Lookout eye test

[Arun Vajpey]

Many have speculated that the Titanic made contact with a protruding portion of ice which was concealed below the surface.

One does not need to "speculate" about that at all. Only the part of the iceberg that was below the waterline could have caused the sort of damage that it did to the Titanic that resulted in flooding and eventual sinking of the ship. No mystery in that.

There remains enough ambiguity in both Fleet and Lee's testimony to conclude that they were perhaps not as capable as many at the time believed them to be

If we are talking about ambiguity in various crew testimonies, just read those of Boxhall or even Lightoller. With very few exceptions, all of them gave non-committal responses and clearly more concerned about covering either themselves and their futures or in case of the Officers, the Company. The scale of the tragedy was an unexpected body blow to the entire seafaring system at the time and we cannot single out the lookouts to blame or question their capabilities, which was the same as others of the period.

In any case, Fleet's testimony had nothing to do with when he had his previous vision test and irrespective of what you want to believe, he spotted the 'dark object' on the horizon as soon as it was humanly possible to see it under the prevailing conditions at the time. It was not the lookouts' fault that it was already too late by then.

No lookout was, and that would remain the case even if they had absolutely perfect vision.

Absolutely. But the lookouts' job was fixed in the sense that all they were required to do was to stand in the crow's nest an KEEP LOOKING at their designated arc. Fleet and Lee had no opportunity to do any better even if they wanted to because that was their job description and limitation. It was those powers-to-be that drew those requirements that made the wrong assumptions as to visibility of icebergs at night. You can see that by Lightoller's ridiculous claims about how far he thought he could see to spot bergs, even growlers at night.

 

[Nelson]

The book you mentioned is much more than the sum of its parts. The issue of the lookouts awareness of the presence of danger that night is only part of the text and more than adequately covered and expanded on with good references to back it up.
The book also contains many other interesting points, among those that were raised, at great length, by White Star's senior counsel to try and provide justification not to find Captain Smith guilty of negligence and introduced his reasoning why the ship was lost that night to a collision with an iceberg, that went unseen until the last possible moment. The eyesight issue was not in his best interests to be placed before the Court, as it was his client, Whites Star's policy, to only recruit lookouts that had a valid eyesight certificate, which the two lookouts, plainly did not, irrespective of whether they were visually impaired. The absence of a certificate is immaterial, however, the blatant attempts to hide the fact from the Court merely draws one to ask, "What else might they be hiding?"
Sir Alfred Chalmers following the publication of the British Inquiry Report, made his views quite plain on the cause of the collision:
"This finding also blinks in a measure of the true cause of the disaster, which was undoubtedly an inattentive lookout. That the two men in the crow's nest and the two officers on the bridge were not keeping an alert lookout is an absolutely certain, the two former being probably talking to one another, the listening attitude of mind being entirely destrictive (sic) of the sense of observation. What the Officers were about is difficult to define, but the whole blame should have been placed on the bad lookout."
He was, if you remember, Nautical Advisor to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, a very senior and influential post, and had his own reasons for taking that position, which the book offers a thorough account of his part in the Titanic affair. Therefore there is much more to be found in its contents, much of which is probably unknown to many Titanic enthusiasts.
Therefore, in my opinion, the comment; "The whole book is therefore based on a false premise and gives a very misleading account of the accident" draws me to the conclusion that the statement comes from someone who has not read the entire book!

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Sir Alfred Chalmers following the publication of the British Inquiry Report, made his views quite plain on the cause of the collision:
"This finding also blinks in a measure of the true cause of the disaster, which was undoubtedly an inattentive lookout. That the two men in the crow's nest and the two officers on the bridge were not keeping an alert lookout is an absolutely certain, the two former being probably talking to one another, the listening attitude of mind being entirely destrictive (sic) of the sense of observation. What the Officers were about is difficult to define, but the whole blame should have been placed on the bad lookout."

Those were HIS views and very likely politically and corporatically motivated, most certainly not true. To blame the lookouts and OOW was absolute nonsense; assuming that they were talking to each other and not keeping a proper lookout? How did he know that? I am sure @Samuel Halpern , @Michael H. Standart (a retired seaman) etc will have something to say about that.

He was, if you remember, Nautical Advisor to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade

With unsubstantiated accusations like that, it would not have made a difference if he was the First Sea Lord. We've had a former Marine Investigator here before spouting absolute bunkum and an experienced captain insisting that there was no iceberg at all! With the Titanic, we do get such polarized opinions.

 

[Nelson]

Those were HIS views and very likely politically and corporatically motivated, most certainly not true. To blame the lookouts and OOW was absolute nonsense; assuming that they were talking to each other and not keeping a proper lookout? How did he know that? I am sure @Samuel Halpern , @Michael H. Standart (a retired seaman) etc will have something to say about that.


With unsubstantiated accusations like that, it would not have made a difference if he was the First Sea Lord. We've had a former Marine Investigator here before sprouting absolute bunkum and an experienced captain insisting that there was no iceberg at all! With the Titanic, we do get such polarized opinions.

He was not the only witness to cast doubt on the attentiveness of those on watch that night.
During the British Inquiry, the Attorney-General asked Ernest Shackleton:
"My difficulty is this, and I am afraid you cannot help me, but I cannot understand how the men in the crow's-nest and the men on the bridge - there were two, I think; one, at all events, on the bridge - failed to see this iceberg until it was practically in contact with the ship?" Shackleton answers:
"I think that iceberg was such a very little thing. It was such a small thing and the conditions were so bad, that a man on watch, even two hours on watch, might have his eyes strained, and the Officer, on watch might have his eyes strained, and might just miss that particular berg. In running round the horizon his eyes might hop over this particular thing. But there were three pairs of eyes; there was a man on the bridge and two men in the crow's-nest? - I think that is a possibility. Is it a probability? - I think it is a probability. I think they might not see such a thing."
(Brit Inq 25132-34)
Shackleton was considered an 'expert' in his time in Polar navigation. His was not the final word either, only one voice, among others, expressing their opinion.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

He was not the only witness to cast doubt on the attentiveness of those on watch that night.
... Ernest Shackleton: ... It was such a small thing and the conditions were so bad, that a man on watch, even two hours on watch, might have his eyes strained, and the Officer, on watch might have his eyes strained, and might just miss that particular berg. ... I think it is a probability. I think they might not see such a thing."
(Brit Inq 25132-34)
Shackleton was considered an 'expert' in his time in Polar navigation. His was not the final word either, only one voice, among others, expressing their opinion.

Look at that again. Shackleton was not questioning the eyesight or attentiveness of the lookouts, he was raising doubts about whether the iceberg could have been seen. He was indeed an expert in polar navigation and therefore one of the few mariners called who expessed doubts about the standard navigational practices of the time.

You are really helping me to make my case here rather than strengthening your own case against the lookouts.

Sir Alfred Chalmers ...
He was, if you remember, Nautical Advisor to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, a very senior and influential post

He was indeed. In fact he was one of the people responsible for the BoT's inadequate regulations on lifeboat provision. He could hardly be considered an unbiased commentator on the accident.

 

[Nelson]

Getting back to the book, One Starry Night, I read the blurb for it on Amazon. My BS detector lit up and its siren sounded. Here's how it starts.

"Why did the Titanic's lookouts fail to spot a massive iceberg as large as St. Paul's Cathedral and probably weighing a million tonnes which suddenly appeared ahead of the fast-approaching vessel in calm seas on a clear evening in April 1912?"

I can't take seriously the author of such blatant nonsense. St Paul's Cathedral is 158 metres long and 85 metres high. All the evidence is that the fatal berg was roughly 20 metres high. It may have weighed as little as 100,000 tonnes. It's small size was part of the problem. From the crows nest, it fell below the lookouts' horizon when it was about 1.5 miles away. There was no great object, looming up against the starry sky.

Sorry, Ian Donaldson, but I have better things to waste money on!

Getting back to the book, One Starry Night, I read the blurb for it on Amazon. My BS detector lit up and its siren sounded. Here's how it starts.

"Why did the Titanic's lookouts fail to spot a massive iceberg as large as St. Paul's Cathedral and probably weighing a million tonnes which suddenly appeared ahead of the fast-approaching vessel in calm seas on a clear evening in April 1912?"

I can't take seriously the author of such blatant nonsense. St Paul's Cathedral is 158 metres long and 85 metres high. All the evidence is that the fatal berg was roughly 20 metres high. It may have weighed as little as 100,000 tonnes. It's small size was part of the problem. From the crows nest, it fell below the lookouts' horizon when it was about 1.5 miles away. There was no great object, looming up against the starry sky.

Sorry, Ian Donaldson, but I have better things to waste money on!

Perhaps I am mistaken, but did not the author of 'Prelude to An Allision' in his Amazon introductory blurb state; "when an iceberg suddenly loomed up directly ahead of Titanic"? How far away from "suddenly appeared ahead of the fast-approaching vessel" is that? Not very, yet you jump all over one author's partial description and ignore another's. Was your BS detector offline then?

 

[Nelson]

Look at that again. Shackleton was not questioning the eyesight or attentiveness of the lookouts, he was raising doubts about whether the iceberg could have been seen. He was indeed an expert in polar navigation and therefore one of the few mariners called who expessed doubts about the standard navigational practices of the time.

You are really helping me to make my case here rather than strengthening your own case against the lookouts.

He was indeed. In fact he was one of the people responsible for the BoT's inadequate regulations on lifeboat provision. He could hardly be considered an unbiased commentator on the accident.

Shackleton actually mentions eye-strain as a factor; "a man on watch, even two hours on watch, might have his eyes strained and might just miss that particular berg." I am open to all hypothesis. Also, I am not laying blame on the lookouts. I blame the exceptional expectation placed on the lookouts in the age of steam by the shipping lines who had relied on fallible humans to spot danger ahead.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Look at that again. Shackleton was not questioning the eyesight or attentiveness of the lookouts, he was raising doubts about whether the iceberg could have been seen. He was indeed an expert in polar navigation and therefore one of the few mariners called who expressed doubts about the standard navigational practices of the time.

Absolutely right.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but did not the author of 'Prelude to An Allision' in his Amazon introductory blurb state; "when an iceberg suddenly loomed up directly ahead of Titanic"?

You ARE mistaken (and not just about that sentence, it seems). As I type this I've got my copy of Prelude To An Allison right next to my laptop. Completely contrary to what you said, @Samuel Halpern actually questions the notion that the iceberg suddenly loomed up. Please read this, a picture of the back cover introduction.

In fact, one of the things that the book does extremely well is to analyze the events that took place as the Titanic approached the iceberg. The "Specific Events" table on pp 127-8 is particularly relevant.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

I blame the exceptional expectation placed on the lookouts in the age of steam by the shipping lines who had relied on fallible humans to spot danger ahead.

What else were they supposed to rely on? They had no other method of detecting danger a short to medium distance ahead.

They didn't have exceptional expectations of the lookouts; in some respects they had fairly low expectations in that they didn't expect them to identify anything, just ring the bell if they thought they saw something ahead. The problem was that they made incorrect assumptions about the visual range of an average lookout in certain adverse viewing conditions.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but did not the author of 'Prelude to An Allision' in his Amazon introductory blurb state; "when an iceberg suddenly loomed up directly ahead of Titanic"? How far away from "suddenly appeared ahead of the fast-approaching vessel" is that? Not very, yet you jump all over one author's partial description and ignore another's.

I think the difference @Dave Gittins may have noticed is that @Samuel Halpern's statement didn't contain the words "as large as St. Paul's cathedral and weighing over a million tons".

 

[Julian Atkins]

If I understand correctly, based on your personal experience (n = 1), you consider it a possible scenario that the person who first spotted the iceberg had a deficient visual function, and that his colleague in the crow’s nest might have had the same issue?

Do you also consider it a realistic scenario that Fleet, despite his poor eyesight, continued working as a sailor for another 24 years, with the entire world knowing he was the Titanic lookout on duty the night of the disaster, and that he passed the (new) eye tests throughout those 24 years?

Following this line of reasoning, could it also be plausible that poor vision among other crew members aboard the Titanic contributed to the near-collision in Southampton on April 10, 1912?

I think personal experiences are only somewhat valid as arguments. Everyone knows of that aunt or uncle who lived to 96 despite smoking since the age of 16. Nevertheless, it is universally accepted that smoking is very bad for your health. And most people smoking since the age of 16 will have died a lot sooner than that family member of 96.

I agree with @Richard Zegers, but at only one level…

It could be argued that Fleet was provided with employment after Titanic for various reasons. Perhaps to keep his mouth shut, and not do what Lee did in The Ryan Trial a year or so later.

Both Fleet, Lee, and Hichens had a depressing end to their lives. 3 of the main players who survived.

Fleet’s last eyesight test is recorded in the Treasury Files online and was not disclosed at the time of both Inquiries or the Ryan Trial. Nothing was ever disclosed to my knowledge as to Reginald Lee’s eyesight tests.

I submit that you do have to consider the way these people where employed at the time. Especially in the case of Lee of which the facts pretty much speak for themselves.

For many of the crew it wasn’t much better than being press ganged except without the lack of consent. It was a brutal hard way that the UK docks and merchant navy were operating. It was awful.

I don’t think that anyone who has examined Reginald Lee in any detail would consider him as competent at the time. I would go as far too say he didn’t have any eyesight test of any value and none recent, and was pretty much a “dosser” at the time, and afterwards, until his death very soon afterwards.

I am sorry if that upsets some, but that is my own interpretation of the evidence - and I might say is all on this website from it’s archives.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

The problem was that they made incorrect assumptions about the visual range of an average lookout in certain adverse viewing conditions.

Yes, sir. The highlighted "they" is the keyword in what Richard aptly puts it. They included people like Alfred Chalmers who made various decisions about was was required and what was not, including assumptions about how far the OOW and lookouts could see on a dark night, including on a ship of the size and momentum of the Titanic. People like Fleet and Lee were only lowly employees of the line who could not make decisions and had specific job descriptions that they were expected to follow and did as competently as they could. And yet when something went pear-shaped - and it certainly did with the Titanic that Sunday night - Chalmers and the rest of the lofty corporators leapt out of the woodwork throwing accusations left and right about their certainty on how the lookouts were "inattentive" or the OOWs were busy "talking to each other" etc. What nonsense!

It could be argued that Fleet was provided with employment after Titanic for various reasons. Perhaps to keep his mouth shut. I submit that you do have to consider the way these people where employed at the time. Especially in the case of Lee of which the facts pretty much speak for themselves.

That does not wash one bit, Julian. You speak as though lookouts and similar crew members were picked out of the street by major shipping lines and most of them had visual defects. That's nonsense and you know it. If Fleet or Lee had any shortcomings that would have interfered with their jobs - and I do NOT believe that they did - it should have been the responsibility of those who employed them to detect and do something about them and not blame the lookouts themselves for being inattentive or incompetent.

For the record once again, I do not believe that Frederick Fleet had any issue with his eyesight that delayed his spotting of the iceberg that night; he saw the dark object and rang the bells within a timeframe that any other lookout in his place would have done under those conditions. The reasons it was already too late by then were - first with the stygian darkness the lookouts could NOT have seen that medium-sized iceberg any sooner than they did; second, given the ship's speed and momentum, there was not enough time for the OOW to take evasive action. Some accidents occur because the prevailing conditions were beyond human ability to avoid them and the Titanic tragedy was one of them. Harping on about possible issues with the lookouts' eyesight or assumed lack of attention is completely irrelevant.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hi Arun,

I partly agree perhaps, but it is a fact that Fleet had not had an eyesight test for quite a few years, and the evidence in respect of Lee is was older in age and I hope you would accept from the evidence on here that Lee signed on at short notice.

Titanic didn’t have a crew particularly qualified. It was what they could get at the time, and we see this in so many respects.

Of the whole Titanic etc saga, the only person I can recall who wore glasses was Evans the Marconi operator on The Californian!

I don’t know what the percentage is now of those in the UK who wear glasses, but if you could translate to 1912 it is quite surprising how very many did not wear glasses; and considering also at the time the expense.

But there we are!

Cheers,
Julian

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Julian, I think you are missing the points that @Richard C Elliott and I are making here.

Titanic didn’t have a crew particularly qualified. It was what they could get at the time, and we see this in so many respects.

Even if that was true, it was the fault of the employers for looking for shortcuts and not those whom they employed. Those were the sign of the times and WSL very likely looked for the same sort of qualifications in their crew like other major shipping lines of the day like Cunard or Hamburg-Amerika did. Despite that, we have to remember that all their ships had lookouts and they did not go around colliding with icebergs or other vessels on a regular basis. As for eye tests, if they had felt that it was necessary on a regular basis, it was up to the employers to set a protocol and arrange them and not for the lookouts to suggest it. They believed that the people they employed as lookouts had good enough vision to do their jobs and it is very likely that for the most part they did. But what nobody realized till the Titanic disaster was their gross overestimation of how far the lookouts would have been able to see on a night like the one that prevailed that Sunday.

Of the whole Titanic etc saga, the only person I can recall who wore glasses was Evans the Marconi operator on The Californian!

I don’t know what the percentage is now of those in the UK who wear glasses, but if you could translate to 1912 it is quite surprising how very many did not wear glasses; and considering also at the time the expense.

For the reasons mentioned above and earlier, that is totally irrelevant. It is like claiming that if only Fleet and/or Lee and worn glasses the Titanic would not have collided with the iceberg and both the ship and1496 lives would have been saved.

Both Fleet, Lee, and Hichens had a depressing end to their lives. 3 of the main players who survived.

Again completely irrelevant for Sunday 14th April 1912.

 

[Nelson]

Absolutely right.


You ARE mistaken (and not just about that sentence, it seems). As I type this I've got my copy of Prelude To An Allison right next to my laptop. Completely contrary to what you said, @Samuel Halpern actually questions the notion that the iceberg suddenly loomed up. Please read this, a picture of the back cover introduction.

View attachment 117022

In fact, one of the things that the book does extremely well is to analyze the events that took place as the Titanic approached the iceberg. The "Specific Events" table on pp 127-8 is particularly relevant.

Should should have acknowledged that my point was made. I was quoting directly from the Amazon page pertaining to the book to make a comparison to the claim made on this thread that the book One Starry Night was widely exaggerated! Which it clearly was not. I provided a reputable reference which supported that comment. Read the post before you jump in with both feet next time!
P.S. Your use of capitol letters and bold text adds nothing to the argument you try to make.