Arun Vajpey
Member
Very likely because they - the lookouts and Murdoch - were looking ahead within a limited arc of vision. They would have been concentrating on an area that was in the Titanic's path and a wee bit on either side of it.Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?
For the simple reason that Californian's masthead and side lights were shut in from Titanic as the latter approached. (The stern light would have been too dim at that distance to be noticed, and whatever few deck lights Californian carried, would also have been too dim to notice. We're talking a vessel about 12 miles off. It was only when Californian swung around enough to open her masthead lights up to Titanic that a light was first spotted. And even then, it was at the limit of visual acuity, as very few actually made out that she had two masthead lights with the naked eye. Most eyewitnesses from Titanic reported seeing only a single light.Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?
Why was there no mention of Titanic lookouts seeing Californian’s lights before the collision?
For the simple reason that Californian's masthead and side lights were shut in from Titanic as the latter approached. (The stern light would have been too dim at that distance to be noticed, and whatever few deck lights Californian carried, would also have been too dim to notice. We're talking a vessel about 12 miles off. It was only when Californian swung around enough to open her masthead lights up to Titanic that a light was first spotted. And even then, it was at the limit of visual acuity, as very few actually made out that she had two masthead lights with the naked eye. Most eyewitnesses from Titanic reported seeing only a single light.
Not sure what you mean 'arrived on the scene'? The first arrival would have been when a mast light was first sighted coming up over the horizon. That would have been around 11pm, and the two ships would be about 22 miles apart with Titanic's mast light looking like a rising star coming from the eastward. She would be changing her bearing as she steamed along getting more southward from Californian. Lord, who was occasionally watching this steamer from the lower bridge at times, admitted to seeing her green sidelight and some deck lights as the steamer continued to get nearer. Exactly what Groves saw vs. what he recalled seeing IMO is questionable. He recalled seeing lots of light on the steamer, and according to his testimony, reported that to Lord when he went to inform Lord that a steamer was approaching. Did he notice some changes in the appearance of the lights to suggest that the steamer maybe directly approaching them at that time? Probably. It would explain why he went down to report around 11:30. Did he say at that time anything about the steamer shutting in her lights? I don't know, but a few minutes later Lord came up to the upper bridge to see the stopped steamer himself, and that is when the exchange about it being a passenger vessel, or not, came up.By about 11:30am that Sunday the Californian had been stopped for over an hour and had slowly swung clockwise in the current so that it was bearing ENE just as the Titanic arrived on the scene.
I meant more or less exactly what you are saying. I was using the phrase "on the scene" colloquially to denote when each ship could first have seen any light from the other, even if observers on one or both ships did not recognize them as such immediately.Not sure what you mean 'arrived on the scene'? The first arrival would have been when a mast light was first sighted coming up over the horizon. That would have been around 11pm, and the two ships would be about 22 miles apart with Titanic's mast light looking like a rising star coming from the eastward.
Yes, especially as he only testified a month later in England a lot happened and/or was revealed in between.Exactly what Groves saw vs. what he recalled seeing IMO is questionable.
Since there are a lot of different eyesight issues, "better eyesight" is difficult to define in relation to what the two men could or couldn't see that night. The same thing applies to Groves failing the eye test; what part of the test did he fail? Did it have something to do with colour or night vision?Given that we now have primary source documentary evidence of problems with certain bits of Groves’ eyesight (which was never mentioned at the time), it does make me wonder whether Captain Lord at the time had better eyesight and could distinguish a starboard green light better than Groves. The British Inquiry didn’t grasp any of this. They were unaware of a potential issue with part of Groves’ eyesight (despite what would these days have required the Board of Trade to disclose such details).
Lord never said he saw two masthead lights. It was Groves who made that claim.It seems in retrospect quite significant that Captain Lord identified 2 masthead lights and a green starboard light of this other vessel approaching them to the south and eastward of them.
Thank you Sam for your correction and apologies for an aberration on my part.Lord never said he saw two masthead lights. It was Groves who made that claim.
I think like you that Captain Lord would never have done something that may put his ships and his crew in danger, but it does not mean that he would not have try to do something if he have known that Titanic is sinking. He would have to determine the exact position of the Titanic, the one from the distress calls or the one from the vessel firing rockets over the horizon. He would have to navigate very carefully to get out of the icefield. He would have to slow down when getting near the Titanic to avoid endangering the passengers and the crew members in their lifeboats who were rowing toward his ship. It is very doubtful that Captain Lord would have the opportunity to get his ship alongside the Titanic, before passengers and crew members started to jump out from the sinking Titanic. I am not a seamen and even less an expert on nautical matter, my experience at sea being limited to be a passenger only once on a very nice cruise, but I am inclined to think like you.Arun you shouldn't include my name with to regards to nautical experience. Yes I spent time at sea aboard a warship but my duties were in the aviation branch. What I know about running ships is mostly what I've read or saw. Never stood the type of watches that were required to run/handle a ship. That being said what I'm going to say next is just an observation. I did witness 3 rescues at sea. 2 man overboard and 1 pilot recovery from ejection. Even with modern technology it took time to get them back aboard. 15-25 mins or so. That was with helo's, trained rescue swimmers and knowing their exact location. Also it was warm water. My point is it took time with what I would describe as ideal rescue conditions.
I'm just going on what I know of the Californian to be accepted as true, the distances established, the conditions that night. And the time it would take for everything to fall into place. I just don't see it happening that the Californian would have been able to pull it off. Is it impossible? No as mitfrc has pointed out it has been done before but conditions were different and again time is the key. I also don't think Captain Lord would have taken the risks putting his own ship in danger to try and pull it off with the conditions that night. Just my opinion of course. This all falls into the "if only" situation. If only one thing out of 20 had been different.....Cheers.
Recent evidence from the literature shows that the initial factors identified as being responsible for swimming failure can be either easily overcome or are not likely the primary contributors to swimming failure. Studies over the last decade reported that swimming failure might primarily be related not to general hypothermia, but rather to muscle fatigue of the arms as a consequence of arm cooling. This is based on the general observation that swimming failure developed earlier than did systemic hypothermia, and can be related to low temperature of the arm muscles following swimming in cold water. All of the above studies conducted in water between 10 and 14 °C indicate that people can swim in cold water for a distance ranging between about 800 and 1500 m before being incapacitated by the cold. The average swimming duration for the studies was about 47 min before incapacitation, regardless of the swimming ability of the subjects. Recent evidence shows that people have a very accurate idea about how long it will take them to achieve a given swimming goal despite a 3-fold overestimation of the absolute distance to swim. The subjects were quite astute at deciding their swimming strategy early in the immersion with 86% success, but after about 30 min of swimming or passive cooling, their decision-making ability became impaired.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?