Lookout eye test

[Richard C Elliott]

My guess would that the individuals involved in the American inquiry would have wanted to rule out a visual deficiency as a possible reason why the iceberg was spotted so late (too late).

That assumes it was the inquiry that ordered the tests, which we don’t know. I wish you good luck in your effort to track them down.

Apologies for diverting your thread but the main reason I consider the lookouts’ eye test results unimportant is that in the event the iceberg was spotted at about the shortest distance it actually could have been spotted, so the lookouts’ vision was clearly up to the task. Of course that was not the general belief at the time so an accident inquiry would have been justified in raising the question. It would be interesting to see the records though I very much doubt that they will still exist.

 

[Julian Atkins]

@Richard Zegers
Thank you for the quote of Fleet. I will have to check that. Just as a matter of course.

Why Lee didn’t attend the USA Inquiry is quite another matter that Fleet himself alluded to.

Some don’t like my earlier posts relating to Lee on other threads.

(And I won’t repeat them again here).

I find it a bit odd tonight that Fleet would have undergone a new eyesight test - and probably that was at the request of the USA Inquiry? It just doesn’t fit in with my understanding. For example, what of Boxhall having to undergo an eyesight test? Or even an independent assessment as to his health? Or Bride being wheeled in dramatically in a wheelchair/bathchair to the USA Inquiry? And his health status being independently assessed by the USA Inquiry?

Why did Senator Smith not refer to Fleet having undergone a recent eyesight?

Sorry, it all sounds a bit odd to me.

The only record we have of an actual eyesight test is in the Treasury Files online that I have referred to.

Cheers,
Julian

 

[Richard Z]

That assumes it was the inquiry that ordered the tests, which we don’t know. I wish you good luck in your effort to track them down.

Apologies for diverting your thread but the main reason I consider the lookouts’ eye test results unimportant is that in the event the iceberg was spotted at about the shortest distance it actually could have been spotted, so the lookouts’ vision was clearly up to the task. Of course that was not the general belief at the time so an accident inquiry would have been justified in raising the question. It would be interesting to see the records though I very much doubt that they will still exist.

We don’t know who ordered the test, but it seems logical that it was initiated by those involved in the inquiry. Anyhow, the eye test itself is of more importance to me than the one who ordered it.
Thank you for your kind wishes; if I succeed, I will certainly let you know.

No apologies needed. I completely agree that Fleet and Lee—or at least Fleet—most likely had normal visual function. If an eye test was indeed conducted, I am convinced it must still exist somewhere, as most Titanic-related materials were likely considered too important to simply discard.

 

[Richard Z]

@Richard Zegers
Thank you for the quote of Fleet. I will have to check that. Just as a matter of course.

Why Lee didn’t attend the USA Inquiry is quite another matter that Fleet himself alluded to.

Some don’t like my earlier posts relating to Lee on other threads.

(And I won’t repeat them again here).

I find it a bit odd tonight that Fleet would have undergone a new eyesight test - and probably that was at the request of the USA Inquiry? It just doesn’t fit in with my understanding. For example, what of Boxhall having to undergo an eyesight test? Or even an independent assessment as to his health? Or Bride being wheeled in dramatically in a wheelchair/bathchair to the USA Inquiry? And his health status being independently assessed by the USA Inquiry?

Why did Senator Smith not refer to Fleet having undergone a recent eyesight?

Sorry, it all sounds a bit odd to me.

The only record we have of an actual eyesight test is in the Treasury Files online that I have referred to.

Cheers,
Julian

Hello Julian,

In my opinion, it would make perfect sense to test the eyesight of the lookout(s), as their sole responsibility was to be on the lookout. To verify whether they were properly equipped for this task, it would be essential to examine their most important tool: their eyes.

Boxhall had numerous duties and was in the officers' quarters when the iceberg was spotted, so his eyesight was less critical to the reconstruction of events leading up to the disaster. Bride's tasks were even further removed from those of a lookout.
Moreover, we simply do not know if their eyesight was tested, just as we don’t know if it wasn’t (though I would guess it was not).

Why the eye tests were not mentioned during the American inquiry, I cannot say. Similarly, I do not know why the doubts concerning pre-disaster vision tests for Fleet and Lee were not addressed in the official documentation of the British inquiry.

Nevertheless, if one or more eye tests were conducted, I am confident that they must still exist—provided they were not destroyed during the war or lost for some other reason, such as a fire.

Best,
Richard

 

[Arun Vajpey]

In my opinion, it would make perfect sense to test the eyesight of the lookout(s), as their sole responsibility was to be on the lookout. To verify whether they were properly equipped for this task, it would be essential to examine their most important tool: their eyes. I do not know why the doubts concerning pre-disaster vision tests for Fleet and Lee were not addressed in the official documentation of the British inquiry.

While it makes sense to test the eyesight of professional lookouts, what matters is the sort of tests that were done and what the results were. Fleet was not even 25 years old when he sailed on the Titanic and as far as is known, had "normal" vision at the time. If he had any significant visual defect, he would not have qualified to be a lookout. A young man his age with apparently normal eyesight can function normally and does not need to get his eyes tested regularly unless he had symptoms, which Fleet did not; so what "doubts" concerning vision are you talking about? Just because Fleet had not had an eye test in 3 years did not mean that he had developed an eye defect in the interim.

Let us assume that Fleet had a slight refractory error that affected his acuity; he would have needed glasses to read or whilst doing fine-point needlework but not to spot an object in the distance while on duty in the crow's nest. At night, his ability to see in low light and acclimatize for night vision would have been important and not a slight acuity issue (which he almost certainly did not have). As I mentioned, a person with perfect 20/20 Visual Acuity as per conventional tests can theoretically have mild Nyctalopia ('Night blindness') and so be unsuitable to work as a lookout. While significant to severe myopia can affect night vision, it would have been quite obvious and the patient would never have been allowed to work as a lookout.

So, while it is important to make sure that professional lookouts had normal vision through regular tests, there is no evidence that either Fleet or Lee had any related problem and so their ability to see was not a factor that the iceberg was seen too late. The darkness was the main problem but it is just possible that the lookouts' vision was slighly hampered by the 22-knot cold wind blowing in their faces as the Titanic sped through the night. That would have caused a thin film of surface tears to build-up and might have affected their ability to see ahead. But that's only a theory and in any case, irrelevant to testing eyesight.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

If an eye test was indeed conducted, I am convinced it must still exist somewhere, as most Titanic-related materials were likely considered too important to simply discard.

I am afraid I don't share your confidence. What avenues have you explored so far?

Fleet said the test was conducted at the Washington marine hospital so that would seem an obvious starting point. Do you know the history of the US Marine Hospital Service? If not I suggest you start at Marine Hospital Service - Wikipedia. Now notice that sometime in 1912 the Marine Hospital Service was absorbed into the new US Public Health Service and its original functions were just a minor component of the responsibilities of the new government organisation. In my experience a great many 'minor' records are usually lost in such a transition, which does not augur well for your search.

The other obvious avenue is of course the records of the US inquiry, assuming that they ordered the test. I suspect that all remaining records from that have been found and picked over very thoroughly by many researchers so I wouldn't hold out much hope on that score either.

I don't agree that Titanic-related material would have been considered "too important to simply discard" in the early years following the accident. Once the inquiries and subsequent legal proceedings were over it wouldn't have been thought likely that the material would be needed further, and in any case a World War soon overshadowed any remaining interest in a civilian shipping accident. It would be many decades before anyone took an interest in re-examining apparently trivial details related to the Titanic accident.

 

[Richard Z]

While it makes sense to test the eyesight of professional lookouts, what matters is the sort of tests that were done and what the results were.

I could not agree more! That is precisely why I want to examine any eye tests, if they were conducted after the disaster, so I can assess for myself what was examined (and what was not). This way, I (and others) do not have to speculate about the results.

... so what "doubts" concerning vision are you talking about?

Actually, it is not I who raised these "doubts." It was the Board of Trade that expressed suspicion about the sight tests conducted on Fleet and Lee (Who looked out for the Lookouts).

Let us assume that Fleet had a slight refractory error that affected his acuity...

Although I find your assumptions most interesting and certainly have my own opinion on the matter, I would like to reiterate and emphasize once more that my current focus is on tracing any eye tests, if ever conducted, for Fleet and/or Lee, whether in the United States or Britain. If you have any clue as to where such records might possibly be found, I would be most grateful.

 

[Richard Z]

I am afraid I don't share your confidence. What avenues have you explored so far?

Fleet said the test was conducted at the Washington marine hospital so that would seem an obvious starting point..
The other obvious avenue is of course the records of the US inquiry, assuming that they ordered the test.

As mentioned at the beginning of this thread, I have already inquired at several American and British archives. Obviously, this includes the Marine Hospital archives and inquiry documents. Even if the people involved in the American inquiry were not the ones who ordered the tests, I am confident they would have shown interest in any eyesight tests conducted for the lookouts.

I don't agree that Titanic-related material would have been considered "too important to simply discard" in the early years following the accident. Once the inquiries and subsequent legal proceedings were over it wouldn't have been thought likely that the material would be needed further, and in any case a World War soon overshadowed any remaining interest in a civilian shipping accident. It would be many decades before anyone took an interest in re-examining apparently trivial details related to the Titanic accident.

Maybe you are right, but nevertheless, I think that the argument you present applies more to the British situation than the American one, as the Tommies were geographically much more involved in the war than the Yanks. Even in the UK, which was bombed by the enemy many times—unlike the US—apparently more or less trivial documents pertaining to the Titanic have been preserved (Who looked out for the Lookouts).

Furthermore, I would like to start my search by assuming that the eye tests can be reproduced, rather than the opposite. This is precisely why I decided to post my thread here—because this is where people can be found who are willing to think outside the box and explore a few steps further than many others with only average interest in the subject. If you have any additional clues about the possible whereabouts of the eye tests, I would be genuinely grateful to learn about them!

 

[Dave Gittins]

Tucked away on a CD that is problematic to run on Windows 10, I have a Board of Trade record that shows that the eye test before 1912 was very crude and could be passed with half normal vision, using both eyes. In other words, today you wouldn't get a driving licence with such vision. After a retinal detachment and three operation, I can do much better myself. About all we can say is that Fred wasn't blind!

 

[Richard Z]

Tucked away on a CD that is problematic to run on Windows 10, I have a Board of Trade record that shows that the eye test before 1912 was very crude and could be passed with half normal vision, using both eyes. In other words, today you wouldn't get a driving licence with such vision. After a retinal detachment and three operation, I can do much better myself. About all we can say is that Fred wasn't blind!

Dear Dave Gittins,

I’m sorry to hear about your retinal detachment and hope your eye is recovering well after three interventions.

As you can imagine, I’m very interested in the Board of Trade record you mentioned, which you have stored on that CD. Do you think there’s a chance you could get it running and provide me with a copy of the eye test? I would be very pleased to review it myself.
Thank you in advance for your efforts!

 

[Dave Gittins]

Thanks! My eyesight is almost perfect, thanks to amazing surgery. My patience is not so good, so it might be a while before I find the document. It doesn't contain Fleet's actual result, only the description of the crude test.

 

[Richard Z]

Thanks! My eyesight is almost perfect, thanks to amazing surgery. My patience is not so good, so it might be a while before I find the document. It doesn't contain Fleet's actual result, only the description of the crude test.

Great to hear that your eyesight has almost completely recovered!

As for the impatience, I can completely relate...
I’d be delighted to receive your test description!
In the meantime, I’ll continue my mission to track down Fleet’s post-disaster eye test results, if they exist.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

About all we can say is that Fred wasn't blind!

He was half-way there then!

In fact, given the limited purpose of their job, the lookouts didn't need particularly good visual acuity. They weren't required to identify anything. They just scanned a limited arc ahead of the ship's course and if they thought they saw any object in the water they rang the bell. After that it was over to the officer of the watch. So, at least, said 2nd officer Lightoller.

In other words, today you wouldn't get a driving licence with such vision.

The UK requirement is the ability to read a standard vehicle number plate at 20m distance, equivalent to about 6/12 (20/40) on the Snellen's charts. If all you had to do was recognise that a number plate might be there , regardless of whether you could read it, you really wouldn't need great vision.

I think the real question here is not whether the eye tests for lookouts were adequate but whether the whole purpose of the lookouts was properly thought out. The navigational SOP of the time was heavily reliant on the visual identification of hazards yet one of the links in that chain looks very weak.

 

[Richard C Elliott]

For example, what of Boxhall having to undergo an eyesight test?

An interesting question.

We know that 3rd officer Pitman was much later transferred to the purser's department because he failed a colour vision test for deck officers. That presumably means that at the date of the accident he might not have been reliably able to distinguish between port and starboard navigation lights. If that had been true of Boxhall it would raise questions about his observations of the lights seen from Titanic.

I am not trying to suggest any new hypotheses here. Just acknowledging that concentrating attention on the vision of the lookouts perhaps misses other important visual issues.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

We know that 3rd officer Pitman was much later transferred to the purser's department because he failed a colour vision test for deck officers.

In 1912, the tests for colour perception were rather crude. The famous Ishihara Chart for testing colour vision was first published in 1917. It would be interesting to know when Pitman failed the colour vision test.