Hello everyone,
Let me just add my grain of salt over your many answers to Aly.
First of all, I'm a harder believer in the view of Tim Maltin with whom I had chat 2 years ago, and I think that this is a thermal inversion that prevented Fleet and Lee from seeing the iceberg in time to avoid collision. Lightoller himself had said that there were something strange :
"(...)
extraordinary combination of circumstances that existed at that time which you would not meet again once in 100 years ; that they should have existed just on that particular night (...)"
Boxhall took the same view :
"
I do not know why we couldn't see this iceberg, I do not know what it was about ; I could not understand".
But I think that this is the view of Lawrence Beesley that reflects most what actually happened :
"(…)
The complete absence of haze produced a phenomenon I had never seen before: where the sky met the sea the line was as clear and definite as the edge of a knife, so that the water and the air never merged gradually into each other and blended to a softened rounded horizon, but each element was so exclusively separate that where a star came low down in the sky near the clear−cut edge of the waterline, it still lost none of its brilliance. As the Earth revolved and the water edge came up and covered partially the stars, as it were, it simply cut the stars in two, the upper half continuing to sparkle as long as it was not entirely hidden, and throwing a long beam of light along the sea to us. (…) And next the cold air! Here again was something quite new to us. (…) it was just a keen, bitter, icy, motionless cold that came from nowhere and yet was there all the time;(…) the stillness of it if one can imagine cold being motionless and still was what seemed new and strange. And these the sky and the air were overhead; and below was the sea. Here again something uncommon: the surface was like a lake of oil, heaving gently up and down with a quiet motion that rocked out boat dreamily to and fro (…).
A little further he said that there was something he couldn't understand, but that science will explain someday.
That was my first point.
Secondly, I don't think that Captain Smith would have done better than Murdoch did (o.k, I admit, I'm having a little crush on him and the opposite for Lightoller who had increased the casualties by not filling the boats with people and ordered the doors being open, a very "fine welcome" for the sea water that had sunk the ship faster) even if he was present on to the Bridge for he smashed over eight ships during his days at sea : here is an extract of the book by Commander Richard L. Patton "
The Final Board of Inquiry : A Cold Case Investigation Into the Loss of RMS TITANIC" at page 33 :
"
(...) Captain Smith was directly involved in at least ten prior significant maritime incidents while sailing under authority of his certificate and while in command of several different White Star Line ships. Captain Smith was in command during four groundings of various ships including RMS OLYMPIC, one serious collision while commanding TITANIC sister ship Olympic with HMS HAWKE in which the Admiralty Court found White Star to be at fault, another two near-miss collisions, one involving the damaging and near crushing of a tug while docking OLYMPIC in the Port of New York and the other while commanding the TITANIC when it nearly collided with the docked liner NEW-YORK, caused by TITANICs excessive speed in a shallow channel while departing the Port of Southampton on 10 April 1912 (...)".
We easily can conclude that if he had survived the wreck, he would have lost his
Master and his job as well like the Rules allowed the Board of Trade to do so. And for me, they should have done it just after the smashing of the
OLYMPIC in 1911. It could have changed nothing for the
TITANIC's faith, but from the moment you introduce a new variable, things are different -- but how much, that is the question.
Furthermore, there was a crucial factor not to forget in the cause of accident : the Senior Officers had learned their trade on sailing ships, which had short Length over All (LoA) and lack of any technology (electricity, coal, on-board compasses, telegraphs, Wireless, etc.). And while they were at ease with something they knew well, technology came up and ships built happened to be 5 or 6 times much longer than all they knew until then. For they didn't had continuing training just as the officers today, they didn't have any idea how to pilot big ships like
OLYMPIC' s class. It makes me think of the Sea Shanty named "A Sailor Ain't A Sailor Anymore"
(If you like Sea Shanties, you will love them !)
The main point I want to get at here is the following : imagine if your great grand-parents which only had a buggy and an old horse to travel, were being given today's car that "talk" to you every time you cross the white lane without flashers ; that turns the wheel by itself ; which has a GPS and able to tell you when you need to buy some gas, and so on. First time your grand-parents sits in this car, maybe they wouldn't be able to know how to start it and how to move it as well. The same thing happened with the Officers : the technology and LoA of the
TITANIC contributes to the accident for the Officer have no clue on how to manage it.
And fourthly, Sam was right (his book is my "Bible" that I keep near me every time I need information about
TITANIC -- a scientific monographs you can absolutely relie on) in saying that officers were educated to avoid obstacles, not to ram on them. If you have already drive a car, imagine you hit the road and see upon it let's say a fallen tree, what are you going to do ? Tell yourself that you should collided with it for you don't know what is in the ditch that are each side of the road, or are you going to hit the wheel hard to turn left of right to avoid the tree ? Asking the question is answer to that question, I think.
And as far as Lightoller is concerned, I think he would have done the same thing as Murdoch, for they had the same abilities and the same maritime education.