Question Captain Smith and the Ice Field

[Nagy Gabor]

First of all, sorry for my bad english. My question is, did Captain Smith in his long career come across an ice field so large that it blocked the Titanic's path? If so, what was your usual procedure in such a case? It seems that on the Titanic they did not know the extent of the ice field, only the icebergs.

 

[Georges Guay]

You seem to dismiss Olliver's, "and was just entering on the bridge just as the shock came" all too easily. If he was only around boat #7, he would not have been near Hichens when the hard-aport order came. Also if what they struck was only 30 ft above the water, it couldn't be seen from the boat deck. At the Ryan trial, Lee said: "It was as high as the boat deck." That would match Olliver's description of seeing only the peak of the berg pass by.

On S.O.T.H., p. 70, Fig.3-02, You wrote; «QM Olliver sees the peak of the iceberg pass aft of the bridge». Olliver was never there when the berg went by and its peak was not above the bridge wing shelter. If it had been, the emergency cutter No.1 would have been ripped away!

You seem to dismiss Olliver's testimony all too easily.

I just read what he stated in the more impartially and conscientiously that an experimented mariner could. Not to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports prior beliefs.

Olliver could not be at two different places in the same time; stop perceiving the grinding noise, sighting the berg getting away from the ship’s side forward of the place he was standing -and- feeling the shock just as he was entering the bridge. Note; the berg grinded all the way past WT Bulkhead E, amid BR No.6 and No.5, which lined ups between Lifeboat 3 and 5.

The safest place if not the only, where he could observe the berg so accurately, was from the Boat Deck behind lifeboat 7, not between Lifeboat 3 and 5.

• The berg was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat.
• The iceberg got away from the boat before the place I was just abaft the bridge.

Olliver only heard the Hard-a-port order prior entering the bridge. Once by the wheelhouse, he visually observed the helm over to port and as a rule, the officer standing aside the quartermaster to see that helm orders were carried out as demanded.

The small pinnacle iceberg Rostron almost collided with was estimated at around 30 ft high above the water. That berg was sighted at day break and estimated by eyesight alone from a quarter mile off. It is well recognized that mariners have difficulty in estimating the wave heights just off side and during bright day light. You need some tables to evaluate them more accurately. Was Rostron iceberg 30 ft precisely or could have been higher?

The medium iceberg width you depict (200-400ft) and its height (~60ft) by association of the boat deck, only support a change of heading of 2 points in 37 seconds. But I am sorry to say that such a blocky iceberg would have been seen in advance to be avoided. On another note, a smaller pinnacle iceberg which could have easily reached that height would only have half that width or less. And half that width meant half an alteration of heading prior collision and in proportion, sighted half closer. That would correspond much more to the testimonies of those who were there and lived to tell their stories, if interpreted correctly. The problem is to convince how such a small stealth iceberg could have sunk the largest insubmersible liner of the whole world that easy; but icebreaker commander Toomey answered it. Breaking in two at sea surface while sinking in a dead calm ocean did not improve her weak reputation either!

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Questions (again): How a lookout that high in a crow’s nest so close to the bow, with virtually no point of reference on the horizon, with little or no steering experience, under a pitch dark night, could then suddenly quantify that alteration of heading?

The object of reference was the iceberg itself. It was seen just below the horizon line getting larger at the same time its relative bearing was veering to starboard.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

If it had been, the emergency cutter No.1 would have been ripped away!

Why do you assume that the peak of the berg was as close to ship's side as the base of the berg was? I certainly don't.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

That fabrication comes from Hichens who got mixed up and said everything and it’s opposite. He was almost imploring the attorneys to tell him what they wanted to hear.

That statement Georges is pure and unsubstantiated speculation. Just because you believe that QM Hichens "fabricated" something does not mean it happened. I agree with Sam that Hichens stated what he observed.

I would be very surprised that the phone call lasted for half a minute!

The "half a minute" was not just the call itself. Fleet rang the bells in the crow's nest as soon as he saw a dark object in the horizon directly in the ship's path, not waiting to identify it. After that he continued to observe and identified the object as an iceberg and then went to the phone. His report was "Iceberg right ahead!" and not "Object right ahead!".

We have diverted way of course regarding this thread's topic.

Yes Sam, I agree that it has happened. I think we both agree that the "discussion" is now being needlessly prolonged just for the sake of an argument rather than any useful purpose.

 

[Georges Guay]

The object of reference was the iceberg itself. It was seen just below the horizon line getting larger at the same time its relative bearing was veering to starboard.

Whether you read the question at 45° or you didn’t read it at all, but I will repeat it for your benefit.

Fleet which could not give any distance, nor any estimated distance at first glance, except that the berg appeared «very small». Neither could he give any approximate dimensions even when the berg was rubbing against the bow just below the nest. He even admitted he had no judgment and his vision not tested since.

Suddenly, he could «quantify» a change of heading as being a little over a point to two points!

How a lookout that high in a crow’s nest so close to the bow, with virtually no point of reference on the horizon, with no compass at hand, with little or no steering experience, under a pitch dark night, could suddenly «quantify» an heading alteration of little over a point to two points?

Lee who was keeping lookout in the centre of the nest, testified that as soon as the reply from Moody «Thank you» came in, the liner was «veering» to port and seemed almost as if she might have cleared the berg. A massive liner of that class would have taken at least 6 to 8 seconds just to start veering and more time for a lookout in such location to even notice she was veering. Good luck for your upcoming calculations!

 

[Georges Guay]

Why do you assume that the peak of the berg was as close to ship's side as the base of the berg was? I certainly don't.

Senator BURTON.
You saw it as it was brushingby?
Mr. ROWE.
Yes, sir. It was very close to the ship, «almost» touching it.

Senator BURTON.
Describe it.
Mr. OLLIVER.
The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was «almost» alongside of the boat.

Almost synonym: nearly, just about, practically, virtually, next to, close to, not far from, not far off, bordering, pretty nearly, …

The iceberg apex was at about the height of the boat deck, «certainly» not higher than the starboard wing shelter as you depict in one of your novels. Additionally, Joseph Scarrott testified in BI 361.,

(Mr. Butler Aspinall.) What was the shape of this iceberg?
- Well, it struck me at the time that it resembled the Rock of Gibraltar looking at it from Europa Point. It looked very much the same shape as that, only much smaller.

It resembled the Rock of Gibraltar looking at it from Europa Point. Not looking alike a grandmother home-baked bread of 300 feet wide that suit a change of heading of two points in 37 seconds. Such ice cube would have been seen much sooner by a professional senior deck officer assisted by two lookouts!

«I just cannot believe that experienced navigating officers and deck crew, who had sailed those waters for years, could fail to see a berg at least 30 feet high though it is easy for anyone to miss sighting a growler». Icebreaker Commander Patrick R.M Toomey. Me neither…

 

[Arun Vajpey]

With respect Georges, in my opinion you are now just prolonging the issue by trying to make points that don't exist.

Fleet, or anyone else in his position, would have found it extremely difficult to gauge the distance between the iceberg as the Titanic's bow approached it because of the darkness. I happen to know that human depth perception is quite poor at night and under those prevailing conditions would have been even worse. Also, both because of the darkness and the fact that Fleet did not know the real size of the iceberg beforehand, the 'blossom effect' would have affected his perception quite significantly and he would have found it difficult to come anywhere near assessing the closing distance between them.

But the lateral movement of the bow in relation to the iceberg was an entirely different proposition. As Sam correctly pointed out, the iceberg itself was the reference point in that instance and almost as soon as the bow started to swing to port, both lookouts would have been able to perceive it. As Sam has pointed out before, Fleet was probably a bit off with his "two points"; the bow had more likely swung somewhere between 1 and 1.5 points before the first impact.

One can carry on this argument endlessly but after a while some approaches lose credibility.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

It's OK Arun. We only have Lee who said the berg was about as high as the boat deck, and Olliver who said it was about as high if not a little higher than the boat deck, and then there is Steward Alfred Crawford who saw the berg pass by when he was on the starboard side B deck promenade who said: "I saw the iceberg going along the starboard side, sir...It looked like a large black object going alongside the ship...I could not see the top because there was a deck above us." (American inquiry testimony)

Last I looked, A deck, which was the deck above B deck, was about 49 ft above the water amidships. So the height of this growler or large bergy-bit that is being suggested here had to be higher than that height above the water. Reminds me of the theory by the late master mariner Lewis Marmaduke Collins
(The Sinking of the Titanic).

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Last I looked, A deck, which was the deck above B deck, was about 49 ft above the water amidships. So the height of this growler or large bergy-bit that is being suggested here had to be higher than that height above the water. Reminds me of the theory by the late master mariner Lewis Marmaduke Collins

Ah yes, Captain Marmaduke Collins. Isn't he the one who, after "convincing analysis of facts and evidence", concluded that there was no iceberg or some such nonsense?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Isn't he the one who, after "convincing analysis of facts and evidence", concluded that there was no iceberg or some such nonsense?

Yes, and he said that the rest of us lack the nautical intelligence to understand.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Yes, and he said that the rest of us lack the nautical intelligence to understand.

Of course. We've encountered a few more with similar views since then.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Yes, and he said that the rest of us lack the nautical intelligence to understand.

He probably meant that unlike him, most of the rest of us did not have our heads underwater.

 

[Dan E. Parkes]

concluded that there was no iceberg or some such nonsense?

Not exactly 'no iceberg' - his conclusion published in 2002 is that it was "pack ice". The lookouts "haze" was once again a catalyst for another alternate theory and not one I would subscribe to as it means discounting so many eyewitness accounts, as Sam has already pointed out. It is no wonder no one has ever taken it seriously. His theory on the wreck position is even more outrageous.

However, returning to the subject of this thread, Captain Collins was a North Atlantic master mariner and an ice pilot for 40 years (until 1995), and so it is noteworthy that he defends Captain Smith in regards to accusations of recklessness. Most of the salient points have already been mentioned here, but this is what is also quite enlightening:

maintaining full speed in good visibility until ice was actually sighted was—and remains—the practice of the day.
("The Sinking of The Titanic - An Ice-Pilots Perspective" (2002) by Captain Marmaduke Collins)

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>>maintaining full speed in good visibility until ice was actually sighted was—and remains—the practice of the day.
("The Sinking of The Titanic - An Ice-Pilots Perspective" (2002) by Captain Marmaduke Collins)<<<

From Bowditch - Ch. 33 under Ice Navigation:

In the vicinity of icebergs, either in or outside of the pack ice, a sharp lookout should be kept and all icebergs given a wide berth. The commanding officers and masters of all vessels, irrespective of their size, should treat all icebergs with great respect. The best locations for lookouts are generally in a crow’s nest, rigged in the foremast or housed in a shelter built specifically for a bow lookout in the eyes of a vessel. Telephone communications between these sites and the navigation bridge on larger vessels will prove invaluable. It is dangerous to approach close to an iceberg of any size because of the possibility of encountering underwater extensions, and because icebergs that are disintegrating may suddenly capsize or readjust their masses to new positions of equilibrium. In periods of low visibility the utmost caution is needed at all times. Vessel speed should be reduced and the watch prepared for quick maneuvering. Radar becomes an effective but not infallible tool, and does not negate the need for trained lookouts.

 

[Dan E. Parkes]

In periods of low visibility the utmost caution is needed at all times. Vessel speed should be reduced and the watch prepared for quick maneuvering

Considering there was good visibility to the horizon, and Smith asked to be instantly notified if that changed, it would seem Smith agreed with Bowditch's approach.