Lightoller at the helm

[Jim Currie]

I take it yur ship-handling lessons are for the benefit of non-seafaring members. Because as you know, your dissertation concerning the operation of a ship's propelles ar common knowledge to a 4th year Cadet.

Nobody needs to "tell me" Georges... it's common sense coupled with reading the evidence and understanding it.

The iceberg is reported "ahead" by the striking of three bell.. But the Lookout did not leave it at that, he immediately followed that up with a phone warning. As he said:
I reported an iceberg right ahead, a black mass. I struck three bells first. Then I went straight to the telephone and rang them up on the bridge. All we have to do up in the nest; to ring the bell, and if there is any danger ring them up on the telephone. .. Well, it was so close to us. That is why I rang them up.

Murdoch sees the following ahead of the ship:

AB Scarrott described it as :
" I should say about as high as the boat deck; it appeared to be that from the position of it." ...
He was looking aft along the starboard side and to him it looked like
"As you approach Gibraltar - it seemed that shape. The highest point would be on my right, "

Now imagine the above rights ahead, but with the high point to your left . Then apply to it what you know about icebergs.
What side would you pass it on?
Thereafter, what would you do if you knew a collision was inevitable?
Keep in mind that Murdoch gave his first engine order simultaneously or almost so with his helm order. What do you think he knew at that moment?

Incidentally, Titanic did not have a steering bias, she handled very well.. about a degree each side in calm weather.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I suggest everyone places themselves in Murdoch's shoes .

When the three bells went, Murdoch, like any other bridge officer, would look ahead...see nothing or a vague shape and raise his binoculars. He must have seen the dark form of the berg. IF the berg was as AB Scarrot described it....a high side to the left tapering down to the right and the left side of the High side was sheer, then the Murdoch or any other officer would automatically head for the open water to the left....hence the helm order.

I agree with this. I don't think any other officer would have done things better than Murdoch. There must have been a reason why he decided to hard-a-starboard ie turn the bow to port rather than the other way around and that could have been because he got the impression that there was more clear water on the port side of the ship in relation to the berg.

But I do believe that Murdoch was trying to 'port around' the iceberg and came close to pulling it off. Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough time.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Arun hope you are well.

I think we all agree that Murdoch and his colleagues were la creme de la creme of their profession. Consequently, the former would know that to perform such an avoiding tactic, he would need full power and maximum steering capability to pull it off. However he stopped both engines at the time he gave that helm order...why?

I suggest to you and others think about the following:

Murdoch knew the ship was very close to danger and close to an underwater obstruction on her starboard side. He knew that a hard left turn wold cause the stern to swing toward that danger. Consequently, the obvious action would be to stop the propeller nearest to it.
However, by stopping the starboard propeller, this would mean that his efforts to turn left would be lessened due to the thrust of the port propeller pushing the bow back toward the danger. Consequently, he had to stop both propellers. This meant that from the moment the stop order was received in the boiler rooms, pressure for driving the main engines would start to drop rapidly as they used it up. Shortly after that, the engineers would shut the engines down.
My point is that Murdoch like 99% of competent bridge officers would know all of this beforehand,. Consequently why would he attempt that which he knew was most unlikely to work?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

But I do believe that Murdoch was trying to 'port around' the iceberg and came close to pulling it off. Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough time.

I think Murdoch realized that he was too close to port around the berg even if his first thoughts were to attempt doing so. You don't stop the engines if you want to port around. I think he realized he was going to hit and was not going to risk hitting it head on. I furthermore believe the shift in the helm was NOT part of any avoidance maneuver. It happened after the ship struck the berg in an attempt to pull thestern away from the berg to mitigate further damage.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Sam. Hope you are OK.

I totally agree with you up to a point. However, if the shift in the helm was meant to do as you say, then Murdoch would have to have applied in good time to be effective. He would be very aware of that too.

We know from QM Olliver and the limit of the damage to the ship side, that contact with the berg was broken just aft of the bridge in way of the forward end of boiler room 5 Murdoch would also be aware of that.
We also know that about 12 to 15 seconds after that, the berg passed QM Rowe at the stern. That would be almost as long as it took to put the helm from hard over to the left to hard over to the right. Murdoch would also know that...better than you or me.

Murdoch also knew the possible consequences of aggravated damage...i.e. .. continuing at speed while the hull might be open to the sea. Consequently, he would, as any prudent officer have done... stop the ship as soon as she was clear of danger and carry out a damage assessment. I know there are examples of ships running ahead (and astern) while holed. But you can be sure that beforehand, an assessment was made of the consequences of doing so. re

My point here is that we both agree that Murdoch was a very competent officer. As such, he was perfectly aware of futility of a second helm order, so why was it given?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Murdoch was a very competent officer. As such, he was perfectly aware of futility of a second helm order, so why was it given?

I am not qualified like either of you but might it have been to try an attempt to reduce potential damage to the stern?

 

[Steven Christian]

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 !)

https://www.shantychor.de/songs/herr_der_heringe/ThelastShanty.pdf

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.

I just read an article by him where he says that the reason the rockets looked low on the horizon was because once they got to the thermal inversion the rockets disappeared so it looked like they were only going up a short distance or were further away. I couldn't find any evidence that's true with rockets and inversions. But that doesn't mean its not true. I just couldn't find it. I think he first covered the theory in a "A Very Deceiving Night".

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Steven.

Think about this... If thermal inversion cause the rockets to disappear at a point lower than the masthead light of the vessel firing them then why was Stone still able to still see the masthead light? Surely it too would have been invisible due to the same cause?

 

[Jim Currie]

I am not qualified like either of you but might it have been to try an attempt to reduce potential damage to the stern?

Hello Arun.
As I suggested, lets try and think this through from Murdochs' point of view without any speculation and according to all the available evidence.

The situation according to the evidence was that Murdoch sees the berg, realises it is very close and attempts to avoid it by turning left. However, the berg is too close and he anticipates a colission. He has two immediate concerns in the event of collision..
A: flooding of the hull compartments
B: damage to his starboard propeller and rudder.

Keep in mind that at that time, the foregoing concerns are simply that...concerns. They do not become problems until the moment of impact.

At the moment of impact, Murdoch closes the WT doors and stops the engines, Thus, he has put into action measures which might help to reduce the effect of the collision. All the while, the rudder is hard over to the left.
We do not have evidence to show that Murdoch looked aft to determine the path of the berg relative to the ship's side. However, if QM Olliver saw the berg just aft of the bridge, it was clear of the side, and the sound of contact had ended...and...shortly after that, He saw Murdoch by the WT door lever, then we can be sure that Murdoch did not know if the the ship's side was closing with the berg. However, even at that time, the helm was still hard over in a left turn.
My point is that Murdoch the true expert, knew exactly how long a reverse helm order would take to apply and how long it would be before the left hand swing of the bow was checked and it began to swing in the opposite direction. It follows that a right hand helm order was not given as part of the berg. I ask again...what does anyone think that second helm order was given for?
I would also like to know why the following exchange between helmsman QM Hichens and Mr. L. S. Holmes, acting
behalf of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, is being dismissed out of hand:
"1314. You were given the order to hard-a-starboard? A: - Yes.
1315. Was that the only order you had as to the helm? A: - Yes."

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Hello Sam. Hope you are OK.

Still alive here thanks to the governor of the state of IL who followed guidelines from the experts as to how to open things up, unlike some other parts of the country where they acted like it was all a hoax.

As to the why Murdoch gave a second helm order, I do believe it was concern over keeping the helm hard-astarboard before the berg would pass clear of the stern. I'm aware of Olliver's choice of words, but he too admitted that he did not follow the berg after it passed aft of the bridge, only that he saw the peak of it at the time it passed the bridge. He also heard Moody confirm that the helm was hard-aport. Surely, that happened when the berg was well aft of the bridge, possibly 350 ft or thereabouts. (I'm assuming about 29 ft/s speed - down from 38 ft/s - due to increased hydrodynamic resistance during a turn.) Anyway, would he not have thought that leaving the helm hard-astarboard (left full rudder) might have left the stern in danger of striking the berg? This is all happening over a period of just a few seconds.

As far as Hichen's testimony of there being only one helm order given, I believe he was only speaking about the time prior to the vessel striking the berg, not after.

My point here is that we both agree that Murdoch was a very competent officer.

Yes, I do agree.

 

[Julian Atkins]

All Jim is once again attempting to do, and completely 'off topic', is to attempt to debunk the now widely held view that Titanic headed up heading Northwards after the collision and it had ceased to move under it's own steam anymore.

We have been over the Hichens evidence time and time again - and always very interesting for it, and I don't particularly want to re-open all this again, as completely 'off topic'.

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Steven Christian]

Hello Steven.

Think about this... If thermal inversion cause the rockets to disappear at a point lower than the masthead light of the vessel firing them then why was Stone still able to still see the masthead light? Surely it too would have been invisible due to the same cause?

Your point seems logical. Thats his theory. I couldn't find any proof to back his theory up. But I'n done with this thread. I can see where its going to go. Have fun and stay safe all.

 

[Julian Atkins]

Hello Steven.

Think about this... If thermal inversion cause the rockets to disappear at a point lower than the masthead light of the vessel firing them then why was Stone still able to still see the masthead light? Surely it too would have been invisible due to the same cause?

Hi Jim,

This would have been copied to another thread, now regrettably, locked. So I won't comment further except to suggest a 'faux pas'? And to like Sam's 'like'!

Cheers,

Julian

 

[Jim Currie]

All Jim is once again attempting to do, and completely 'off topic', is to attempt to debunk the now widely held view that Titanic headed up heading Northwards after the collision and it had ceased to move under it's own steam anymore.

We have been over the Hichens evidence time and time again - and always very interesting for it, and I don't particularly want to re-open all this again, as completely 'off topic'.

Cheers,

Julian

No it is not off topic, Julian.

I remind you that it was your post #4 of this thread that brought Hichens , Murdoch and the Californian onto the scene.

Sam and I are having debate about a subject which requires resolution. You are perfectly welcome to help resolve it or of you prefer not to, that is your privilege.

However, as a legal person, you, more than the rest of us knows about the concept of " Beyond reasonable doubt"...."that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts ..
I suggest to you that when a participant in any of these discussions offers a theory , idea or guess about a particular action taken, then reasonable doubt remains.

Why do some of you have to get so personal?
Perhaps this is a tactic to silence dissention by giving the Moderators no alternative but to enforce the rules of posting and to shut the discussion down?

 

[Arun Vajpey]

Why do some of you have to get so personal?
Perhaps this is a tactic to silence dissention by giving the Moderators no alternative but to enforce the rules of posting and to shut the discussion down?

I don't believe any of us want to get personal Jim, but admit that some of us have been guilty of that (including me). The reason is that you do have a tendency to go off at a tangent after starting well on a topic. Nobody is questioning your vast marine experience or the right to put forward your opinions but this tendency to drift into irrelevance after a while (if a few of us question your opinions) persists. Please don't ask me to give examples because they are scattered throughout several long threads, notably the currently closed one about Stanley Lord's 'guilt' etc.