Port Engine Going Full Speed Astern

[Georges Guay]

«It is suspected that this haze was really the ice field which spanned many miles across the horizon.»

I think that haze (fog) would’ve been produced by the contact of warmer/humid air over a freezing surface. But it is said that the outside temperature was dry and close to freezing point. An ice blink would be produced by the ice refraction over low lying clouds. Not the case either.

Would haze really meant foggy or rather a confuse, fuzzy or faint horizon? In 1912, did we understand well the effect of Abnormal Refraction? Would that phenomenon, as describe in the MAIB SS Californian/Titanic reappraisal report of evident relating to the role played by SS Californian during the Titanic disaster and published in April 1992, played a role or was a contributive factor in that occurrence?

But I understand that a stealthy shape iceberg could be very difficult to detect during a pitch dark night even with the aid of Radars.

«4th officer Boxhall looked at the iceberg as it passed the ship's stern. He described it as "this long-lying growler.....It looked to me as if it was very, very low.»

Ice chunks have been reported on the well deck.

 

[Georges Guay]

«I think you should all re-read the evidence...carefully.»

The «evidence»! Where should we re-read the evidence? The only evidence that I can re-read is the one that you can stretch either way, speculate upon and interpret at will. I never re-read such an ambiguous and biased inquiry report, but one of the most interesting. It gives the reader all the latitude to finally find out that the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg that nobody really saw. The Flag is saved, case closed.

If the engine crew could perform a crash-stop on both reciprocating engines, time permitting, I see no problem whatsoever to crash-stop only one engine, while keeping the turbine turning and thrusting the rudder. Personally, I would give them a little chance by reducing the ahead engine to half. The only goal would be to divert away the center of gravity, thus to release the tremendous pressure. I would make no friends from down below but when the priority is «it takes what it takes», you do.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Captain Lord of the Californian was asked about reversing the port engine.

Q - There were two engines, a starboard engine and a port engine on the Titanic. Suppose you sent the message, "Starboard engine ahead. Port engine reverse." What effect would that have on the steamer?
A - It would twist her head to port.
Q - Would it turn the steamer in her own length?
A - I do not know; I have no experience of 21 knot steamers.
Q - You have not?
A - No.
Q - Would it be likely to get rid of the berg quickly?
A - Oh, yes, to get away from it; that would be the idea of stopping the port engine or reversing it.
Q - Reverse the port and keep ahead with the starboard?
A - That would twist it quicker.
Q - At once?
A - Very quickly.
Q - That would be the quickest way of altering the course of the steamer?
A - I should think so.



I believe there was great refraction in the area where the Titanic sank. A documentary showed the logs of passing ships which remarked on sea mirrors and much refraction, and how bright the stars were. Survivors mentioned how strong the stars were and how they reached down to the horizon without losing any of their brilliance, which made some of the survivors mistake them for other ships owing to their intensity. The Californian was on the edge of the ice field and likely the temperature difference inside the field compared to the adjacent open water around the Titanic was probably enough to create the refraction which other ships reported in their logs as they passed that area on April 14th. Captain Lord of the Californian said "it was a very deceiving night"...."It was a very strange night; it was hard to define where the sky ended and the water commenced. There was what you call a soft horizon. I was sometimes mistaking the stars low down on the horizon for steamer's lights." Q - What do you suggest as a characteristic of the atmosphere on a night of that sort? A - I really could not say. We could see a light the full limit of my vessel.

We know the Titanic listed to port and her bow went steadily down and closer to the water. The crew on the Californian said they witnessed the other ship appear to list heavily to starboard and observed her port light moving much higher when it should have been doing the opposite. They also noticed how her rockets did not burst high above the ship, and how they heard no sound whatever coming from her when we know the escaping steam would have been very audible across the calm sea. This suggests to me that the Titanic was greater than 10 or even 20 miles away but the refraction made her appear much closer, perhaps less than 10 miles away. e.g.


I observed a large French aircraft carrier on the horizon just 6-8 miles away sailing down the Irish coast, but this was an illusion owing to the refraction and it turned out she was almost 20 miles away. It created the false illusion of a second horizon, and that she was sailing on a sea of glass and was reflecting her hull onto it, giving the appearance that she was very close. As she moved slowly across the horizon she morphed, magnified, and reflected, creating the appearance of odd looking ships that were very close, when in reality only her top cabin was showing for the most part and the ship itself was almost 20 miles away.

I think this could have happened when the Californian was observing the Titanic. It would explain why her rockets appeared to burst low over the projected image of a closer ship, why her port light appeared to rise instead of fall, why they said - "Look at her now; she looks very queer out of the water; her lights look queer", why they could not hear any noise or hear her steam escaping, and why her morse lamp signals could not be read. I believe they were looking at the Titanic that was around 20 miles away and mistakenly believing she was 5 miles away owing to the refraction. The day I saw the aircraft carrier I noticed that the refraction was still very strong at night when other ships far away passed by and their lights were indeed intensified greatly and reflected onto a second horizon which created the illusion they were much closer. When I checked the weather reports it said the sea and air temperatures were only 1 degree off from each other. I figured if that was enough to create such strong refraction, then the local temperature around the ice field against the open waters around the Titanic must have been sufficient to create much refraction, as passing ships noted in their logs "much refraction" and sea mirrors on April 14th 1912.

One can only wonder how this affected their ability to spot the iceberg.


.

 

[Georges Guay]

 

[Jim Currie]

«It is suspected that this haze was really the ice field which spanned many miles across the horizon.»

"The «evidence»! Where should we re-read the evidence?"

The evidence can be found from the transcript of evidence given by survivors at both Inquiries and from the limitation of Liabilities hearings held later. These can be read at TIP | United States Senate Inquiry. Proper interpretation of them requires an understanding of what was being described or said.

"I think that haze (fog) would’ve been produced by the contact of warmer/humid air over a freezing surface.

That would certainly be likely if the right conditions were present...they were not. Stars were being seen setting, i.e, right down to the horizon.

You are correct when you observe that the air temperature was low. However, we should be very cautious about that. The method of obtaining it was very slap-hazard back then (and even years later). Think chill-factor.
The sea temp readings were also very suspect. The sea temperature seldom varies more than 2 degrees night and day. Except when in the N. Atlantic current or against the ice, the difference between air and sea temperature would be very little. As everyone knows, on a dark, still, cloudless night at sea, the air temperature drops rapidly after sunset and gets very close to that of the surrounding sea.

But it is said that the outside temperature was dry and close to freezing point. An ice blink would be produced by the ice refraction over low lying clouds. Not the case either.

Would haze really meant foggy or rather a confuse, fuzzy or faint horizon? In 1912, did we understand well the effect of Abnormal Refraction? Would that phenomenon, as describe in the MAIB SS Californian/Titanic reappraisal report of evident relating to the role played by SS Californian during the Titanic disaster and published in April 1992, played a role or was a contributive factor in that occurrence?

Haze is only found near land. it is usually little dust particles suspended in the air. Fog happens when warm, moisture-laden air meets either cold air, cold water or a combination of both. Fog does not happen in still, motionless air conditions. There was no air movement at all, George.They were at the center of a very intense High Pressure area, the sea was as calm as any had ever seen in that part of the ocean. Additionally, as you sail westward, you inevitably meet warm, moisture-laden South-Westerlies. That's why the chance of fog in springtime becomes more likely the father west you go.
We know from witness statements and photographs that the pack ice was white in colour and irregular in surface. We also know that white surfaces will reflect best of all. If the surface is irregular and in places peaked due to trapped bergs then the light reflected from it will be scatter and defused. There was two sources that night... intense, clear starlight and according to some, an Aurora Borealis down near the northwestern horizon. Light from a sea level concentration would appear as a low, hazy grey-white line
The superior mirage claimed by some is a "Eurika" moment. i.e. an "of course, that's what happened!" moment.
What has been suggested by others is that those on Titanic saw a Fata Morgana..i.e. when the light from an object is bent downward due to abnormal refraction caused by it passing through air of different densities and temperature. i.e., unstable air. In fact, due to the prevailing atmospherics, the air between Californian and Titanic would have been very stable. Because there was clear water in the space between the two ships, that water temperature was constant between them and the air over it was also stable.
In fact, although the MAIB mentions refraction, it steered very quickly away from it.

If the engine crew could perform a crash-stop on both reciprocating engines, time permitting, I see no problem whatsoever to crash-stop only one engine, while keeping the turbine turning and thrusting the rudder.

That observation you have made illustrates what I mean by reading the evidence, George.

Initially, Murdoch thought he could steer round the iceberg. To do that, he needed full rudder effect, not at hodge-podge of turbulence and drag round his stern. He did not think the ship would hit but it did. All of his actions were taken within seconds of each other. The moment she hit, he had to take action...Stop the engines to save the props then stop the ship to assess damage. On a ship making 22.5 knots, mucking about with engines and rudders in the way suggested takes planning and time. Both were conspicuous by their absence.

Here is another fact. Titanic could never have turned northward after the first engine and helm movement therefore all the nonsense about Californian being on her port bow, mirages etc is just that...nonsense. As I see it, it was and still is, an ill thought-out attempt to make the evidence fit... no matter how. A bit like the ugly sister trying-on Cinderella's glass slipper.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

George G, its nice to see someone else trying to analyze the iceberg encounter.

The only contribution that I would make at this point is lessons from the maneuvering of Olympic in the Solent prior to the collision with HMS Hawke where several sharp turns were taken. The turn around the West Bramble buoy is of particular interest. Olympic was coming down the Thorn Channel on S65W by standard compass having rounded Calshot Spit at slow ahead with turbine disconnected. As can be seen from what was put down in the scrap logs, at 12:35 she was ordered to full speed ahead both and the turbine was started up again. At 12:40 Slow port engine was ordered, turbine was disconnected, and helm was ordered Starboard easy by the pilot. Starboard engine stayed at full ahead. At 12:42 helm ordered hard-starboard and port engine ordered to stop. This was followed by port engine half-astern, then full-astern. Starboard engine was kept full ahead throughout. When ordered to steady on S59E came, the port engine (which was going full astern) was ordered to stop followed by full ahead. Then the turbine was restarted. There were no separate turbine orders. The turbine was stopped down in the engine room whenever they received split engine orders, or when less than 50 revolutions ahead was called for (at slow and dead-slow ahead) on either of the two reciprocating engines. The turbine was started by the engineers when going half or full ahead was ordered on both reciprocating engines.

12:34 Calshot Spit abeam.
12:35 Steady on S65W; Full-ahead ordered; Turbine started.
12:37 North Thorn buoy abeam.
12:40 Thorn Knoll buoy abeam; Helm starboard-easy; Slow port ordered, Turbine stopped.
12:42 West Bramble buoy abeam; Hard-astarboard helm; Stop port, Half-astern port, Full-astern port.
12:43 Steady on S59E; Stop port, Full-ahead port.
12:44 Turbine started.

By the way, the times put down were taken from the wheelhouse and engine room clocks which only showed time to the nearest whole minute. These clocks were slaved to the master clock in the chart room.

 

[Michael Kestner]

I'm actually a little surprised they even bothered starting the turbine up if it was only going to run for five minutes. How do you find this information, Sam?

 

[Aaron_2016]

Curious to know if Murdoch was on the bridge during her sea trials. According to Lightoller they turned the ship by reversing one engine. Not sure how fast she was going at the time though.



Lightoller

Q - Of what do these trial tests consist?
A - Turning circles.

Q - Five hours was the length of time spent in making those tests?
A - Approximately the length of time occupied in turning those circles.

Q - I wish you would describe that a little more fully. Under what head of steam and how fast would the boat be moving?
A - Under various speeds.

Q - In how large a radius would these circles be made?
A - Turning circles consists of seeing in what space the ship will turn under certain helms with the engines at various speeds.

Q - Taking the ship going at full speed, or at a speed of 21 1/2 knots, in what distance could you turn her, if you put one propeller at full speed ahead and the other propeller at full speed or three-quarter speed astern?
A - No actual trials have been made to my knowledge with a ship travelling at that speed.

Q - Was any trial made as to what you could do with the ship by putting the two propellers in opposition to one another?
A - Yes, I believe so.

Q - Did you as an officer responsible from time to time for the navigation of this great ship know what could be done by reversing one propeller and sending the other ahead?
A - Do you mean the actual distance she would turn a circle in?

Q - Yes?
A - With the helm hard over I think she could turn in about three times her length.

Q - Does that mean with the helm hard over and one propeller directed full speed ahead and the other propeller astern?
A - No, I think that is with the ship going ahead and both engines going ahead.

Q - Was it not important to find out how her course could be changed by reversing one propeller?
A - Quite so; it was done.

Q - It was done?
A - Yes.


They wanted to know more about reversing one engine, but the question was sadly dropped:

Q - To turn her completely round on her axis so to speak, in her length, could she be turned on her axis by reversing one propeller?
A - You mean completing the circle?
Q - No, a half circle.
A - Sixteen points?
Q - Well, take it at 16 points.
The Commissioner - I think I would drop this at present.
Lightoller - I do not quite understand.
The Commissioner - Drop it at present. You will have somebody else who will be able to tell us far better.



.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Aaron.

Lightoller was simply telling the Senator that the ship's turnng circle when making 21.5 knots and the turbine clutched-in had been assessed. The manoeuvre of full ahead on one main engine and astern on the other at the same time would never have been done with both engines running at full speed.
Sam illustrated the use of the main engines on tight bends in a narrow channel. The other use would be to turn the vessel round in her own length, i.e. what was termed "turning her short-round".
Another occasion when that use would be made of the engines would have been leaving Southampton when she moved out of the berth and turned down river. The channel is very narrow at that point so they would want to keep the bow out of shallow water on the west side of the river. The proper method would have been hard a starboard, Half ahead starboard., Half or Full astern port, depending on wind and tide. They may even have temporarily deployed a port should er rope to the river end of berth 43. There were several options open to the Bething Pilot.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

How do you find this information, Sam?

It was a joint project with Mark Chirnside who had access to the trial transcripts. If you want more information about the entire affair, it is in our book, "The Sting of the Hawke" by Samuel Halpern.

 

[Georges Guay]

Tim,

You enjoin me to read carefully the «evidence» from the Inquiry. No doubt that you have read, even study, the Fleet and Lee testimonies? As you are well aware, both lookouts witnessed «Haze». Is that evidence or delirium? Why then discard these testimonies instead of finding a cause for? But if the word «haze» does not mean arctic haze, nor freezing mist, neither freezing smog or freezing fog, excluding sea smoke and arctic smog … so what does haze then means if not Fairy Fog ! (fata bromosa)

In calm weather, a layer of significantly warmer air (Gulf Stream) can rest over colder dense air (Labrador Current), forming an atmospheric duct which acts like a refracting [bcolor=rgb(252, 252, 255)]lens[/bcolor], producing a series of both inverted and erect images. A fata bromosa (fairy fog), requires a duct to be present; thermal inversion alone is not enough to produce this kind of mirage. While a thermal inversion often takes place without there being an atmospheric duct, an atmospheric duct cannot exist without there being a thermal inversion.

Thermal Inversion… «After the noise, I saw a huge column of black smoke slightly lighter than the sky, rising high into the sky and then flattening out at the top like a mushroom». Philip E. Mock.

Twinkling of stars… is caused by the passing of light through different layers of a turbulent atmosphere. Most scintillation effects are caused by anomalous refraction caused by small-scale fluctuations in air density usually related to temperature gradients. «A perfectly still atmosphere; a brilliantly beautiful starlight night, but no moon, as if the stars seemed really to be alive and to talk». Lawrence Beesley.

In sum… I (MAIB) do not consider that a definite answer to the question «was TITANIC seen by Californian» can be given; but if she was, then it was only because of the phenomenon of super-refraction for she was well beyond the ordinary visible horizon.

I truly believe that Abnormal Refraction existed that fateful night. Weather conditions were ideal. But is it the weakest link of a long chain of events that lead to the shipwreck of Titanic? I am not so sure, but a link adding to another one, to be honest, I believe so…


«The moment she hit, he had to take action...Stop the engines to save the props then stop the ship to assess damage»

The «evidence» shows that Mate Murdoch ordered the wheel and the engine at about the exact same time!


«not at hodge-podge of turbulence and drag round his stern»
What about the well recognize Rudder Cycling Maneuver?


«On a ship making 22.5 knots, mucking about with engines and rudders in the way suggested takes planning and time»

So then, how do you deal with Rule 8 (e)?

PART B — STEERING AND SAILING RULES

SECTION I — CONDUCT OF VESSELS IN ANY CONDITION OF VISIBILITY

Rule 8; Action to avoid Collision
(e) If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.

If the engineers cannot reverse the engines, if ordered so in case of emergency, is not the OOW problem. The game is to «cover your rear end first»! If you don’t, even if it is just for the record, nobody else will do it for you. By having done so, the investigators will hopefully look somewhere else, if you understand what I mean…


Here is a question; you’re on a Stand-on vessel proceeding at full sea speed, with 1 hour notice to the engine room prior maneuvering speed. There is a Give-way vessel 4 point on your Port bow that will not give way and she is so close that collision cannot be avoided. What do you do?

Rule 17; Action by Stand-on Vessel

(b) When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she «shall» take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

(c) A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port for a vessel on her own port side.

Rule 2; Responsibility

(a) Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.

(b) In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

Jurisprudence; Facing a peril at sea, no one can be held responsible for a given action if the expected outcome is not the one obtained…

I wish I would have the same reaction with an iceberg apparently more on the Stb’d side than on the Port side !

 

[Georges Guay]

Samuel,

It is an honor speaking to you. I have read almost every word from Titanicology. At the least, I have no reticence to say that it is a very impressive masterwork on the subject. It is surprising that James Cameron did not exploit your knowledge for the benefit of the movie. Thank you for sharing,

Georges.

 

[Georges Guay]

What I found very surprising is that there was not any Central Steam Turbine Telegraph! At 50 RPM, you could whether Engaged (15.4kts) or Disengaged (13.4kts) the turbine. From 50 revs up, I presume that engineers would synchronize the revs with the reciprocating engines. The bridge was using a telephone to order the turbine movement? In case of telephone malfunction, they would use a voice pipe? For a vessel of such a class, it was not a very convenient system, was it?

In the Movie, when she left Southampton, the central propeller was activated!!! She would’ve squat right to the bottom…

 

[Jim Currie]

Georges, my name is Jim... No big deal, I've been called worse.

Yes, I have read the evidence of Fleet and Lee. Sure, they described what they were seeing as a haze but because they said it, does not mean that it actually was there. You will note that they disagreed about what they saw ahead. In fact, HM Wreck Commissioner gave his opinion as follows:
"The Commissioner:

Yes, I will tell you at once. My impression is this, that the man was trying to make an excuse for not seeing the iceberg, and he thought he could make it out by creating a thick haze."

You quote from the Steering and Sailing Rules. These are not the rules followed by those on the bridge of Titanic in 1912.
The Steering and Sailing Rules were from Number 17 to 32 and were required to be committed to memory by all bridge officers. The pertinent Rule in the case of Titanic was Rule 27. I quote from memory:

In obeying and construing these Rules,due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the craft involved which may render departure from the above rules necessary.

It is possible that this Rule was amended after Titanic. However, this is the only Steering and Sailing Rule which provides for an encounter with anything other than another vessel.

The original question in this post was an hypothetical one whereby Murdoch stopped the port engine and the combined right sided thrust of turbine and starboard engine and a hard-port rudder would cause a crabbing action away from the danger.
That would have required more time than available to carry out in practice and sure-fire certainty in the mind of Murdoch that A: it would work and B: that the ship was going to hit. in fact, there is evidence to the effect that he thought they might just miss the ice. In reality, he ran out of time. There was just not enough of it after the first warning bell for him to take any other action than to look though his glasses, decide where clear water lay and turn toward it.
The interval of 37 seconds has also reared its ugly head once more. In fact, the evidence tells us that the interval between first bell and impact could not have been much more than say 20 seconds. If Titanic was moving at about 38 feet per second at the time of the first bell and the first point of impact was 50 feet abaft the stem bar then the bow was 50 feet beyond the berg at the moment of contact and little more than 700 feet ahead of the ship when Murdoch gave his helm and engines orders.

 

[Aaron_2016]

Survivors rowed towards the lights of a ship off the port bow, but no matter how far they rowed they could not get closer. I think the refraction gave the false impression she was only 5 miles away when she was really significantly further away.


Mr. Stengel - "We followed a light that was to the bow of the boat, which looked like in the winter, in the dead of winter, when the windows are frosted with a light coming through them. It was in a haze. Most of the boats rowed toward that light,"

Mr. Crawford - "They were stationary masthead lights, one on the fore and one on the main. Everybody saw them. All the ladies in the boat. They asked if we were drawing nearer to the steamer, but we could not seem to make any headway......We did not seem to be making any headway at all, sir."

Mrs. White - "The sailor changed our course and tried to go back. That was after trying to reach that light for three-quarters of an hour. It was evidently impossible to reach it......we made no headway toward it at all. Then we turned and tried to go back."

Mr. Wheelton - "We pulled toward a light, but we did not seem to get any closer to it"

When I saw ships affected by the refraction I noticed that each time they changed their heading they morphed. One minute they appeared closer, and the next they were further away, and then they were closer again. I had to check the shipping radar to understand where the ship was going and it was maintaining they were moving in one direction the entire time.


Mr. Crawford was asked:

Q - Did she seem then to be moving toward you?
A - No; she seemed more like she was stationary.
Q - You thought she was coming toward you?
A - We thought she was coming toward us.
Q - Why did you think she was coming toward you?
A - Sometimes she seemed to get closer; other times she seemed to be getting away from us.
Q - Those lights remained visible until it became daylight, did they?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - How was it that when day broke, and the sun rose, you could not see any ship?
A - I could not say. We saw the other ship coming to us, and we turned around for it.
Q - But you could see nothing in the way of a ship or vessel, or anything, where these lights were?
A - No, sir.


.