
>>Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
>
>Does it? If you couldn't avoid it, maybe "common sense" would be wrong
>in that case. I always thought it was "common sense" that in an auto
>accident one should try at all costs to avoid a head on collision,
>until I took an auto safety class and found out that is not true.
I've said it before in this ng and I'll say it again.
Driving a motor vehicle at 100kph on a highway and trying to avoid
another MOVING vehicle is not the same as steering an ocean liner at
22kt towards an IMMOVABLE object in mid-Atlantic.
Does your defensive driving course tell you to steer straight at that
brick wall that you didn't see as you come round the bend too fast?
>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>
>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>bringing about collision."
>
Nope only my humble opinion with the benefit of analysis and hindsight
gleaned from this ng and other sources.
And I reiterate, the Knight's reference is clearly referring to
another boat or comparable moving object and its purpose is to make
you as a target smaller. (IMHO)
Come on Eric tell the truth and answer my question. You see a rock
dead ahead. You are travelling at 22 knots. Do you:
a) Keep your current course and heading?
b) Change them?
You only have two choices.
Let's have a poll guys. Who wants to steer straight at said rock. And
why?
Cop
Colin Tan
mgr...@sonic.net wrote:
: No--I am afraid you are flat wrong. Given the proximity, Murdoch should
: not have turned. It is an understandable impulse to try to avoid a
: collision altogether, but it was too late. He exposed the side of the
: ship to a catastrophic injury, instead of staving in his forepeak in an
: embarrassing (but not fatal) collision.
I do not doubt that this *may* be a better option than "hard-a-starboard",
but I do doubt that it would be non-fatal. I think that the sudden
decceleration (sp? I hate words like that!) will throw a lot of
people about, as well as a lot of heavy furniture/machinery etc against
people. Plus the hull (seeing that it used inferior steel) may still
fracture enough to cause the ship to capsize and sink. Which is why
I emphasized "may".
: Murdoch blew it--twice. Which is why it is not hard for me to believe
: that he may have killed himself.
Whether he did or did not, he still acted like a true hero. He got as
many people as humanly possible off the ship, and did not attempt to
save himself.
If he had blown his brains out, he became a headless hero. If not, he became
a hero. Either way William Murdoch (and everyone else who gave their
lives to save others) is a hero in my books.
And it was plenty nasty of James Cameron to put that bribing scene in.
Eric Smith
lon...@home.com (lonely) writes:
>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>>copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>>>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>>>>mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>>>>>Zephyos <gda...@dot.net.auREMOVE-TO-E-MAIL> wrote:
>>><SNIP>
>>>HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, HINDSIGHT, Eric
That's what we're discussing. If Wade's reference is to be believed,
there was a manual of seamanship that advised exactly that course,
so presumable there was *some* seaman who would have done things
differently than Murdoch.
>Would you?
No, but I'm not a seaman.
>>>>From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
>>
>>>> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
>>>> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
>EXACTLY what dire situations?? Quote the rest for us.
That's all that Wade includes of that particular passage.
>>>> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
>>>> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
>>>> the danger rather than her broadside.
>>>> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
>>>> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
>>>> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
>>>> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
>I do not accept that Murdoch "chose the worst course possible"
>He chose the only sane course open to him. The ship was doomed even
>before the berg was spotted. (IMHO)
There's considerable evidence that it wasn't doomed in a head-on collision.
I agree with you - it's unreasonable to expect Murdoch not to try to miss
the berg. But the question is, was that the recommended course for an
officer at that time in that situation?
>>>Now hold on a cotton pickin' minute there, Eric......
>>>I think you're taking this regulation out of context.
>>I don't think it was a regulation; this book of Knight's, _Modern
>>Seamanship_, seems to be merely some kind of compendium of general
>>knowledge. And I'm not taking anything out of context, I'm merely
>>posting what Wade's book said. Possibly Wade is taking something
>>out of context, but his book has a pretty high reputation as a Titanic
>>chronicle.
>Don't agree.
Don't agree with what? That Wade's book has a high reputation? Or that
I'm not taking things out of context?
> I admit right away that I haven't read this tome, but the text that
>you have quoted here (and I'd like to seee what you have omitted in
>your snip)
Well, go get a copy of Wade's book yourself and find out. It shouldn't
be too hard; I expect you can find it at most any bookstore.
>clearly implies the sense of something heading towards your
>vessel. Note "PRESENT her stem TO the danger" (not "steer her
>towards.............", or "aim the stem at......." The implication
>being of some danger moving your way and your trying to minimise your
>cross section as a target.
Can't agree with that. One certainly can aim the stem of the ship
while the ship is moving.
The point I'm making is that what we think is "common sense" may not have
been actually the recommended course to follow.
>>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>>bringing about collision."
>Nope only my humble opinion with the benefit of analysis and hindsight
>gleaned from this ng and other sources.
Perhaps you'd like to quote some that analysis?
>And I reiterate, the Knight's reference is clearly referring to
>another boat or comparable moving object and its purpose is to make
>you as a target smaller. (IMHO)
And perhaps you'd like to cite some proof for that assumption?
Maybe look it up in Knight's and quote us the relevant passage?
>Come on Eric tell the truth and answer my question. You see a rock
>dead ahead. You are travelling at 22 knots. Do you:
> a) Keep your current course and heading?
> b) Change them?
> You only have two choices.
As I said, I would try to avois it. But I'm not a trained seaman, and
the question is not what any of us guess we would have done but what
a trained seaman at the time *should* have done.
-----
RFSMBSYA
>>Heading straight toward something at 22 knots seems like an even surer way.
>
>Not necessarily. The stem is a much smaller target than the broadside.
True, if the object you are trying to avoid is coming toward you. The iceberg
is stationary and inanimate, and the best way to cause a collision is by
deliberately running into it. The ship was moving, the iceberg was not, so the
best way to avoid a collision, without the benefit of having known the outcome
for 85 years, is by trying to steer away from the object. The front of a car is
a smaller object than the broadside, but generally speaking if you have a clear
road ahead you dont try to hit telephone poles and bridge abutments dead on,
you try to avoid them. Moving objects, like cars or other ships are another
story, but not the case here.
Ian Maione
In article <ericsEr...@netcom.com>,
Eric Smith <er...@netcom.remove.this.com> wrote:
>mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) writes:
>
>Not online, as far as I know. It's 60 pages, but only 15 of those are
>text. The rest are charts, drawings, tables, and diagrams. But the text
>is pretty dense. :) I'm actually still working through it, myself.
>Many interesting facts, and they also take on the counter-flooding as
>well as the "hitting the berg head on" theories. (Many thanks to Matt
>Preston for forwarding a copy to me.)
>
Ouch. Well, Robarts library has the journal in question, so I can
find it, although if there are only 15 pages of text, maybe I'll just
read it on the spot rather than trying to photocopy 60 pages.
>Well, maybe you are. :) I just think we don't have a lot to go on to
>decide whether Murdoch felt guilt. We could probably study the man's
>life for a long time and still not even be sure of that. I do think
>we can say that he probably believed that attempting to "port around"
>the berg was the right course of action, as he had done that once before
>in avoiding something (another ship?, I forget), and it had worked.
>So I believe in his mind he thought he did the right thing.
>
No, there's not a lot to go on, but these are exactly the kinds of
problems serious historians have to deal with. I imagine this is why
Walter Lord says he spends two years in research for every one writing.
I don't think this is really that different from trying to determine
which officer fired a gun, or whether the steerage passengers were
locked below, or whether Ismay really influenced the ship's speed, etc,
etc. Of course, it's especially difficult trying to determine what
a person was thinking or feeling, but there's lots of examples of that in
Titanic history, too.
>> We can't of course definitively answer this question, because Murdoch
>>didn't survive. But this is par for the course for most of the things that
>>happened that night. We can, however, make some strong inferences as to
>>its plausibility. However, I think to do so it's necessary to do some
>>fairly detailed digging into exactly what types of policies governed the
>>actions of officers in order to answer the type of questions I posed
>>above. *If* Murdoch really did overlook a viable option, *and* *if*
>>it seems reasonable that he would have realized it that night, then
>>there's support for the notion that he felt guilt over a mistake.
>>Note that we can't prove that, even if both of the above turn out to be
>>true. On the other hand, if either is not supported by the evidence,
>>then we can eliminate the guilt hypothesis.
>
>Well, any ideas on where to look for these policies? The questions that
>you pose are certainly logical, and as I can't remember reading anything
>which direactly answers them, it strikes me that this might be a useful
>addition to Titanic research.
>
I don't really know either. But if I happen across anything that
seems to apply, I'll certainly post it.
Regards,
Ian
Ian Maione
In article <3535d35d...@news.chch.ihug.co.nz>,
lonely <lon...@home.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:38:39 GMT, er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric
>Smith) wrote:
>
>>Of course, it's all hindsight. There's nothing we can do in foresight
>>at this point. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze the decisions
>>which were made and the actions which were taken.
>
>
>Well no but you have to take a moment and try standing in Murdoch's
>shoes before minutely analysing his decisions with 85 years of
>hindsight. There is no seaman alive before, at the time, or since who
>would not have tried to turn his ship away fom an immovable obstacle.
>(IMHO)
>Is there?
>Would you?
>
>
That's exactly what we're trying to do. We're trying to figure out
what someone in Murdoch's shoes might have done, not based on what we'd
do (I know my opinion would be useless since I've never been at the helm
of a ship in my life), but based on what the appropriate standards (if any)
or naval knowledge that existed at the time. That's why I was
asking all those questions about the regulations and how and when they
might be applied - because although the posted info is probably quite
relevant, you still have to determine the degree to which they applied,
on Apr 14, 1912, on Titanic's bridge, at the time the iceberg was sighted,
and under the same conditions. This is a nontrivial question to answer.
>I do not accept that Murdoch "chose the worst course possible"
>He chose the only sane course open to him. The ship was doomed even
>before the berg was spotted. (IMHO)
>
The point is that the naval standards of the day, formal or informal,
are the real arbiter of what courses of action were considered "sane" in
his situation. My INHO, or yours, or most everyone else's are of limited
value. The fact that a course of action might be counterintuitive says
nothing about whether it was considered a viable option. And determining
what an officer in Murdoch's situation would have been expected to do is
an important step in assessing the degree to which he might have felt
responsible for the disaster, as I previously indicated.
>Come on Eric tell the truth and answer my question. You see a rock
>dead ahead. You are travelling at 22 knots. Do you:
> a) Keep your current course and heading?
> b) Change them?
> You only have two choices.
>
You're forgetting that the chance of collision is not the only
factor in the equation, there's also the resulting damage to the ship
to consider. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that steering
directly at the berg would have prevented a collision - it's been
suggested because the resulting damage may not have resulted in the
ship sinking. To put it quasi-mathematically, you can consider the
advisability of a course of action in terms of
p(staying afloat) = p(missing berg) + p(staying afloat | hitting berg)
In Murdoch's scenario, he's counting on missing the berg, because
if you hit while turning, your chances of staying afloat if you hit go
down. In the head-on scenario, obviously the chances of missing the
berg go to zero, so everything depends on whether you stay afloat. But
if (and the arguments are endless on this) the chances of staying
afloat go up enough, even though you're guaranteed to hit, then this
could be considered an advisable course of action.
Regards,
Ian
Colin Tan
Tom Pappas <TomP...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: First of all, to suggest that Titanic's designers provided her with
: insufficient rudder area is to slander the skill and experience of the
: finest marine architects and engineers of that day. The rudder may have
: been too small to dodge icebergs, but for normal operations, it was more
: than adequate.
Well yeah... I guess the designers weren't expecting the ship to
crash into any icebergs.
But for safety reasons a larger rudder would've helped. Redundancies
in a critical system is always good.
: Second, there is absolutely no way that the ship could have been maneuvered
: around the iceberg. Even if had been possible to slew the stern faster, the
: ship's inertia would still have carried her into collision. I have done a
: little nonnumerical analysis at http://home.att.net/~tompappas - and my
: marine engineer friends (who are in general agreement with my findings) are
: working up the mathematical model.
This is true. The ship would probably still slam into the iceberg.
Do you think a head-on collision would be better? Taking into account the
brittle steel that was in use (not the designers' fault.. just poor
metallurgy knowledge then) would the hull still have cracked open
sufficiently to sink the ship? I think it might have.
But to swerve the ship (and hence present an even bigger area
to damage) away from an iceberg only 500 yards away was
probably not a good idea. Perhaps Murdoch panicked.
copelius
>From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
>
> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
>
> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
> the danger rather than her broadside.
>
> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
>
> [emphasis in the original]
>
>There couldn't have been any doubt that the Titanic was "in danger of
>collision."
>
Aha!
I see!..............you're incompletely quoting Wade who in
turn is incompletely quoting Knight........in support of your argument
which states that the naval manuals of the time imply that you should
steer directly at a huge unavoidable obstruction in mid ocean.
Yeh sound logic there Eric.
I will believe when I see it complete in black and white any naval
instruction or navigational manual which suggests that the best way to
survive a collision with a huge immovable obstruction is to steer
straight at it.
Maybe some trained seaman or naval officer can help us out with this?
Are there any such instructions extant?
Cop
copelius
Absolutely.
It seems logical to present you smallest cross section to an object
(ship, car, missile, spitball, whatever) coming towards you.
But if you are moving towards a large immovable chunk of real estate
your only possible chance of avoiding hitting it therefore avoiding
damage is to change direction.
Cop.
copelius
On 16 Apr 98 18:27:42 GMT, mai...@cs.toronto.edu (Ian Maione) wrote:
>In article <3535d35d...@news.chch.ihug.co.nz>,
>lonely <lon...@home.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 19:38:39 GMT, er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric
>>Smith) wrote:
>>
>>>Of course, it's all hindsight. There's nothing we can do in foresight
>>>at this point. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't analyze the decisions
>>>which were made and the actions which were taken.
>>
>>
>>Well no but you have to take a moment and try standing in Murdoch's
>>shoes before minutely analysing his decisions with 85 years of
>>hindsight. There is no seaman alive before, at the time, or since who
>>would not have tried to turn his ship away fom an immovable obstacle.
>>(IMHO)
>>Is there?
>>Would you?
>>
>>
>
> That's exactly what we're trying to do. We're trying to figure out
>what someone in Murdoch's shoes might have done, not based on what we'd
>do (I know my opinion would be useless since I've never been at the helm
>of a ship in my life), but based on what the appropriate standards (if any)
>or naval knowledge that existed at the time. That's why I was
>asking all those questions about the regulations and how and when they
>might be applied - because although the posted info is probably quite
>relevant, you still have to determine the degree to which they applied,
>on Apr 14, 1912, on Titanic's bridge, at the time the iceberg was sighted,
>and under the same conditions. This is a nontrivial question to answer.
>
>>I do not accept that Murdoch "chose the worst course possible"
>>He chose the only sane course open to him. The ship was doomed even
>>before the berg was spotted. (IMHO)
>>
>
> The point is that the naval standards of the day, formal or informal,
>are the real arbiter of what courses of action were considered "sane" in
>his situation. My INHO, or yours, or most everyone else's are of limited
>value. The fact that a course of action might be counterintuitive says
>nothing about whether it was considered a viable option. And determining
>what an officer in Murdoch's situation would have been expected to do is
>an important step in assessing the degree to which he might have felt
>responsible for the disaster, as I previously indicated.
>
>>Come on Eric tell the truth and answer my question. You see a rock
>>dead ahead. You are travelling at 22 knots. Do you:
>> a) Keep your current course and heading?
>> b) Change them?
>> You only have two choices.
>>
>
> You're forgetting that the chance of collision is not the only
>factor in the equation, there's also the resulting damage to the ship
>to consider. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that steering
>directly at the berg would have prevented a collision - it's been
>suggested because the resulting damage may not have resulted in the
>ship sinking. To put it quasi-mathematically, you can consider the
>advisability of a course of action in terms of
>
>p(staying afloat) = p(missing berg) + p(staying afloat | hitting berg)
>
> In Murdoch's scenario, he's counting on missing the berg, because
>if you hit while turning, your chances of staying afloat if you hit go
>down. In the head-on scenario, obviously the chances of missing the
>berg go to zero, so everything depends on whether you stay afloat. But
>if (and the arguments are endless on this) the chances of staying
>afloat go up enough, even though you're guaranteed to hit, then this
>could be considered an advisable course of action.
>
>Regards,
>Ian
>
I agree to all of your excellent argument above.
Now show me the naval manual which says you should steer straight at
an enormous chunk of floating ice at 22kt without attempting to avoid
it in the hope that you will minimise damage to your ship.
Cop
copelius
>rfsm...@aol.com (RFSMBSYA) writes:
>
>>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) writes:
>
>>>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>
>>>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>>>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>>>bringing about collision."
>
>>Heading straight toward something at 22 knots seems like an even surer way.
>
>Not necessarily. The stem is a much smaller target than the broadside.
>
>-----
>Eric Smith | "They were like travellers unwillingly
>erics @netcom .com | returned from brilliant realms, not yet
>http://www.catsdogs.com | adjusted to their return." - Olivia Manning
>
>This was posted with an altered address to thwart bulk email programs.
>To respond by email, take out the ".remove.this" part.
>
"Target" implies something coming AT you, Eric, and that is precisely
and obviously what Knight was referring to if you read your own quote
carefully.
The Iceberg was the "target" here. Titanic was the (GUIDED) missile.
I rest my case, your Honour.
Cop
copelius
>> Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
>>speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
>>or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
>>Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
>
>Does it? If you couldn't avoid it, maybe "common sense" would be wrong
>in that case. I always thought it was "common sense" that in an auto
>accident one should try at all costs to avoid a head on collision,
>until I took an auto safety class and found out that is not true.
>
>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>
>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>bringing about collision."
>
"The Court, having carefully enquired into the circumstances of the
above mentioned shipping casualty,
finds, for the reasons appearing in the Annex hereto, that the
loss of the said ship was due to collision with
an iceberg, brought about by the excessive speed at which the
ship was being navigated."
The conclusiont of the official enquiry during which Murdoch was
exonerated. Doesn't say she was incompetently steered.
"To turn away and slow" (from a huge chunk of immovable floating ice)
"is the best way to bring about a collision" ???? Oh puhleeeeese.
The corollary "to keep a strraight course and maintain 22kt (toward a
huge chunk of immovable floating of ice) is the best way to avoid a
collision"
Oh yeh if you put it like that it makes sense..............
Cop
copelius
>On 16 Apr 1998 16:55:10 GMT, rfsm...@aol.com (RFSMBSYA) wrote:
>
>>In article <ericsEr...@netcom.com>, er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric
>>Smith) writes:
>>
>>>>Heading straight toward something at 22 knots seems like an even surer way.
>>>
>>>Not necessarily. The stem is a much smaller target than the broadside.
>>
>>True, if the object you are trying to avoid is coming toward you. The iceberg
>>is stationary and inanimate, and the best way to cause a collision is by
>>deliberately running into it. The ship was moving, the iceberg was not, so the
>>best way to avoid a collision, without the benefit of having known the outcome
>>for 85 years, is by trying to steer away from the object. The front of a car is
>>a smaller object than the broadside, but generally speaking if you have a clear
>>road ahead you dont try to hit telephone poles and bridge abutments dead on,
>>you try to avoid them. Moving objects, like cars or other ships are another
>>story, but not the case here.
>
>
>Absolutely.
>
>It seems logical to present you smallest cross section to an object
>(ship, car, missile, spitball, whatever) coming towards you.
>
>But if you are moving towards a large immovable chunk of real estate
>your only possible chance of avoiding hitting it therefore avoiding
>damage is to change direction.
>
> Cop.
Sorry
...........direction and/or speed.
Cop
copelius
>
>>> Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
>>>speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
>>>or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
>>>Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
>>
>>Does it? If you couldn't avoid it, maybe "common sense" would be wrong
>>in that case. I always thought it was "common sense" that in an auto
>>accident one should try at all costs to avoid a head on collision,
>>until I took an auto safety class and found out that is not true.
>>
>>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>>
>>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>>bringing about collision."
>>
>
> "The Court, having carefully enquired into the circumstances of the
>above mentioned shipping casualty,
> finds, for the reasons appearing in the Annex hereto, that the
>loss of the said ship was due to collision with
> an iceberg, brought about by the excessive speed at which the
>ship was being navigated."
>
>The conclusiont of the official enquiry during which Murdoch was
>exonerated. Doesn't say she was incompetently steered.
>
.........or maybe you recognise this quote, Eric...........
"No one would have known what the result of starboarding [i.e.
turning
to port] would have been and any Court would have said that Mr.
Murdoch
was guilty of the grossest possible negligence in not trying to
avoid
that berg. ... He could not have brought home to the Court that if
he
had starboarded he would have been caught by this point of ice
which
would have ripped up his side like a sardine knife."
Cop
copelius
>
>>> Lets take as a for instance I am approaching a very large rock at
>>>speed (an Island maybe) am I supposed to steer straight at this rock
>>>or this coastline? If I take your quote as gospel then yes I am.
>>>Common sense dictates I should try to steer away from it.
>>
>>Does it? If you couldn't avoid it, maybe "common sense" would be wrong
>>in that case. I always thought it was "common sense" that in an auto
>>accident one should try at all costs to avoid a head on collision,
>>until I took an auto safety class and found out that is not true.
>>
>>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>>
>>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>>bringing about collision."
>>
>
...............or maybe this one...............
IMO they would not have found any negligence on Murdoch's part for
trying
to miss the berg. And it would be quite unfair, as well, to blame any
one
individual for the series of oversights, lapses in judgment, and
simple
lack of preparation that resulted in the tragedy.
Cop
RFSMBSYA
In article <6h6be3$gc...@id4.nus.edu.sg>, Colin Tan
<tank...@luakt-r2.iscs.nus.edu.sg> writes:
>But to swerve the ship (and hence present an even bigger area
>to damage) away from an iceberg only 500 yards away was
>probably not a good idea. Perhaps Murdoch panicked.
>
>
Standing on the bridge slack jawed for 37 seconds while you drove your ship
head on into an iceberg sounds like a better description of panic to me.
pigcop
Eric Smith
copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>>>Murdoch did absolutely the right thing.
>>Do you have some basis for that other than your opinion? Wade also quotes
>>from Knight's: "To turn away and slow is the surest possible way of
>>bringing about collision."
> "The Court, having carefully enquired into the circumstances of the
>above mentioned shipping casualty,
> finds, for the reasons appearing in the Annex hereto, that the
>loss of the said ship was due to collision with
> an iceberg, brought about by the excessive speed at which the
>ship was being navigated."
>The conclusiont of the official enquiry during which Murdoch was
>exonerated. Doesn't say she was incompetently steered.
"Considering that the British panel declined to level blame for the
disaster - a right the American Senate did not possess - a contemporary
critic has called the British report 'a vague, contradictory and a
revolting example of official whitewash.'"
- Wyn Craig Wade, _Titanic, End of a Dream_
Eric Smith
copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>>From Wyn Craig Wade's _Titanic, End of a Dream_:
>>
>> "*for such dire situations*, the recommendations of Knight's Modern
>> Seamanship (1910) are again explicit:
>>
>> ... so far as other considerations of law and seamanship permit,
>> any vessel in danger of collision ... should present her stem to
>> the danger rather than her broadside.
>>
>> Why did Murdoch, an otherwise competent officer, choose the worst
>> course possible for the Titanic under the circumstances? The evidence
>> suggests that at the height of the emergency he went 'against the book'
>> and acted on instinct - his 'first impulse,' as Knight's calls it."
>>
>> [emphasis in the original]
>>
>>There couldn't have been any doubt that the Titanic was "in danger of
>>collision."
>>
>Aha!
> I see!..............you're incompletely quoting Wade who in
>turn is incompletely quoting Knight........in support of your argument
>which states that the naval manuals of the time imply that you should
>steer directly at a huge unavoidable obstruction in mid ocean.
> Yeh sound logic there Eric.
Maybe you could give us the complete quotations then, and show us
what was left out.
Eric Smith
copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>.........or maybe you recognise this quote, Eric...........
> "No one would have known what the result of starboarding [i.e. turning
> to port] would have been and any Court would have said that Mr. Murdoch
> was guilty of the grossest possible negligence in not trying to avoid
> that berg. ... He could not have brought home to the Court that if he
> had starboarded he would have been caught by this point of ice which
> would have ripped up his side like a sardine knife."
Seeing as I posted it just recently, I do recognize it. However what you
left out of my original post is that that quote is from Sir Robert Finlay,
counsel for the White Star line. You wouldn't expect White Star to make
any other argument, would you?
RFSMBSYA
In article <6h7uk6$708$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rha...@dbm.state.md.us (pigcop)
writes:
>hehehehe
>Dam the Torpedoes ! full speed ahead !
>
>
No, damn the iceberg!
copelius
Well actually, Eric since you were the one who initially produced
these third hand incomplete quotes from a 1910 manual of seamanship in
support of your contention that Murdoch acted "against the book" in
his handling of the ship, I believe the onus is upon you to provide us
with the complete version.
I repeat: the sum total of evidence points to Murdoch having acted
quite properly.
He has been unfortunate enough to be the hinge upon which the whole
tragedy swung, and is doomed to have his actions analysed and
reanalysed ad nauseam, even though nobody in their right mind would
have done anything differently. (And that is not just MHO because the
literature is full of similar sentiments, notwithstanding Wade's
patent attempts to stir controversy) That is really the bottom line as
far as I am concerned.
Whether the Titanic would have survived if she had struck the iceberg
head on is speculation and will be debated back and forth
indefinitely. My own belief is she would probably have foundered more
quickly.
Cop
RjJenson
Perhaps we should consider this: say Murdoch DID hit the berg head on, didn't
try and miss, the ship didn't sink, but hundreds of people were killed
instantly.
During the inevitable investigation, is anyone going to care when he says "I
thought it the most prudent course to smash into the berg full on." ?
You think the cartoonists gave Ismay a hard time? In this alternate history
that would have been nothin'...
(and as a newbie to this NG shooting my mouth off with abandon, if this point
has been brought up before, I apologize...)
Bob J.
I invite you to visit my web site: Jenson Artistry.
Photos, drawings, a Doc Savage page, and always a free wallpaper image.
http://members.aol.com/rjjenson/jenson.htm
Eric Smith
copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>>copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>>>er...@netcom.remove.this.com (Eric Smith) wrote:
>>>> [emphasis in the original]
And I've already told you that I've produced all of the pertinent points
that appear in Wade's book. If you don't think so, then it's up to you to
point out what's missing. Arguing that something that was left out of an
account that you've never even seen doesn't hold any water. We can't talk
about something that's only in your mind.
>I repeat: the sum total of evidence points to Murdoch having acted
>quite properly.
And you still haven't produced *anything* that would back up that opinion.
>He has been unfortunate enough to be the hinge upon which the whole
>tragedy swung, and is doomed to have his actions analysed and
>reanalysed ad nauseam, even though nobody in their right mind would
>have done anything differently.
And you still haven't produced *anything* that would back up that opinion.
>(And that is not just MHO because the
>literature is full of similar sentiments,
Then produce some of these similar sentiments. Where in "the literature"
do they appear?
>notwithstanding Wade's
>patent attempts to stir controversy) That is really the bottom line as
>far as I am concerned.
Obviously, as far as you're concerned. However, Wade's book is considered
to be one of the definitive studies of the disaster and probably *the*
definitive study of the U.S. Senate's inquiry.
>Whether the Titanic would have survived if she had struck the iceberg
>head on is speculation and will be debated back and forth
>indefinitely. My own belief is she would probably have foundered more
>quickly.
And you still haven't produced *anything* that would back up that opinion.
However, the 1996 RINA paper concluded that "survival in the case of a
head-on collision seems almost certain," and I take their word as experts.
copelius
On 13 Apr 1998 23:33:27 GMT, rfsm...@aol.com (RFSMBSYA) wrote:
>In article <6gtj3a$m...@bbcnews.rd.bbc.co.uk>,
>christopher.hall@REMOVE_THISbbc.co.uk (Christopher Hall) writes:
>
>>when death seems only just over the
>>bonnet, no matter what training you have you just hit the brakes and
>>wait for the bang.
>>
>>Most people in the same situation have a first reaction to lose speed
>>before they attempt avoiding action. I think Murdoch panicked.
>
>Reading Marcus' 'The Maiden Voyage' and a description of an earlier close call
>Murdoch had and the way he avoided it, I don't think Murdoch was the sort to
>panic. That particular incident did involve a split second decision, and he
>made the right one so quickly that there was not time to issue an order, he
>pushed the helmsman aside and avoided a collision with a sailing schooner in
>the fog. On the Titanic there was a good bit more than a split second to
>decide, and it is hard to picture that he made a panic decision and then stood
>in a daze for the next 30 seconds while the wrong manoever was being carried
>out. I have not yet found any contemporary criticisms of his helm orders--that
>he had 'panicked' or otherwise used poor judgement in trying to avoid the
>iceberg.
And also is it not true that while coming out of harbour the Titanic's
wake cause the liner New York to break free of her moorings? The ship
was under the command of Captain Smith at the time who narrowly
avoided a collision *by reversing the engines and steering away*
Cop
Ian Maione
In article <35385ce3...@news.chch.ihug.co.nz>,
copelius <copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>And also is it not true that while coming out of harbour the Titanic's
>wake cause the liner New York to break free of her moorings? The ship
>was under the command of Captain Smith at the time who narrowly
>avoided a collision *by reversing the engines and steering away*
>
This was a completely different situation. The New York was sucked
towards the Titanic by the displacement of Titanic's wake, in close
quarters in harbour. Capt. Smith avoided the collision (narrowly) not
by evasive manuever per se, but by using the port engine to push the
New York away until the tugs could get a hold of it. I don't think he
reversed the engines at all.
Regards,
Ian
Colin Tan
copelius <copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com> wrote:
: And also is it not true that while coming out of harbour the Titanic's
: wake cause the liner New York to break free of her moorings? The ship
: was under the command of Captain Smith at the time who narrowly
: avoided a collision *by reversing the engines and steering away*
I thought that the collision was averted by a skillful tugboat
captain, or pulled the New York away from the Titanic.
I've not seen any mention of Smith's skills being used here.
Colin Tan
RFSMBSYA <rfsm...@aol.com> wrote:
: Standing on the bridge slack jawed for 37 seconds while you drove your ship
: head on into an iceberg sounds like a better description of panic to me.
Well.. no.. standing still in dead fright is not the only panic-response
there is.
Back to the original topic of this thread... does anyone think that
Murdoch ordering full-speed astern made any difference? I've read
many postings and other sources about how Murdoch's full-speed
astern made the rudders less effective. But then again the ship
barely slowed down before hitting the berg.
Tom Pappas
Colin Tan <tank...@luakt-r2.iscs.nus.edu.sg> wrote in article
<6he4ch$p7...@id4.nus.edu.sg>...
Folks, when you get 50,000 tons moving in a particular direction at 22
knots, it takes an enormous force to change either its speed or direction.
I have explored the possibilities on my site at
RjJenson
>I thought that the collision was averted by a skillful tugboat
>captain, or pulled the New York away from the Titanic.
>
>I've not seen any mention of Smith's skills being used here.
"As the smaller liner moved dangerously close, the TITANIC's port propeller
gave a sudden surge to create a wash that would prevent the smaller ship from
striking her."
From "Titanic: An Illustrated History"
This among a couple of other accounts I have read. I also understand that Smith
was not in control of the ship at the time--that would have been the harbor
pilot I think, but I have also read that he gave the order to "goose" the port
propeller to create the wash.
RFSMBSYA
In article <6he4em$p7...@id4.nus.edu.sg>, Colin Tan
<tank...@luakt-r2.iscs.nus.edu.sg> writes:
>nd also is it not true that while coming out of harbour the Titanic's
>: wake cause the liner New York to break free of her moorings? The ship
>: was under the command of Captain Smith at the time who narrowly
>: avoided a collision *by reversing the engines and steering away*
>
>I thought that the collision was averted by a skillful tugboat
>captain, or pulled the New York away from the Titanic.
>
>I've not seen any mention of Smith's skills being used here.
>
>
Also, please remember that the ship was under command of the pilot, not the
captain.
copelius
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Well Ok if youse guys insist but have seen refs to this several times
(eg last I recall was in "Shipwrecks" by David Ritchie)
Though it do seem logical for a ship in harbour to have a pilot in
charge now you point this out.
Cop
Eric Smith
copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com (copelius) writes:
>rfsm...@aol.com (RFSMBSYA) wrote:
>>Colin Tan <tank...@luakt-r2.iscs.nus.edu.sg> writes:
>>>I thought that the collision was averted by a skillful tugboat
>>>captain, or pulled the New York away from the Titanic.
>>>I've not seen any mention of Smith's skills being used here.
>>Also, please remember that the ship was under command of the pilot, not the
>>captain.
>Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>Well Ok if youse guys insist but have seen refs to this several times
>(eg last I recall was in "Shipwrecks" by David Ritchie)
>Though it do seem logical for a ship in harbour to have a pilot in
>charge now you point this out.
Also, Wade (the book Cop likes to cast suspicion on :)) has this to say:
For a moment a collision seemed likely, a repeat of the Olympic's
accident with the Hawke. Captain E.J. Smith, commodore of the White
Star Line and commander of the Titanic's maiden voyage, immediately
ordered a touch ahead on the port engine; the wash from this quick
motion gently pushed the New York back. ...
Passengers had crowded the along the ship's rail and watched the
incident enthralled. It had, first of all, assured complete confidence
in the Titanic's able commander, "E.J." as he was called. ...
Although I wonder how the passengers were aware that any particular
maneuver had been made, or that it was the captain who ordered it.
And Walter Lord says this in _The Night Lives On_:
Quick thinking saved the day. The tug Vulcan, one of the small fleet
escorting the Titanic, darted to the danger spot. Her skipper, Captain
Gale, passed a line to the New York's stern, and with much puffing and
straining, the Vulcan managed to slow the vessle's drift. At the same
time Captain Smith on the Titanic's bridge nudged his port engine
forward, creating a wash that helped push the New York clear.
Edward Bommer
It wasn't Titanic's wake in the harbor, it was the suction caused
by her outboard propellers working in the shallow water of the harbor
that pulled the New York toward her as she was passing. Titanic
may have drawn nearly 40' of water with a harbor depth of 50 to 60'
in that area.
A ships wake follows it and tends to push things away from the
ship, not toward it. But if anything nearby is forward of a propeller
working in shallow water, the water and anything in it will be drawn in
sideways toward the ship.
A momentary full astern on the prop nearthe New York
cancelled the suction and also helped push her away
enough for clearance. Tugs came later as the New York had snapped her lines
in that move and had to be moved back to her berth.
My own guess is that the harbor pilot was in charge
at the time. Smith may have recommended that action based on
the pilot's inquiry and order.
EFB
Colin Tan <tank...@luakt-r2.iscs.nus.edu.sg> wrote in article
<6he4em$p7...@id4.nus.edu.sg>...
> copelius <copelius@*removethis*hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : And also is it not true that while coming out of harbour the Titanic's
> : wake cause the liner New York to break free of her moorings? The ship
> : was under the command of Captain Smith at the time who narrowly
> : avoided a collision *by reversing the engines and steering away*
>
Edward Bommer
Also, when a ship turns, she pivots more on her bow
and the stern swings wide. The tighter the turn and greater the
speed, the more this happens.
In handling a twin screw boat, reversing one prop and putting the other
ahead can make the boat pivot more in the center, more like a 'pinwheel'
turn.
This is what happens in manouvering in a tight place with no headway.
The more headway you have, the less quick the turn, no matter what.
EFB
Tom Pappas
Edward Bommer <efb8...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<6hr0gm$9...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Any turning ship pivots about a point known as the Center of Lateral
Resistance. How fast it turns is determined by how much inertia it has
(which tends to resist turning), and how much torque is applied (which
tends to effect turning). With her wheel hard over for possibly 20 or 25
seconds, Titanic turned by two compass points, or 1/16 of a circle (less
than the angle between two hours on a clock face). She was not going to
miss the iceberg, no matter if she had twice the rudder and twice the
power. If she had turned faster, the damage would have occurred further
aft, where it is necessary to flood only three comparments to sink the
ship.