Last Log of the Titanic

One point about the Scott expedition - that particular fiasco was not the domain of the upper class. Scott was not from the leisured class (and his father's one attempt to join it by selling up his business and live off the proceeds was a failure). Of the Polar Party that perished, only Captain Oates could really be said to be upper class. Scott was a career naval officer (and, yes, an amateur polar explorer). Neither by virtue of money or social status was he an aristocrat.

Five perished on the expedition to the South Pole, Jan - Evans, Oates, Bowers, Wilson and Scott (the last three together about 11 miles from One Ton depot).

All the best,

Inger
 
Just for the record, George Mallory was no amateur. In fact, he was - and is - considered to be one of the finest climbers of his time, and that isn't a backhanded compliment. Mallory went to Everest well-prepared (I think he was the first, or one of the first, climbers to use oxygen apparatuses). What probably did him in on June 8, 1924, was the hard fact that 1920s mountain climbing equipment technology just wasn't quite up to the challenge of Everest; the political situation in the area in which the only route on Everest open to foreign climbers was also one of the most difficult (it was only first successfully climbed in the 1970s, and that only with great difficulties), and added to that was plain bad luck.
 
Hello David.

I finally got my hands on "Last Log" on Boxing Day. I then earned the wrath of my long-suffering wife by hiding from her and my in-laws all day, whilst I read it. (And I finished it too!)

It really is a tremendous read. I have to read it again, slowly this time, because I hate to think what I missed in the first reading.

I have convinced Carol (my long-suffering wife mentioned above!) to read it as well. She'll only read a book if: (1) She feels she's learning something from it, and (2) It's written in a style which flows and makes reading fun. And your book gets a thumbs up from her on both points.

One question, which I think was raised some time ago (and was shot down, I think), but which is once again in my mind: It appears that Titanic must have been running almost parallel to the pack ice after the collision with the 'berg. Your book reminds us that there was ice all around the lifeboats when Carpathia arrived at dawn.

When it was apparent that Titanic was going to sink, how far away would the pack ice have been? What possibilities (if any) would have existed for the lifeboats to ferry passengers "ashore" to the ice to await rescue?

Regards,
Paul.
 
Paul --

Thanks for your kind words about my book. Please give your wife a fair chance at the text. I have it on the best authority that reading does not wear the print off the page.

My eyes aren't good enough to look back nearly a century with 100% precision. My "educated guess" is that Titanic was several hundred yards from the field ice. That estimate is based on the geometry needed to produce a "black mass" silhouette of the iceberg.

It is theoretically possible that passengers could have been put off on floating pieces of ice to await rescue. However, I do not believe that it was a practicable solution to the problem. First, they would have needed to find an iceberg with a landing spot suitable for unloading lifeboats. Icebergs seldom have small boat piers conveniently attached. Time is the big reason it was impracticable. There simply was not enough time to move 1,500 people from the ship to anywhere nearby -- ship, iceberg, or what-have-you.

Inger --

My mention of Scott's unfortunate demise was to illustrate an attitude or an way of approaching life. I was forced to use a quick allusion as my book was about Titanic and not Antarctic exploration. However, Amundsen was successful because he humbled himself and went to the "lower class" Inuit to find out how to live in arctic climates. Scott failed largely because he believed in the surperiority of the 1912 self-appointed world "upper class" -- white Europeans.

Scott -- Titanic -- World War I -- Europeans paid a heavy price to move into the modern world. But, we cannot make light of the way in which they viewed their world. Those of us struggling through the end of the year 2000 are making equally large mistakes. All we can hope is that they are not the same mistakes.

Gary--

I'm not sure of your point. I have always contended that Fleet and Lee did about as well as human beings can be expected to do under the circumstances. The problem with lookout on Titanic was not the performance of the men in the crow's nest, it was the lack of extra "eyes" to help. That was not a failure of Fleet or Lee, but ultimately of Captain Smith.

Also, do we know for sure that Fleet committed suicide only because of Titanic?

-- David G. Brown
 
I just finished reading David Brown's "Last Log of the Titanic." One of the better books I have read on Titanic, loaded with interesting theories. But I have to take serious exception to Brown's belief that Murdoch was negligent as senior officer of the watch.

On page 52, Brown writes that Murdoch was:
Quote:

unable to provide effective service as a lookout.
Click to expand...
​
and,
Quote:

his other duties of officer of the watch prevented him from giving his undivided attention to looking ahead.
Click to expand...
​


Presumably, this is because Murdoch was too busy dodging icebergs. While it is very likely that Titanic passed a small number of icebergs before the fatal impact, it is very unlikely that she would have passed enough icebergs to interfere with Murdoch's ability to act as watchkeeper. Otherwise, he simply would have slowed down or at least alerted Captain Smith.

I also firmly believe that Murdoch would not have failed to discover anything in the path of his vessel until something was reported by the lookouts. Particularly considering the fact that Titanic was steaming in an area known to have icebergs. It was well known in 1912 that the senior officer of the watch did not depend on his lookouts. It was also well known that watch officers routinely spotted icebergs well before the lookouts. Diana Bristow brings up this point extremely well in her book, "Titanic: Sinking the Myths." On page 59, she writes:

Quote:

The truth is that while no responsible watch officer would ignore his lookouts, neither would he depend upon lookouts to tell him what lay ahead of his ship. I cannot repeat often enough that in 1912 a watch officer, quite simply, kept watch. He took up his station on the weather wing of the bridge and he stayed outside during his entire four hour watch. This was the reason that bridges were designed with the open walkway running athwartships forward of the wheelhouse.
Click to expand...
​


Lightoller's evidence at the U.S. Inquiry also supports the fact that watch officers do not rely on their lookouts. Lightoller's response to Senator Bourne was:

Quote:

We place no reliance on them.
Click to expand...
​


In response to further questioning on this subject, Lightoller added:

Quote:

Because, speaking personally, I never rely on any lookout. I keep a lookout myself, and so does every other officer.
Click to expand...
​


Again, referring to Bristow:

Quote:

It takes only a moment of thought to understand that relying upon lookouts literally puts the vessel into the hands of seamen, not officers, and that in itself should be enought to convince anybody that officers keep their own watch.
Click to expand...
​


I have no doubt that Smith should have posted additional lookouts, including assigning lookout duties to one of the junior officers. But to state that Murdoch failed in his duty to act as senior officer of the watch is going a little too far and Brown's belief in this failure, clouds an otherwise great book.

Earl Chapman
Montreal, Canada
 
Earl, check court decisions in Admiralty Law and most textbooks on the Rules of the Road. It is accepted that the senior watch officer has "other duties" which take his attention away from being a lookout. A "lookout" is defined as a member of the crew specially trained in looking out and who is specifically assigned that task (which includes listening) and who has no other duties which might interfere with this responsibility. Thus, Murdoch could not be considered as a lookout.

No one who has ever stood watch as either a captain or senior officer has ever quite trusted his lookouts to do their job. That's why most captains spend their time in the best position to keep watch over things. But, being a vigilant senior officer is not the same thing as being a lookout. The job descriptions are different and they are performed by different people. Consider that when Lightoller turned his attention to preventing the water system and steam winches from freezing, his attention was diverted to some extent from looking out.

Since writing the book I have begun considering the possibility that Murdoch may have perceived the iceberg as a danger prior to the 11:40 pm alarm from the lookouts. His location on the bridge was lower than the crow's nest, hence gave better him sight lines for seeing icebergs.

We do not know if Murdoch ever asked the captain's permission to slow down, or to call additional lookouts. All we know for certain is that neither action was taken.

A final personal opinion--Captain Smith was wrong in not posting additional lookouts. However, the facts do not support the conclusion that additional eyes would automatically have prevented the accident. It does appear the lookouts gave adequate warning of the deadly iceberg, perhaps eight to ten minutes. What went wrong was the perception of what they saw. Nobody recognized the dark spot in the haze for what it was until the ship was almost on top of the berg.

Finally, thanks for buying and reading my book. And, my deepest gratitude for taking the time to write such a cogent criticism.

-- David G. Brown
 
David - I agree that Murdoch was not a "lookout," as the term "lookout" is properly defined. But we both seem to agree that Murdoch was indeed acting as his own lookout and not relying on Fleet and Lee to give advance warning of anything in Titanic's path. But unfortunatley, your book seems to give this impression. Relying on two able seamen as primary lookout flies in the face of experienced officers (like Lightoller) who never relied on lookouts, rather electing to keep their own lookout.

If Murdoch was busy dodging ice, I'm sure his helm orders would have been given verbally. There does not appear to be any good reason why he would have to turn away or to be otherwise distracted from acting as his own lookout.

Once again, David, your book is well-researched and loaded with very interesting theories and observations, and an extremely good read, one I will certainly read again in more detail in the very near future. It will certainly hold a place in my top 5 Titanic books.

Best regards,
Earl Chapman
Montreal, Canada
 
Saturday, November 3, 2001 I will be appearing at the Buckey Book Fair in Wooster, Ohio. This book fair will be held in Fisher Auditorium on the campus of the Ohio State University Research Center in Wooster, Ohio (NOT Columbus). The address is 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster (Madison is Route 83). I will be selling copies of "Last Log Of the Titanic" and autographing them. I'll also sign copies for people who already own one. Looking forwrd to seeing anyone from the Cleveland, Ohio area.

-- David G. Brown
 
On February 12, 2002 I will be enjoying the Savannah riverfront and the Museum of Ships and the Sea.

On February 14 and 15, I will be attending the Miami Boat Show on Miami Beach.

If anyone living near either of these locations has a copy of my book and would like me to sign it, please contact me via e-mail prior to noon on Saturday, February 9 to make arrangements.

-- David G. Brown
 
This book is climbing the charts as one of my all time favorite Titanic books! We have annual book fairs in West Palm Beach and perhaps your publisher could bring you down here to the Treasure Coast where you could bask in the city that was home to several Titanic survivors. I'll be happy to give you the grand tour.

All the best,
Kyrila
 
Greetings all,
Long time no see,
I live in Canada and have had devil of a time getting this book, (one book store clerk I was talking to actually had to ask me what the Titanic was...but I digress) if anyone can tell me where in Canada (Alberta Canada to be more precise) I can get the book PLEASE PLEASE tell me.
 
Sarah -- I will forward your request to the publisher. Due to Canadian tax and "content" laws, the distribution of U.S. books in Canada cannot be understood by normal invididuals. Only a few trolls hidden under a government office building in Ottawa somewhere understand the deal.

In the meantime..I sugguest you contact The Nautical Mind bookstore in Toronto. This is probably..no absolutely..the best nautical bookstore on the North American continent. They have a web site and a phone number, but I have lost their catalog, so can't give them to you. I am sure they will forward a book anywhere in Canada.

-- David G. Brown
 
David.
Thanks you're a dear! And Michael, thank you for saving me the trouble of searching for it, it's an awesome site, methinks I'm gonna have to have my credit card balance raised in order to fulfill my every 'nautical need'
 

Similar threads

J
New Titanic book
Replies
7
Views
2K
Phillip Gowan
Phillip Gowan
Back
Top