Lightoller on the bridge instead

[Brigitta Lienhard]

If the deck officers had not been changed at Southampton, Lightoller would have been on the bridge at the time prior to the collision. Would he have been more vigilant that evening?

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Reference:If the deck officers had not been changed at Southampton, Lightoller would have been on the bridge at the time prior to the collision. Would he have been more vigilant that evening?

According to his evidence, YES.
14338. Tell me what? - I took the precaution, as I think I mentioned in my evidence, of taking up
a position on the bridge in which everything ahead was clearly in view and maintaining that
position for the remainder of the watch.

14340. And you think you would have seen an iceberg before the man in the crow's-nest? - I do
not know whether I should have seen it before them or not; I should have seen it in sufficient time
to clear it quite sufficient.

Kind regards,
Collins

 

[Brigitta Lienhard]

Thank you that information.
Interestingly, at what point did the crowsnest binoculars go missing - Southampton. Were the binoculars on the bridge used by any of the officers on the night leading up the collision?
So the chain of critical decisions starts at Southampton and compound on from there.
Fire in one of the coal bunkers - the reshuffle of the deck officers - the missing binoculars - the near collision with the New York, all before it left Southampton waters.
I wonder what Andrews thought of the bunker fire.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Actually, to anyone with lookout experience, the binocular thing is a red herring. I've stood enough of them to know. The problem with binoculars is that they severely restrict your field of vision just when you need it most. My training, and my experience to back it up is that one is better served scanning with the naked eye and then using the binoculars to identify a target once you have one in sight.

Regarding the bunker fire, it wasn't quite the big deal that it's sometimes made out to be. Click on Cal Haines excellant Coal Bunker Fire article for more on that.

 

[Ryan Patrick Thiessen]

The missing binoc's are pointless to the entire collision and sinking as Mr. Standart has pointed out. (again and again! Thanks for being understanding though Mike! =)..) And to further steal his thunder, think about this. If the Coal Bunker fire had been a big deal, don't you think that there were enough competant Seamen on board (as well as the builder and president of the line) that they would have postponed the sailing or turned the ship around?? I am quite sure that they would have. A fire on a ship is the absolute last thing ANY sailor wants. Exception is Flooding. Ask anyone who has been to sea for any period of time (as I have) and they will tell you the same thing. They will confirm Mike's synopsis of Binocular scanning as well. Cheers!
Ryan

 

[Michael H. Standart]

In some respects, fire is often regarded as far more serious then flooding to a sailor, if only because it can spread a lot faster. Sometimes, the real trick can be finding it befor it has a chance to do some real damage.

I still remember the fire we had on the Ranger back in '81 when an arsonist torched the wardroom on the 03 level. The first clue anybody had that something was going on was when smoke wafted out of the vents in combat information central which was located about 400 feet aft of the wardroom.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

<font color="#000066">I still remember the fire we had on the Ranger back in '81 when an arsonist torched the wardroom on the 03 level. The first clue anybody had that something was going on was when smoke wafted out of the vents in combat information central which was located about 400 feet aft of the wardroom.

What? I don't remember anything about this. The only fire I remember aboard Ranger in 1981 was the MM#4 fire.

Parks

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Mmmmmm...that was '83 Parks. Novemeber the first under Captain Fredrikson in the North Arabian Sea. The wardroom fire I mentioned happened when Dan Pederson was the C.O. during the SRA. You should have seen the bulge the heat created in the flight deck.

Too bad nobody ever caught the arsonist. I would have enjoyed giving him an "attitude adjustement." In one of my storerooms!

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Yea, you're right about the year. I was on Connie in '81, Ranger in '83. Funny how memory runs things together years after the fact.

You were a Storekeeper P.O., weren't you? It must have been a personal affront to have someone torch one of the wardrooms. You guys probably had to clean up the mess afterward.

Parks

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Actually, I'm a Ships Serviceman. All I lost was a couple of my vending machines. A pain in the biblical beast of burden, but they were replacable. The wardroom was completely gutted out so it was far more then the MS's could deal with. The place had to be completely refurbished, and at that after an exensive rehab.

You might remember the place too. It was the one on the 0-3 level that the squadrons used.

I have a problem with arsonists as a matter of general principle. My dad, brother-in-law, and grandfather were all firefighters and we both know how much sailors "love" shipboard fires.

 

[Eric Sauder]

Okay. I'll bite. What's the difference between a Storekeeper P.O. and a Ship's Serviceman?

Eric Sauder

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Michael,

Sorry...didn't intend insult. I wasn't exactly sure of your rate, all that I remembered was that you were in Supply. I did know that you weren't a mere Mess Specialist. One of these days, I'm going to have to undertake an excavation in my garage so that I can uncover the cruise box in which all my cruisebooks are stored, so that I can see what you looked like back then. I know you've already dug out my picture, moustache and all.

I well remember the space...now I know why it looked relatively new. Eating in the "dirty shirt" wardroom was much preferable to eating in the regular wardroom because it was much more informal and they served "sliders" during MIDRATS.

Parks

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Eric, a Storekeeper is one who deals with general supplies such as spare parts, certain consumables etc. (Aviation storekeepers do the same only in regards to aviation related equipment and supplies.) Ships Servicemen are responsible for the resale activities aboard ship as well as the laundry, dry cleaning, barbershop, and tailor shop. If I were a specialist on the Titanic, I would be a part of the Victualling department. In the Navy however, these ratings are under deck seamanship. I was expected to know the fundementals of that just to make seaman. (E-3)

Parks, no insult taken. You'll find my mugshot photo under S-3 Division. I don't look a lot like that now. I haven't cut my hair since 1999 and wear it in a loose ponytail these days. Go HERE if you want to see what I look like today. (Be afraid...be very afraid!)

We may in fact have met since by that westpac, I was running the geedunk on the 0-3 level about midway through the deployment. I was the guy who carried that huge flashlight. It came in pretty handy a lot more often then I care to think about. The power had a habit of failing at the damnedest times.

Agreed on that wardroom. It was nice even after the first rehab and just as nice after rehab part duex. At least until the catapults went slamming into the waterbreaks!

Not so sure about the sliders being much of a virtue though. I heard some wild rumour that once, the burgers were replaced by hockey pucks and the diners thought it was an improvement!

 

[Eric Sauder]

Thanks, Michael.

Eric

 

[Michael H. Standart]

No problem Eric. If you ever have an opportunity to put to sea on an aircraft carrier...take it! Especially if they're going to be conducting flight operations. It's an awe inspiring and unforgettable experience!