lauren hill
Guest
hi, i am just wondering why the officers on the bridge did not see the ice berg when it was right in front of them! can any one help me out here?
Iceberg
- Thread starter lauren hill
- Start date
-
- Tags
- icebergs
Paul Rogers
Member
Hello Lauren. Welcome aboard, BTW.
The obvious answer to your question is: because it was extremely dark indeed, with no moon, and with no waves breaking against the iceberg (to make it visible that way) due to the calmness of the sea. Don't be misled by Cameron's depiction of the scene in the Titanic film; it was shot that way so that cinema audiences could see what was going on.
Another possible, and more complex, answer to your question would be: they actually did see it. But they didn't realise what they were looking at.
If you search the Board you will find some threads that discuss these sorts of theories in more detail. But hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I will now join this thread and post their thoughts.
The obvious answer to your question is: because it was extremely dark indeed, with no moon, and with no waves breaking against the iceberg (to make it visible that way) due to the calmness of the sea. Don't be misled by Cameron's depiction of the scene in the Titanic film; it was shot that way so that cinema audiences could see what was going on.
Another possible, and more complex, answer to your question would be: they actually did see it. But they didn't realise what they were looking at.
If you search the Board you will find some threads that discuss these sorts of theories in more detail. But hopefully someone more knowledgeable than I will now join this thread and post their thoughts.
Michael H. Standart
Member
Lauran, the best evidence in my opinion, would actually tend to indicate that Will Murdock, who was the officer of the deck at the time saw the iceberg befor the lookouts did. If you read Frederick Fleet's testimony, you'll note that he rang up the bridge and was still on the phone waiting for an answer when he noted the head of the ship starting to come about. The reason I say Will Murdoch is because the list of candidates who could have done it was a short one. Boxhall was off the bridge returning from a chore on the Standard Compass platform, Moody was apparently supervising Hichens, Captain Smith was in "His Room" and the others were all off watch. Kind of narrows the possibilities a bit and *somebody* had to be outside keeping an eye on where the ship was going.
The catch, as Paul indicated, is that it was extremely dark out that night which made sighting any obstacle in a timely matter something of a problem. Especially with the ship going at nearly her full speed. As a sailor, I can appriciate what they were up against. People who have spent all their lives on land have no real concept of just how dark it can get out on the ocean. Especially on a moonless night. It's black beyond anything you can understand. One can adapt to it but it takes awhile to get one's night vision. There was also another problem that Fleet and Lee were facing and that was the cold itself. The temperatures were already below feeezing and with the ship going ahead at ~22 knots, the "wind" whistling past and through the crows nest would have dropped the wind chill factor down to around 15°F. After dealing with that for an hour and a half, it's not much of a stretch to see that these two men would not have been in top form. I think it says something about them that they saw it at all.
You may wish to parse some of the discussions we've had in the Collisions/Sinkings Theories folder to see how some of our own views have evolved on this over the past five years, and why they have.
The catch, as Paul indicated, is that it was extremely dark out that night which made sighting any obstacle in a timely matter something of a problem. Especially with the ship going at nearly her full speed. As a sailor, I can appriciate what they were up against. People who have spent all their lives on land have no real concept of just how dark it can get out on the ocean. Especially on a moonless night. It's black beyond anything you can understand. One can adapt to it but it takes awhile to get one's night vision. There was also another problem that Fleet and Lee were facing and that was the cold itself. The temperatures were already below feeezing and with the ship going ahead at ~22 knots, the "wind" whistling past and through the crows nest would have dropped the wind chill factor down to around 15°F. After dealing with that for an hour and a half, it's not much of a stretch to see that these two men would not have been in top form. I think it says something about them that they saw it at all.
You may wish to parse some of the discussions we've had in the Collisions/Sinkings Theories folder to see how some of our own views have evolved on this over the past five years, and why they have.
lauren hill
Guest
hi michael i ask a simple question and get a really long answer! but i heard the Titanic's max speed was 21 knots so they must have been going slower than you said from lauren
Michael H. Standart
Member
21 or 22 knots, maybe 21.5 have all been mooted as what they ship was doing that night...when you get down to it, that's splitting hairs and not enough to matter in the long haul. (BTW, an Olympic class liner was capable of doing up to 24 knots, but rarely did so in service as there was no special advantage to it.)
While your question may have been simple, I'm afraid the range of possible answers are not. There were a lot of dynamics at work that night. Entire books can be written to answer some of the most simple questions and they *have* been. The questions deserve far better treatment then a one liner of a response. At least they do if you wish to actually understand why the accident happened as it did.
While your question may have been simple, I'm afraid the range of possible answers are not. There were a lot of dynamics at work that night. Entire books can be written to answer some of the most simple questions and they *have* been. The questions deserve far better treatment then a one liner of a response. At least they do if you wish to actually understand why the accident happened as it did.
lauren hill
Guest
hi michael so ok the ship could have been going at 21.5 knots that night but it still does not explain why they did not back down speed when they received the ice warnings, does it?
i suppose it was partly there own fault! but i don't wish to understand why the accident happened as it did . i already know why it happened. it happened because Titanic's owners ( the white star line) reckoned their ship was so safe that it could not sink there fore saying that it did not need sufficent life boat provisions! from lauren
i suppose it was partly there own fault! but i don't wish to understand why the accident happened as it did . i already know why it happened. it happened because Titanic's owners ( the white star line) reckoned their ship was so safe that it could not sink there fore saying that it did not need sufficent life boat provisions! from lauren
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>hi michael so ok the ship could have been going at 21.5 knots that night but it still does not explain why they did not back down speed when they received the ice warnings, does it?<<
No, it doesn't. But understanding how ships were...and often are...operated in actual practice does. Keep in mind that liners were expected to keep to a tight schedule so they tended to take the shortest and most efficient route to minimize costs, and above all to maintain course and speed in all conditions so long as they could see what they were doing and where they were going. In other words, if the visibility was good, they kept the pedal to the metal under the expectation that they could see and avoid any dangers that appeared in their path.
>>i suppose it was partly there own fault! but i don't wish to understand why the accident happened as it did . i already know why it happened. it happened because Titanic's owners ( the white star line) reckoned their ship was so safe that it could not sink there fore saying that it did not need sufficent life boat provisions! from lauren<<
Then I'm afraid you don't understand why the accident happened. Accidents are rarely ever the end result of any single cause or simple collection of causes, but as a result of a chain of errors that finally end p in a really bad day for all involved. I don't think that White Star had any illusions about their ships being unsinkable, sailors everywhere knew better, and never *once* did they make that claim. There was the assertion of their ships being practically unsinkable which appeared in the professional media of the day and the rest of the media ran away with that one both befor and after the fact.
It helps to know that the claim of being "Practically unsinkable" was not confined to the Titanic but was mooted for nearly all the great liners of the day. If you read the articles in The Shipbuilder, you'll see the same claim being made for the Empress of Ireland and also the Lusitania and it was not *entirely* unreasonable.
The watertight bulkhead schemes would help to confine damage to specific areas so it would be possible to save the ship or at least remain afloat long enough to evacuate the ship in a timely manner to rescue vessels.
I might add that insufficient lifeboats were not confined to White Star ships but just about every liner of the day. (You might be interested to know that the only ship out there with lifeboats for all was the Californian! )The idea was to provide a means of transferring people from a distressed ship to a rescue vessel and for at least 40 years, that seemed to work out quite well. It worked when the RMS Republic came to a bad end and few people could conceive of a reason why it shouldn't continue to work.
They found out why but by then, the damage was already done.
In Titanic's case, lifeboats for all would not have been enough to save everyone aboard. Keep in mind that with the 20 the ship was fitted with, they were only able to launch 18 in the time they had. The only way lifeboats for all could have made a difference in my opinion would lie in the fact that there would have been an incentive to fill each and everyone then have to pick and choose who would live and who would have to stay behind.
In the end, it was bad navigation practice...ipso facto...their overestimating their ability to see and avoid ice, that ultimately killed the ship. They thought they could see the danger in time.
They were wrong.
No, it doesn't. But understanding how ships were...and often are...operated in actual practice does. Keep in mind that liners were expected to keep to a tight schedule so they tended to take the shortest and most efficient route to minimize costs, and above all to maintain course and speed in all conditions so long as they could see what they were doing and where they were going. In other words, if the visibility was good, they kept the pedal to the metal under the expectation that they could see and avoid any dangers that appeared in their path.
>>i suppose it was partly there own fault! but i don't wish to understand why the accident happened as it did . i already know why it happened. it happened because Titanic's owners ( the white star line) reckoned their ship was so safe that it could not sink there fore saying that it did not need sufficent life boat provisions! from lauren<<
Then I'm afraid you don't understand why the accident happened. Accidents are rarely ever the end result of any single cause or simple collection of causes, but as a result of a chain of errors that finally end p in a really bad day for all involved. I don't think that White Star had any illusions about their ships being unsinkable, sailors everywhere knew better, and never *once* did they make that claim. There was the assertion of their ships being practically unsinkable which appeared in the professional media of the day and the rest of the media ran away with that one both befor and after the fact.
It helps to know that the claim of being "Practically unsinkable" was not confined to the Titanic but was mooted for nearly all the great liners of the day. If you read the articles in The Shipbuilder, you'll see the same claim being made for the Empress of Ireland and also the Lusitania and it was not *entirely* unreasonable.
The watertight bulkhead schemes would help to confine damage to specific areas so it would be possible to save the ship or at least remain afloat long enough to evacuate the ship in a timely manner to rescue vessels.
I might add that insufficient lifeboats were not confined to White Star ships but just about every liner of the day. (You might be interested to know that the only ship out there with lifeboats for all was the Californian! )The idea was to provide a means of transferring people from a distressed ship to a rescue vessel and for at least 40 years, that seemed to work out quite well. It worked when the RMS Republic came to a bad end and few people could conceive of a reason why it shouldn't continue to work.
They found out why but by then, the damage was already done.
In Titanic's case, lifeboats for all would not have been enough to save everyone aboard. Keep in mind that with the 20 the ship was fitted with, they were only able to launch 18 in the time they had. The only way lifeboats for all could have made a difference in my opinion would lie in the fact that there would have been an incentive to fill each and everyone then have to pick and choose who would live and who would have to stay behind.
In the end, it was bad navigation practice...ipso facto...their overestimating their ability to see and avoid ice, that ultimately killed the ship. They thought they could see the danger in time.
They were wrong.
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
>>The only way lifeboats for all could have made a difference in my opinion would lie in the fact that there would have been an incentive to fill each and everyone then have to pick and choose who would live and who would have to stay behind.<<
Filling the 18-20 that were there would have saved a significant number of passengers who otherwise died, but it wasn't the crew's place to decide for passengers. No officer or crewman will tell me that I have to die because of some rule or protocol. It's my life and I make that decision. That's not saying that I wouldn't step back for the women and children, but I won't die simply because the officers and crew, through orders or rules set down on them, 'tell' me I have to die because I am a grown man or whatever factor that may weigh against me regarding procedures. Seamen are not gods who make the ultimate decision over life and death. My life is not the crew's responsibility - it's my own.
Just wanted to say that.
Filling the 18-20 that were there would have saved a significant number of passengers who otherwise died, but it wasn't the crew's place to decide for passengers. No officer or crewman will tell me that I have to die because of some rule or protocol. It's my life and I make that decision. That's not saying that I wouldn't step back for the women and children, but I won't die simply because the officers and crew, through orders or rules set down on them, 'tell' me I have to die because I am a grown man or whatever factor that may weigh against me regarding procedures. Seamen are not gods who make the ultimate decision over life and death. My life is not the crew's responsibility - it's my own.
Just wanted to say that.
David G. Brown
RIP
Lauren -- You are looking at the problem through 21st century eyes and your perception is filtered by knowledge of what took place. To understand what happened you must perceive the situation in 1912 terms and forget anything you know about the accident.
In 1912 ice was considered more of a nuisance than a mortal threat to iron ships. Vessels like Nessmore and Arizona "proved" that collision with ice was survivable. The problem with Titanic was that while its steel was just as strong as those smaller ships, it was treble or more their mass. Steel does not get stronger with the size of the ship. So, Titanic was considerably more vulnerable to an iceberg accident than the ships on which Smith, Wilde, Murdoch, and Lightoller learned their trade.
Lightoller later tumbled to this aspect of big ships. He described the problem in his autobiography, but by carefully avoiding mentioning icebergs. He put it in terms of a smaller ship striking a pier with little damage while a larger one might puncture its plating.
So, as of 11:39:59 April 14, 1912 ice was considered as a problem, but not a danger. Titanic changed all that, but nobody on the ship knew its fate during the minutes leading up to the accident.
As to slowing down, that's an automotive (land lubber) approach to safety at sea. On land you can't really drive around dangers that appear in your car's path. The road limits where you can go. So, slowing and stopping are far more important on land than at sea.
Ship drivers know the best way to avoid danger is to steer around it. Titanic could have veered off course hundreds of miles without getting into too much trouble (Sable Island excepted) if it wanted to go around the ice. However, slowing down alone would not have avoided collision with the berg. At best, only slowing down would just have prolonged the time before impact. And, to some extent a ship going slower is less able to steer around danger because of reduced effect of the rudder.
None of this exonerates Titanic from its accident. It is only meant to explain how good men got into trouble simply because they could not foresee the future. You know their fate, but tomorrow is just as hidden from you as Titanic's accident was from them.
-- David G. Brown
In 1912 ice was considered more of a nuisance than a mortal threat to iron ships. Vessels like Nessmore and Arizona "proved" that collision with ice was survivable. The problem with Titanic was that while its steel was just as strong as those smaller ships, it was treble or more their mass. Steel does not get stronger with the size of the ship. So, Titanic was considerably more vulnerable to an iceberg accident than the ships on which Smith, Wilde, Murdoch, and Lightoller learned their trade.
Lightoller later tumbled to this aspect of big ships. He described the problem in his autobiography, but by carefully avoiding mentioning icebergs. He put it in terms of a smaller ship striking a pier with little damage while a larger one might puncture its plating.
So, as of 11:39:59 April 14, 1912 ice was considered as a problem, but not a danger. Titanic changed all that, but nobody on the ship knew its fate during the minutes leading up to the accident.
As to slowing down, that's an automotive (land lubber) approach to safety at sea. On land you can't really drive around dangers that appear in your car's path. The road limits where you can go. So, slowing and stopping are far more important on land than at sea.
Ship drivers know the best way to avoid danger is to steer around it. Titanic could have veered off course hundreds of miles without getting into too much trouble (Sable Island excepted) if it wanted to go around the ice. However, slowing down alone would not have avoided collision with the berg. At best, only slowing down would just have prolonged the time before impact. And, to some extent a ship going slower is less able to steer around danger because of reduced effect of the rudder.
None of this exonerates Titanic from its accident. It is only meant to explain how good men got into trouble simply because they could not foresee the future. You know their fate, but tomorrow is just as hidden from you as Titanic's accident was from them.
-- David G. Brown
Inger Sheil
Member
Mark, I'm afraid it is the crew's duty and responsibility to load the lifeboats, and that includes deciding who gets in them if there are not enough places. It is not the role of the passengers to decide how boats are loaded. There are chilling accounts in some wrecks of passengers trying to force their way into boats or affect the launch of them, sometimes even at gunpoint (there is an account of this happening on the Lusitania - how accurate it is a Lusitania researcher would have to clarify).
Crews do not - even now - always live up to their responsibility in loading boats. There are modern examples of them neglecting their duties and hauling off in an 'every man for himself' type of scenario. But the theoretical devolution of authority from the Captain through the ship's hierarchical structure is the most reasonable way in which an evacuation can be managed, and preferable to a Darwinian struggle for survival in which each individual decides for himself how to evacuate himself. There are procedures on board forms of mass transit that you are expected to follow.
Perhaps you are an exceptionally competant individual who knows enough about lifeboats and evacuation procedure to safely and calmly get yourself off the ship. There may be more like you. However, crews cannot assume either your competancy or those of the majority of passengers to act judiciously in an emergency situation.
Whatever happened on board that ship, once she hit the berg, a sizeable proportion of people were doomed. The senior crew had to make extremely unpalatable decisions about how to load the lifeboats, and effectively, who would live and who would die. That's the ugly reality. Some of them lost their own lives in implementing the evacuation procedure.
More practically, he was the law aboard the ship. He had to act in accordance with shipping legislation, but away from land and other authorities, he was the ultimate authority. His representatives were his officers.
Crews do not - even now - always live up to their responsibility in loading boats. There are modern examples of them neglecting their duties and hauling off in an 'every man for himself' type of scenario. But the theoretical devolution of authority from the Captain through the ship's hierarchical structure is the most reasonable way in which an evacuation can be managed, and preferable to a Darwinian struggle for survival in which each individual decides for himself how to evacuate himself. There are procedures on board forms of mass transit that you are expected to follow.
Perhaps you are an exceptionally competant individual who knows enough about lifeboats and evacuation procedure to safely and calmly get yourself off the ship. There may be more like you. However, crews cannot assume either your competancy or those of the majority of passengers to act judiciously in an emergency situation.
Whatever happened on board that ship, once she hit the berg, a sizeable proportion of people were doomed. The senior crew had to make extremely unpalatable decisions about how to load the lifeboats, and effectively, who would live and who would die. That's the ugly reality. Some of them lost their own lives in implementing the evacuation procedure.
Crews and passengers in the era we're talking about would disagree with you, at least regarding the Captain. The 'Old Man' was regarded as God!
More practically, he was the law aboard the ship. He had to act in accordance with shipping legislation, but away from land and other authorities, he was the ultimate authority. His representatives were his officers.
Inger Sheil
Member
Hi Mike -
In his evidence in 1912 he says he was coming from the Officers Quarters, and in accounts from 1959 and 1962, Boxhall says he was emerging from his cabin.
I must have missed the point at which this theory became fact...!
In his evidence in 1912 he says he was coming from the Officers Quarters, and in accounts from 1959 and 1962, Boxhall says he was emerging from his cabin.
Dave Gittins
Member
Lauren, just to clarify a little point, the 21 knots often mentioned was Titanic's service speed. That is, she was designed to cross the Atlantic at an average of 21 knots in pretty well any conditions. To do this, she had to have some reserve power, so she could do about 23 knots flat out in calm weather.
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
Hi, Inger, nice to see you again. I hope everything is well with you.
>>Mark, I'm afraid it is the crew's duty and responsibility to load the lifeboats, and that includes deciding who gets in them if there are not enough places. It is not the role of the passengers to decide how boats are loaded.<<
I wasn't referring to lowering the boats; I'm referring to survival in general. I am responsible for my own life, as it should be. That's it.
>> There are chilling accounts in some wrecks of passengers trying to force their way into boats or affect the launch of them, sometimes even at gunpoint (there is an account of this happening on the Lusitania - how accurate it is a Lusitania researcher would have to clarify).<<
Yes, that can be a bit hairy. Order needs to be maintained, if possible, although panic is understood when lives are in danger.
Still, let's take for example collapsible A: Are you saying that Murdoch (or whomever) had the right to aim a gun at all those passengers and essential say through his actions: "Alright, that's it! You all stay there and prepare to die because I order it [with this gun]!"? As it turned out, it seems as though Murdoch lost, in a way. They (the captain/officers) have a right to moderate the lowering of the boats, but, in no way, do they have the 'godly right' or providence to tell me that I have to die because of "loading procedure" or "shipping legislation," or because of some accident due to human error on the crew's behalf. My life takes priority over all of those. If I want to save my life (if able and after the women and children are away), then I will do so, period. Several individuals that night did the same thing, namely Gracie, Abelseth, Hugh Woolner, and Bjornstrom Stevenson (the last two of who jumped into Collapsible D as it was lowering). I don't listen to the officers or crew; I listen to my own inner voice. That'll do me better service than an orders "issued" to me in an emergency situation. The officers and crew of the ship neither have the wisdom to know what's beneficial to my well-being. Again, that's ultimately for me to decide, and that's how it always shall be.
>>Crews do not - even now - always live up to their responsibility in loading boats. There are modern examples of them neglecting their duties<<
And I'm supposed to put my life in their hands?
>>But the theoretical devolution of authority from the Captain through the ship's hierarchical structure is the most reasonable way in which an evacuation can be managed, and preferable to a Darwinian struggle for survival in which each individual decides for himself how to evacuate himself.<<
Say that to all of those poor souls who were held at bay with a gun and basically forced to die because, as you've said, "every man/woman for him-/herself" attempt will not suffice compared to putting my life in the hands of a stranger who probably would not care about my well being one way or another in the end anyway. It's not that I don't respect captains (although it would depend on the particular captain/officer), but I'm not one to place blind faith or submit to them where my life is concerned.
And, no, it's not necessarily the more reasonable a system to follow. Calmness, cooperation, and mutual assistance is, of course, the preferred way; assuming that captain and officers are to apprehend my right to survival is not. Captains, officers, and crew do not have divine wisdom; they are mere human beings that follow a bureaucracy and *gasp* do, in fact, make mistakes. We've seen that time and time again.
Are you trying to say that these men of the sea can give me better advice and do better for me than my own instinct, conscience, and inner voice? No, as said, I feel more comfortable listening to the latter. After all, those three dimensions of intellect care more about me and know far more what's best for me than the former do.
>>There are procedures on board forms of mass transit that you are expected to follow.<<
Follow, yes, but not to the extreme extent of giving up my life in an attempt to respect and maintain those procedures and laws. They will mean nothing to me if I'm dead.
>> Perhaps you are an exceptionally competent individual who knows enough about lifeboats and evacuation procedure to safely and calmly get yourself off the ship. <<
I know a thing or two, and I'm able to conduct myself in a competent manner without the supervision or assistance of officers and crew. I wasn't referring to competency as much as I was individual right to control my life (as oppose to being having that life dictated by others).
>>crews cannot assume either your competency or those of the majority of passengers to act judiciously in an emergency situation.<<
It's not for them to assume or judge a damn thing in regards to me; it's only for them to conduct their business and let me conduct mine (as long as my business does not interfere with theirs). If I wish to follow suite, that's my choice and I will; if I don't, that is my choice, too. These people are not "judges," supervisors," or 'assessors" over me; they are only those who run the ship, because it's their job and because they have they skill to do so.
>>The senior crew had to make extremely unpalatable decisions about how to load the lifeboats, and effectively, who would live and who would die. That's the ugly reality.<<
I'm afraid not, at least not in the long run. In the end, it's the individuals' decision to live or die. That's what is called free will an the exercising of inner strength. Again, a good example is Gracie and others. I do not recognize any officer's "authority" or "decision" to dictate whether or not I should live or die. With all due respect, those officers' "decision" will go ignored by me; I (my inner spirit) will decide what's best for me.
>>Some of them lost their own lives in implementing the evacuation procedure.<<
And passengers are supposed to as well? *shakes head* It doesn't wash. My own protocol for survival and personal well being supercede those shallow, although well-meaning, rules and regulations. As said, my life is priority over them.
I guess that's one reason why I would never join the military (although a friend insisted it would be good for me and that I would like it): I am too independently minded!
>> Crews and passengers in the era we're talking about would disagree with you, at least regarding the Captain. The 'Old Man' was regarded as God!...More practically, he was the law aboard the ship. He had to act in accordance with shipping legislation, but away from land and other authorities, he was the ultimate authority.<<
Not my god, sorry to say. He/she may have a final say over how things are conducted aboard ship, but he/she does not have authority over me or my life. I will not worship him/her. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Inger, maybe you and I are referring to two difference things... I respect officers and crew and what they do, and I respect laws and will follow them (where laws do not interfere with the sustaining of my life or my personal principles), but they are what they are - sea servants! What I mean by that is they conduct a service of transporting people over water - that's it! The real God and I take over beyond that.
By the way, I do not mean to be crass, but I politely ask others to not argue/debate with me on this (i.e. Don't "correct" me). This is my personal opinion and belief, and this attitude will not change. Thanks. I am, however, always open to hearing what other's perspectives are on the issue, so please share.
>>Mark, I'm afraid it is the crew's duty and responsibility to load the lifeboats, and that includes deciding who gets in them if there are not enough places. It is not the role of the passengers to decide how boats are loaded.<<
I wasn't referring to lowering the boats; I'm referring to survival in general. I am responsible for my own life, as it should be. That's it.
>> There are chilling accounts in some wrecks of passengers trying to force their way into boats or affect the launch of them, sometimes even at gunpoint (there is an account of this happening on the Lusitania - how accurate it is a Lusitania researcher would have to clarify).<<
Yes, that can be a bit hairy. Order needs to be maintained, if possible, although panic is understood when lives are in danger.
Still, let's take for example collapsible A: Are you saying that Murdoch (or whomever) had the right to aim a gun at all those passengers and essential say through his actions: "Alright, that's it! You all stay there and prepare to die because I order it [with this gun]!"? As it turned out, it seems as though Murdoch lost, in a way. They (the captain/officers) have a right to moderate the lowering of the boats, but, in no way, do they have the 'godly right' or providence to tell me that I have to die because of "loading procedure" or "shipping legislation," or because of some accident due to human error on the crew's behalf. My life takes priority over all of those. If I want to save my life (if able and after the women and children are away), then I will do so, period. Several individuals that night did the same thing, namely Gracie, Abelseth, Hugh Woolner, and Bjornstrom Stevenson (the last two of who jumped into Collapsible D as it was lowering). I don't listen to the officers or crew; I listen to my own inner voice. That'll do me better service than an orders "issued" to me in an emergency situation. The officers and crew of the ship neither have the wisdom to know what's beneficial to my well-being. Again, that's ultimately for me to decide, and that's how it always shall be.
>>Crews do not - even now - always live up to their responsibility in loading boats. There are modern examples of them neglecting their duties<<
And I'm supposed to put my life in their hands?
>>But the theoretical devolution of authority from the Captain through the ship's hierarchical structure is the most reasonable way in which an evacuation can be managed, and preferable to a Darwinian struggle for survival in which each individual decides for himself how to evacuate himself.<<
Say that to all of those poor souls who were held at bay with a gun and basically forced to die because, as you've said, "every man/woman for him-/herself" attempt will not suffice compared to putting my life in the hands of a stranger who probably would not care about my well being one way or another in the end anyway. It's not that I don't respect captains (although it would depend on the particular captain/officer), but I'm not one to place blind faith or submit to them where my life is concerned.
And, no, it's not necessarily the more reasonable a system to follow. Calmness, cooperation, and mutual assistance is, of course, the preferred way; assuming that captain and officers are to apprehend my right to survival is not. Captains, officers, and crew do not have divine wisdom; they are mere human beings that follow a bureaucracy and *gasp* do, in fact, make mistakes. We've seen that time and time again.
Are you trying to say that these men of the sea can give me better advice and do better for me than my own instinct, conscience, and inner voice? No, as said, I feel more comfortable listening to the latter. After all, those three dimensions of intellect care more about me and know far more what's best for me than the former do.
>>There are procedures on board forms of mass transit that you are expected to follow.<<
Follow, yes, but not to the extreme extent of giving up my life in an attempt to respect and maintain those procedures and laws. They will mean nothing to me if I'm dead.
>> Perhaps you are an exceptionally competent individual who knows enough about lifeboats and evacuation procedure to safely and calmly get yourself off the ship. <<
I know a thing or two, and I'm able to conduct myself in a competent manner without the supervision or assistance of officers and crew. I wasn't referring to competency as much as I was individual right to control my life (as oppose to being having that life dictated by others).
>>crews cannot assume either your competency or those of the majority of passengers to act judiciously in an emergency situation.<<
It's not for them to assume or judge a damn thing in regards to me; it's only for them to conduct their business and let me conduct mine (as long as my business does not interfere with theirs). If I wish to follow suite, that's my choice and I will; if I don't, that is my choice, too. These people are not "judges," supervisors," or 'assessors" over me; they are only those who run the ship, because it's their job and because they have they skill to do so.
>>The senior crew had to make extremely unpalatable decisions about how to load the lifeboats, and effectively, who would live and who would die. That's the ugly reality.<<
I'm afraid not, at least not in the long run. In the end, it's the individuals' decision to live or die. That's what is called free will an the exercising of inner strength. Again, a good example is Gracie and others. I do not recognize any officer's "authority" or "decision" to dictate whether or not I should live or die. With all due respect, those officers' "decision" will go ignored by me; I (my inner spirit) will decide what's best for me.
>>Some of them lost their own lives in implementing the evacuation procedure.<<
And passengers are supposed to as well? *shakes head* It doesn't wash. My own protocol for survival and personal well being supercede those shallow, although well-meaning, rules and regulations. As said, my life is priority over them.
I guess that's one reason why I would never join the military (although a friend insisted it would be good for me and that I would like it): I am too independently minded!
>> Crews and passengers in the era we're talking about would disagree with you, at least regarding the Captain. The 'Old Man' was regarded as God!...More practically, he was the law aboard the ship. He had to act in accordance with shipping legislation, but away from land and other authorities, he was the ultimate authority.<<
Not my god, sorry to say. He/she may have a final say over how things are conducted aboard ship, but he/she does not have authority over me or my life. I will not worship him/her. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Inger, maybe you and I are referring to two difference things... I respect officers and crew and what they do, and I respect laws and will follow them (where laws do not interfere with the sustaining of my life or my personal principles), but they are what they are - sea servants! What I mean by that is they conduct a service of transporting people over water - that's it! The real God and I take over beyond that.
By the way, I do not mean to be crass, but I politely ask others to not argue/debate with me on this (i.e. Don't "correct" me). This is my personal opinion and belief, and this attitude will not change. Thanks. I am, however, always open to hearing what other's perspectives are on the issue, so please share.
Inger Sheil
Member
Hallo Mark -
Had everyone chose to act as the individuals you cited did (the exceptions to the enforced authority on the boat deck), then the results would have been catastrophic...as they were on ships such as La Bourgoyne.
That might be unpalatable, but unfortunately this was a brutal situation in which fatalities were going to be inevitable. It was the role of the officers to determine who entered those boats. There was no 'fair' way to do it that would satisfy everyone, but they picked a model and enforced it. It's not attractive, and I can understand why the individual in you baulks at the idea of handing your survival over to another party, but that is the reality of mass transport - even today.
What alternative do you suggest? That the passengers debate who got into the boats? That the strongest got in? The fittest? The men or women who wanted it 'more'? Whatever way you cut it, many were never going to be saved - the crew had the ugly responsibility of having to determine who they were.
I am saying precisely that...although the decision he took was not as random as this suggests. It was taken in order to achieve the best possible circumstances under which to launch a lifeboat (if, indeed, the incident occured). He was operating with authority delegated from the Captain in determining who entered the lifeboat. The very reason guns were issued to senior deck officers was to reinforce these orders if the need arose and if passengers decided that they would attempt to override orders. There is evidence that more than one point the officers were forced to fire those guns in order to reinforce their authority. From what we know of these incidents, I believe they were utterly justified.
Had everyone chose to act as the individuals you cited did (the exceptions to the enforced authority on the boat deck), then the results would have been catastrophic...as they were on ships such as La Bourgoyne.
That might be unpalatable, but unfortunately this was a brutal situation in which fatalities were going to be inevitable. It was the role of the officers to determine who entered those boats. There was no 'fair' way to do it that would satisfy everyone, but they picked a model and enforced it. It's not attractive, and I can understand why the individual in you baulks at the idea of handing your survival over to another party, but that is the reality of mass transport - even today.
You are approaching this as an individual, whereas they have to consider the wellbeing of the majority. It's one of the unpleasant facts of command. It's unpalatable, it's brutal, but it is the mathematics of accomplishing the greatest good.
What alternative do you suggest? That the passengers debate who got into the boats? That the strongest got in? The fittest? The men or women who wanted it 'more'? Whatever way you cut it, many were never going to be saved - the crew had the ugly responsibility of having to determine who they were.
Your needs - your personal protocol - do not (in my opinion) override the needs of the majority. Those rules and regulations - and responsibilities - are the very antithesis of 'shallow'. They are formulated with the idea of accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest number. Some of the men who enforced them - as I pointed out - sacrificed their lives in order to live up to that responsibility.
On board ship, in an emergency situation, he has the final say over how those boats are loaded and launched, according to evacuation procedure. Abandoning a sinking ship is not a democratic procedure.
Laws are not there to follow when convenient. These men were professionals with legal and moral responsibilities. When there are limited lifeboat places, the Captain has final say over whether you get in a boat - and, by extension, those to whom he delegates have that authority as well.
Sharing a countering view point, drawn from knowledge of maritime law and practice, is part of a 'debate'. That is precisely what I have done, and I make no apologies for doing so. My views on this subject are equally strong.
Mark Robert Hopkins
Member
>>Had everyone chose to act as the individuals you cited did (the exceptions to the enforced authority on the boat deck), then the results would have been catastrophic...as they were on ships such as La Bourgoyne.<<
No, you misunderstood what I said. What I meant was that I will not just stand there and say "okay, I'll give my life right now because the captain or the officer with the gun orders me to." You seem to think that acting as individuals equals chaos and fighting, etc. That's not what I said, nor is that what I meant at all. I'm not against following procedure, only having officers and/or crew claiming control over my life - there's a difference.
>>It's not attractive, and I can understand why the individual in you baulks at the idea of handing your survival over to another party, but that is the reality of mass transport - even today.<<
No, I don't balk at the idea - I dismiss it. My ultimate survival is mine to determine. Period. You continue to insist that, because of rules and regulations which I personally didn't help establish, I give up control of my life to a stranger. I understand that they have a responsibility, too, but so do I in an emergency situation. What would you suggest my responsibility be on a sinking ship with too few boats and I'm denied - to willingly give up my life instead trying something else? As said, Gracie made attempts, and he survived, despite his being denied a boat seat. The same, as mentioned, was for Woolner and Stevenson.
>>It's one of the unpleasant facts of command. It's unpalatable, it's brutal, but it is the mathematics of accomplishing the greatest good.<<
Yes, mathematical - not human. True, I don't claim to understand the role of a captain, simply because I've never been in that position, so please don't expect me to, but that doesn't mean that I don't realize that he has responsibilities, too. I just don't agree with all the protocols, and I'm not going to willingly die for those protocols.
>>Your needs - your personal protocol - do not (in my opinion) override the needs of the majority<<
No, no, you misunderstood me (I think). What I meant was my life is priority to the rules and regulations. I would never put my needs over the well being of others in an emergency situation. I would go out of my way to help others in need, then I would save myself, if possible. But that is my choice.
And, I presume that you're going to tell me that "the needs of the majority" are defined as "the majority giving up it's collective life in the name of those 'regulations'"? Maybe I am jumping to inaccurate implications. If so, my apologies.
I have no problem following regulations, as long as those rules and regulations do not prevent me from my right to choice or survival. That doesn't mean that I don't respect them or the officers. I won't purposely break those laws because they don't suit me, but I will not lay down my life because the captain or officers say I must. All I'm saying is that it's my choice. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that, Ing, but that's how it is for me.
>> What alternative do you suggest? That the passengers debate who got into the boats? That the strongest got in? The fittest? <<
This is beside the point. You're restricting yourself to the lifeboats. I have no dispute over this or the procedures which govern this. I am just saying that whether I live or die is my choice, not the captain's, not the officers'. People have a right to fight for survival. That doesn't mean they have to fight the crew, just fight for that which they have an inalienable right - to survive or die by their own choice.
>>On board ship, in an emergency situation, he has the final say over how those boats are loaded and launched, according to evacuation procedure. Abandoning a sinking ship is not a democratic procedure.<<
Let me say this one more time: I have the final say whether I live or die (under God), not the captain or officers. I would recognize them as authority of the ship, but not as my gods. It has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with free choice. If I'm denied a boat, I'll find another way off, but that's my choice.
>> These men were professionals with legal and moral responsibilities. When there are limited lifeboat places, the Captain has final say over whether you get in a boat - and, by extension, those to whom he delegates have that authority as well.<<
Good for them. In the meantime, I am in charge of myself, my life, and my destiny. That's my responsibility.
By the way, survival is not restricted to only loading the lifeboats, and I think that's what you think I'm implying. I'm not. If some officer points a gun at me, I'll find another way. Either way, I have a right to fight for my survival. Keep in mind that I may have a gun, too. If he has a right to shoot me to stop a rampage, then theoretically I have a right to shoot him to survive, if necessary (several passengers did have their own guns, so that wouldn't be so farfetched or original). I am not violent and I don't believe in killing, but nobody is going to stand in my way and tell me that I'm going to die simply because "he says so." I do not see a captain/officers as gods with the last word over my life and I never will.
>>Laws are not there to follow when convenient.<<
Now, I never said or implied that. I respect laws, and I will always follow them, but I am not going to willingly give up my life to maintain some regulation or because some officer says I have to, but that's me.
>>That is precisely what I have done, and I make no apologies for doing so.<<
Nor should you. I respect you, Inger. Always have. I always enjoy talking with you. I consider you a friend.
Make no apologies for giving your all. It's appreciated.
No, you misunderstood what I said. What I meant was that I will not just stand there and say "okay, I'll give my life right now because the captain or the officer with the gun orders me to." You seem to think that acting as individuals equals chaos and fighting, etc. That's not what I said, nor is that what I meant at all. I'm not against following procedure, only having officers and/or crew claiming control over my life - there's a difference.
>>It's not attractive, and I can understand why the individual in you baulks at the idea of handing your survival over to another party, but that is the reality of mass transport - even today.<<
No, I don't balk at the idea - I dismiss it. My ultimate survival is mine to determine. Period. You continue to insist that, because of rules and regulations which I personally didn't help establish, I give up control of my life to a stranger. I understand that they have a responsibility, too, but so do I in an emergency situation. What would you suggest my responsibility be on a sinking ship with too few boats and I'm denied - to willingly give up my life instead trying something else? As said, Gracie made attempts, and he survived, despite his being denied a boat seat. The same, as mentioned, was for Woolner and Stevenson.
>>It's one of the unpleasant facts of command. It's unpalatable, it's brutal, but it is the mathematics of accomplishing the greatest good.<<
Yes, mathematical - not human. True, I don't claim to understand the role of a captain, simply because I've never been in that position, so please don't expect me to, but that doesn't mean that I don't realize that he has responsibilities, too. I just don't agree with all the protocols, and I'm not going to willingly die for those protocols.
>>Your needs - your personal protocol - do not (in my opinion) override the needs of the majority<<
No, no, you misunderstood me (I think). What I meant was my life is priority to the rules and regulations. I would never put my needs over the well being of others in an emergency situation. I would go out of my way to help others in need, then I would save myself, if possible. But that is my choice.
And, I presume that you're going to tell me that "the needs of the majority" are defined as "the majority giving up it's collective life in the name of those 'regulations'"? Maybe I am jumping to inaccurate implications. If so, my apologies.
I have no problem following regulations, as long as those rules and regulations do not prevent me from my right to choice or survival. That doesn't mean that I don't respect them or the officers. I won't purposely break those laws because they don't suit me, but I will not lay down my life because the captain or officers say I must. All I'm saying is that it's my choice. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that, Ing, but that's how it is for me.
>> What alternative do you suggest? That the passengers debate who got into the boats? That the strongest got in? The fittest? <<
This is beside the point. You're restricting yourself to the lifeboats. I have no dispute over this or the procedures which govern this. I am just saying that whether I live or die is my choice, not the captain's, not the officers'. People have a right to fight for survival. That doesn't mean they have to fight the crew, just fight for that which they have an inalienable right - to survive or die by their own choice.
>>On board ship, in an emergency situation, he has the final say over how those boats are loaded and launched, according to evacuation procedure. Abandoning a sinking ship is not a democratic procedure.<<
Let me say this one more time: I have the final say whether I live or die (under God), not the captain or officers. I would recognize them as authority of the ship, but not as my gods. It has nothing to do with democracy, it has to do with free choice. If I'm denied a boat, I'll find another way off, but that's my choice.
>> These men were professionals with legal and moral responsibilities. When there are limited lifeboat places, the Captain has final say over whether you get in a boat - and, by extension, those to whom he delegates have that authority as well.<<
Good for them. In the meantime, I am in charge of myself, my life, and my destiny. That's my responsibility.
By the way, survival is not restricted to only loading the lifeboats, and I think that's what you think I'm implying. I'm not. If some officer points a gun at me, I'll find another way. Either way, I have a right to fight for my survival. Keep in mind that I may have a gun, too. If he has a right to shoot me to stop a rampage, then theoretically I have a right to shoot him to survive, if necessary (several passengers did have their own guns, so that wouldn't be so farfetched or original). I am not violent and I don't believe in killing, but nobody is going to stand in my way and tell me that I'm going to die simply because "he says so." I do not see a captain/officers as gods with the last word over my life and I never will.
>>Laws are not there to follow when convenient.<<
Now, I never said or implied that. I respect laws, and I will always follow them, but I am not going to willingly give up my life to maintain some regulation or because some officer says I have to, but that's me.
>>That is precisely what I have done, and I make no apologies for doing so.<<
Nor should you. I respect you, Inger. Always have. I always enjoy talking with you. I consider you a friend.
