Professional California Consensus
- Thread starter Amanda Ratliff
- Start date
Paul Slish
Member
Thanks Dave for your comment. I think we are saying the same thing. What I am trying to get across is that if Stone made it to Chief Officer and was at sea from 1904 to 1933 or 1934 then he was rather successful. Why would a company trust him as Chief Officer if he was a poor officer? Chief Officer is next in rank after the Captain. I realize his performance as a 24 year old second officer on April 15, 1912 has been vigorously debated on this website. I'm not going to try to add to that debate tonight. I'm just saying that overall he was successful if he in fact did make it to Chief Officer.
Paul Slish
Member
Thank you Paul Lee for your response about possibly contacting the family of Herbert Stone. His son John Stone wrote that his father never talked about the Californian and the Titanic. So I don't think they could give any information there. I was thinking they could detail the rest of his maritime career from 1912 to his retirement around 1933. They might know what ships he served on and his rank. I'd be very sensitive in any approach.
Leslie Reade said nice things about John Stone. He said some nice things about Herbert Stone, but also some rather nasty things. He said Stone had a neurotic fear of Captain Lord. That is certainly open to debate. Reade was a lawyer, not a trained psychologist. I don't believe he was qualified to make that judgment of Stone. Reade based some of his analysis of Stone's so called fear of Captain Lord on communications he had with Charles Groves. That may have been Grove's opinion, but it was only that, an opinion. Groves was not infallible.
If Reade wants to criticize the performance of Stone on April 15, 1912, Reade is entitled to his opinion.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Stone family wanted nothing to do with discussing Herbert Stone and the Californian. If they felt that possibly their father and grandfather was going to be torn to shreds why would they want to communicate with outsiders? Paul Slish
Leslie Reade said nice things about John Stone. He said some nice things about Herbert Stone, but also some rather nasty things. He said Stone had a neurotic fear of Captain Lord. That is certainly open to debate. Reade was a lawyer, not a trained psychologist. I don't believe he was qualified to make that judgment of Stone. Reade based some of his analysis of Stone's so called fear of Captain Lord on communications he had with Charles Groves. That may have been Grove's opinion, but it was only that, an opinion. Groves was not infallible.
If Reade wants to criticize the performance of Stone on April 15, 1912, Reade is entitled to his opinion.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Stone family wanted nothing to do with discussing Herbert Stone and the Californian. If they felt that possibly their father and grandfather was going to be torn to shreds why would they want to communicate with outsiders? Paul Slish
I recall Groves interview with Walter Lord in the 1950s. Groves said that Stone was from Devon and the company (The Leyland Line) "looked after" Devonians. Why? I don't know!
David Haisman
Guest
Perhaps I can add to this debate from experience in the hope that some of our would be researchers may glean something from it. We were well trained from a company that had lost Titanic and as a result, had learned many lessons from it.
As a trained paid Lookout Man by Cunard White Star in the early 50's, we were given eye sight tests every six months at the commencement of each new set of articles. The eye tests were as good as you could get at the time and I wouldn't think they would be out of place with today's maritime industry either.
Those tests would involve peering into a black box of sorts with a hood and one would have to determine density of lights white and coloured, along with an emphasis on side vision and any possible colour blindness apparent. It also involved the ''twinkle'' and ''winking'' aspect caused by some vessels not showing clear navigation lights and this phenomenon is found under certain atmospheric conditions. Sometimes a flag on the after end fouls the stern light or sometimes flutters around it as many small vessels very often leave these flags flying until they're in shreds. ( fact)
Part of the Lookout's instruction was to ascertain the rudiments and probable occurences of ice when as QM's (glorified A/B'S) or Senior Ordinary Seamen ( not so oprdinary or glorified) were on the bridge along with our ''trick'' in the radar shack.
It was our responsibility to log every hour whether on ice routine or not, the engine room revs, sea temperature, air temperature and wet temperature. When stopped in ice in the Strait Of Belle Isle before proceeding into the Gulf of St Lawrence, we would have company. This would be mostly smaller ships than ourselves, waiting for us to make a move so they could follow in our track.
To try and determine their lights at night could be utterly confusing as we would scan the shifting, silvery, reflective and some times colourful lights throughout the night. It would be eerie at times and peaceful and an unbvelievable feeling of intense isolation.
The master on the first ship to arrive in Montreal after the winter would receive a silver topped walking cane from the Mayor of that city but I'm not sure if that goes on today.
As I've said previously, you've got to get your lights right on the night and it takes a brave person to nail his colours to the mast and say with certainty just what they were. In the light of this (what a pun!) If anyone can come up with unquestionable certainty, they are not only a ''shining'' example for a would be researcher, but a ''bright ''spark too!
Finally, I don't agree that mast head lights,dead head at any distance, merge into one.
The reason International law brought out the lower foremast light in the first place was to eradicate that misconception. Please don't bombard me with calculations, just your experience instead, will do.
David
As a trained paid Lookout Man by Cunard White Star in the early 50's, we were given eye sight tests every six months at the commencement of each new set of articles. The eye tests were as good as you could get at the time and I wouldn't think they would be out of place with today's maritime industry either.
Those tests would involve peering into a black box of sorts with a hood and one would have to determine density of lights white and coloured, along with an emphasis on side vision and any possible colour blindness apparent. It also involved the ''twinkle'' and ''winking'' aspect caused by some vessels not showing clear navigation lights and this phenomenon is found under certain atmospheric conditions. Sometimes a flag on the after end fouls the stern light or sometimes flutters around it as many small vessels very often leave these flags flying until they're in shreds. ( fact)
Part of the Lookout's instruction was to ascertain the rudiments and probable occurences of ice when as QM's (glorified A/B'S) or Senior Ordinary Seamen ( not so oprdinary or glorified) were on the bridge along with our ''trick'' in the radar shack.
It was our responsibility to log every hour whether on ice routine or not, the engine room revs, sea temperature, air temperature and wet temperature. When stopped in ice in the Strait Of Belle Isle before proceeding into the Gulf of St Lawrence, we would have company. This would be mostly smaller ships than ourselves, waiting for us to make a move so they could follow in our track.
To try and determine their lights at night could be utterly confusing as we would scan the shifting, silvery, reflective and some times colourful lights throughout the night. It would be eerie at times and peaceful and an unbvelievable feeling of intense isolation.
The master on the first ship to arrive in Montreal after the winter would receive a silver topped walking cane from the Mayor of that city but I'm not sure if that goes on today.
As I've said previously, you've got to get your lights right on the night and it takes a brave person to nail his colours to the mast and say with certainty just what they were. In the light of this (what a pun!) If anyone can come up with unquestionable certainty, they are not only a ''shining'' example for a would be researcher, but a ''bright ''spark too!
Finally, I don't agree that mast head lights,dead head at any distance, merge into one.
The reason International law brought out the lower foremast light in the first place was to eradicate that misconception. Please don't bombard me with calculations, just your experience instead, will do.
David
Jim Currie
Member
This is a realy interesting thread and should be re-read, if for nothing else than to illustrate how people miss very simple points.
There are not too many professionals commenting here but as a professional I would like to point out a few things.
A great deal has been written about what Stone should have done and what Lord should have done after Stone had been 'responsible' and called his boss.
Reference has been made to one particular 'professional' Captain, and adviser to the British Coastguard MAIB. That man was not given the full facts to work with. Either that, or he obtained his Master's Certificate from a Corn Flakes packet.
He agreed with the laypeople opinions that Californian's Second Officer Stone should have called Lord as soon as he saw those rockets. In fact, Apprentice Gibson said that Stone told him he did exactly that. On the other hand, Stone said he waited until he had seen 5 rockets.
I'm not sure, but I think the man actually agreed that Titanic was within 5 miles of Titanic when she went down
In any case, Stone did inform Lord and was ordered to 'Call her up on the signal light and report when you make contact' . Not 'if the other ship fires more rockets let me know about it'. Stone did as he was told until the other ship went away. It did so without Stone ever making contact with it so there was no need for him to call Lord. But Stone never-the-less did keep Lord informed of its movements. He obeyed his orders to the letter. In fact he disobeyed his captain by disturbing him to tell him the other ship had gone. Stone knew his boss was concerned about that other ship. In fact, Lord expressed concern about her from the moment Stone went on Watch at midnight.
We should ask the question: What would have happened if Lord had told Stone to call the Wireless Operator as soon as the rockets were seen? The answer is where fact overides fantasy.
If Lord had told Stone to Call the Wireless Operator, he, Evans would have heard Titanic's distress call before the last three pyrotechnics were seen from Californian. Evans would hear the distress position of 41-46'North, 50-14'West.
Meanwhile, Lord would be on the bridge taking a bearing of the vessel reported to him as having fired rockets. Indeed he would have seen the last three. He would also have verified the bearing of that vessel and plotted it's position relative to Californian.
When Evans arrived with the distress position of Titanic, Lord would plot it and discover that while the vessel which seemed to be firing the signals was on the same side of the ice barrier as Californian and to the southeastward of her, the plotted position for Titanic placed her on the far side of the ice barrier and to the southwestward. In that case, Lord would have sent Evans back to verify Titanic's distress position.
Evans would eventually return with a verified position for Titanic. He would confirm to Lord that Titanic was the only ship in the vicinity sending out a distress call. Given the facts, Lord would have had no option but to head his ship in the direction of Titanic's distress position; the same position he headed for at 6am that same morning.
When Californian eventually reached the wrong position as given by Titanic, Lord would not find any trace of Titanic and/or her survivors. He would also be at least 12 miles away from where they really were. He might have caught a glimpse of Boxhall's green signals across the ice if he had been heading in that direction, however these would be on the wrong side of the ice. He would then have had to make up his mind whether to continue searching where he was or break-off his search and try and find a way through the ice.
The sad fact is this: If Captain Lord had indeed followed the advice of all the armchair experts, it would not have stopped him from being damned.
When the verdict was given out, everyone was convinced that Titanic was where Boxhall said she was. The part of Lord's actual evidence concerning Californian's movements after 6am would remain unchanged. Only the timing would be different. His navigation would still have been condemned as inaccurate because the clowns in both inquiries, and the MAIB 'expert' believed that the moving ship seen by Boxhall and others on Titanic was the self-same Californian.
The joke is that Captain Lord did not believe for a moment that Titanic sank where Boxhall said she did. Nor did Captain Moore of the Mount Temple. If they had been believed, we would have to re-write the script for James Cameron.
A great deal has been made of the question ' she wouldn't be sending up signals for nothing now, would she?'
No indeed she would not have done. But she might not have been sinking. Distress does not automatically mean that a vessel is sinking. Just another simple fact missed by most but not by Stone!
Poor, brow-beaten, bullied, cajoled young man as he was.
Then there's the question of the rockets seen by Stone and Gibson half an hour before the end of their Watch.
These were seen to the southward and almost on the horizon. If these were the standard distress signals, they were at least 500 feet above the sea level at the spot from which they were fired.
Using 50 feet for Apprentice Gibson's height of eye and taking his word that they were right down on the horizon means that the spot these rockets came from was 33 miles away from Californian. If these rockets came from Carpathia then she was no more than 8 miles away from Boxhall when she fired the last of them. This means that Californian must have been more than 20 miles away from Boxhall.
The problem here is not one of distance but one of interval. How many rockets did Carpathia fire and at what intervals?
Incidentally, these rockets make a nonsense of the 5 mile away from Titanic theory. Possible even any theory which proposes a distance less than 20 miles.
The distance between the bridges of Californian and Carpathia was about 17 miles. That is the maximum distance an observer with a telescope could have seen either of the vessels's side lights. A standard rocket fired from a vessel at that distance would be seen to burst well above her masthead lights and the source would be clearly visible.
There is another mystery concerning Carpathia's rockets. Captain Rostron said he gave orders for one to be fired every 15 minutes. If his orders were carried-out, where did the rockets seen by Californian's Apprentice James Gibson come from? Gibson said he saw 3 rockets the ame as before . The first two with a 3 minute interval between them! On the other hand, Stone said he saw two flashes on the horizon. he did not identify them as rockets. It should be boren in mind that this evidence given by Stone and Gibson was given in writing before either of them new that Carpathia had sent up any rockets. If Carpathia had fired rockets as instructed, and the first one was seen at or about 03-20am on Californian, then the second would have been seen at about 03-35am. Gibson went off watch 10 minutes after that, at 03-45am. Very strange indeed.
Jim C.
There are not too many professionals commenting here but as a professional I would like to point out a few things.
A great deal has been written about what Stone should have done and what Lord should have done after Stone had been 'responsible' and called his boss.
Reference has been made to one particular 'professional' Captain, and adviser to the British Coastguard MAIB. That man was not given the full facts to work with. Either that, or he obtained his Master's Certificate from a Corn Flakes packet.
He agreed with the laypeople opinions that Californian's Second Officer Stone should have called Lord as soon as he saw those rockets. In fact, Apprentice Gibson said that Stone told him he did exactly that. On the other hand, Stone said he waited until he had seen 5 rockets.
I'm not sure, but I think the man actually agreed that Titanic was within 5 miles of Titanic when she went down
In any case, Stone did inform Lord and was ordered to 'Call her up on the signal light and report when you make contact' . Not 'if the other ship fires more rockets let me know about it'. Stone did as he was told until the other ship went away. It did so without Stone ever making contact with it so there was no need for him to call Lord. But Stone never-the-less did keep Lord informed of its movements. He obeyed his orders to the letter. In fact he disobeyed his captain by disturbing him to tell him the other ship had gone. Stone knew his boss was concerned about that other ship. In fact, Lord expressed concern about her from the moment Stone went on Watch at midnight.
We should ask the question: What would have happened if Lord had told Stone to call the Wireless Operator as soon as the rockets were seen? The answer is where fact overides fantasy.
If Lord had told Stone to Call the Wireless Operator, he, Evans would have heard Titanic's distress call before the last three pyrotechnics were seen from Californian. Evans would hear the distress position of 41-46'North, 50-14'West.
Meanwhile, Lord would be on the bridge taking a bearing of the vessel reported to him as having fired rockets. Indeed he would have seen the last three. He would also have verified the bearing of that vessel and plotted it's position relative to Californian.
When Evans arrived with the distress position of Titanic, Lord would plot it and discover that while the vessel which seemed to be firing the signals was on the same side of the ice barrier as Californian and to the southeastward of her, the plotted position for Titanic placed her on the far side of the ice barrier and to the southwestward. In that case, Lord would have sent Evans back to verify Titanic's distress position.
Evans would eventually return with a verified position for Titanic. He would confirm to Lord that Titanic was the only ship in the vicinity sending out a distress call. Given the facts, Lord would have had no option but to head his ship in the direction of Titanic's distress position; the same position he headed for at 6am that same morning.
When Californian eventually reached the wrong position as given by Titanic, Lord would not find any trace of Titanic and/or her survivors. He would also be at least 12 miles away from where they really were. He might have caught a glimpse of Boxhall's green signals across the ice if he had been heading in that direction, however these would be on the wrong side of the ice. He would then have had to make up his mind whether to continue searching where he was or break-off his search and try and find a way through the ice.
The sad fact is this: If Captain Lord had indeed followed the advice of all the armchair experts, it would not have stopped him from being damned.
When the verdict was given out, everyone was convinced that Titanic was where Boxhall said she was. The part of Lord's actual evidence concerning Californian's movements after 6am would remain unchanged. Only the timing would be different. His navigation would still have been condemned as inaccurate because the clowns in both inquiries, and the MAIB 'expert' believed that the moving ship seen by Boxhall and others on Titanic was the self-same Californian.
The joke is that Captain Lord did not believe for a moment that Titanic sank where Boxhall said she did. Nor did Captain Moore of the Mount Temple. If they had been believed, we would have to re-write the script for James Cameron.
A great deal has been made of the question ' she wouldn't be sending up signals for nothing now, would she?'
No indeed she would not have done. But she might not have been sinking. Distress does not automatically mean that a vessel is sinking. Just another simple fact missed by most but not by Stone!
Poor, brow-beaten, bullied, cajoled young man as he was.
Then there's the question of the rockets seen by Stone and Gibson half an hour before the end of their Watch.
These were seen to the southward and almost on the horizon. If these were the standard distress signals, they were at least 500 feet above the sea level at the spot from which they were fired.
Using 50 feet for Apprentice Gibson's height of eye and taking his word that they were right down on the horizon means that the spot these rockets came from was 33 miles away from Californian. If these rockets came from Carpathia then she was no more than 8 miles away from Boxhall when she fired the last of them. This means that Californian must have been more than 20 miles away from Boxhall.
The problem here is not one of distance but one of interval. How many rockets did Carpathia fire and at what intervals?
Incidentally, these rockets make a nonsense of the 5 mile away from Titanic theory. Possible even any theory which proposes a distance less than 20 miles.
The distance between the bridges of Californian and Carpathia was about 17 miles. That is the maximum distance an observer with a telescope could have seen either of the vessels's side lights. A standard rocket fired from a vessel at that distance would be seen to burst well above her masthead lights and the source would be clearly visible.
There is another mystery concerning Carpathia's rockets. Captain Rostron said he gave orders for one to be fired every 15 minutes. If his orders were carried-out, where did the rockets seen by Californian's Apprentice James Gibson come from? Gibson said he saw 3 rockets the ame as before . The first two with a 3 minute interval between them! On the other hand, Stone said he saw two flashes on the horizon. he did not identify them as rockets. It should be boren in mind that this evidence given by Stone and Gibson was given in writing before either of them new that Carpathia had sent up any rockets. If Carpathia had fired rockets as instructed, and the first one was seen at or about 03-20am on Californian, then the second would have been seen at about 03-35am. Gibson went off watch 10 minutes after that, at 03-45am. Very strange indeed.
Jim C.
Matthew Farr
Member
I'm no expert but I have a hard time believing that Captain Lord would not think to have Evans inquire about wether or not the Titanic was sending up rockets while also confirming her distress position. Certainly he would have at least though of the possibility that the given distress position was somehow incorrect given the fact that there was a ship firing rockets nearby and the only ship that was supposedly near to him was the Titanic. Once he had confirmation that Titanic was indeed firing rockets he would surely have put two and two together and deduced that the ship firing rockets was in fact the Titanic.
Jim Currie
Member
Hello Matthew,
When it is in distress and requires assistance, a ship has several options to attract attention. There were and still are international rules describing these which I won't go into. However they were and still are visual and sound signals. Titanic chose only two of these. The visual signals she sent up were the pyrotchnics. Unfortunately, there was no way on the face of this earth that they would convey urgent need of assistance to any observer. However, Titanic was sending out urgent cries for help over the air-waves.. describing her plight and giving a position to which potential rescue vessel could head for.
The morse signal lights on theCalifornian and on the Titanic were extremely powerful and could be easily seen at a distance of at least 10 miles. At one time during the incident both vessels were using these tools. It is rediculous to suggest that one or other did not see this, yet the fact that this was happening was completely ignored by both Inquiries and subsequent researchers.
If you add the fact that the consensus by all of Californian's officers was that the nearby ship was between 5 and 7 miles away then the idea that the other ship was Titanic is even more ludecrous.
Te re-cap:
In an alternative scenario, Lord would be on the bridge of his ship flashing away continuously at the nearby vessel and not getting any response. The nearby vessel was not acknowleging his call-up signal.
At the same time, he could see what looked like white pyrotechnic signals rising from the other vessel but only to the height of her white mast head light. He knew that such a mast head light would be no more than 150 feet above the sea level whereas distress signals went 4 times as high,so he was not seeing distress signals. The only other type of pyrotechnic signal from ships would be stationary ones or ones rising to about 150 feet. He might however, guess that the signals were coming from a distance much further away, beyond the nearby vessel. Here is what Lord would see through his binoculars.
On a very dark night as was the case in 1912, you would not see the horizon. Everything would look black. I have lightened the night sky to help the illustration.
But Lord did not go on the bridge, he relied on the verbal description given to him by the officer on Watch, who was seing something similar to the above illustration. Lord knew how high distress rockets went in relation to the ship firing them. He was being given a description of 'squibs' compared to such rockets. Perhaps that's what produced the suggestion of private signals. Remember that is the word reportedly used by Lord when Stone called him for the first time. Not Company signals. Stone did not use the word 'Company' in his original written deposition.
Measure this against a wireless cry for urgent help from the biggest ship in the world being illuminated by something similar to a star shell every 5 minutes and giving exact co-ordinates. Remember, Captain Lord had seen Olympic at night so knew exactly what to look for.
Even if Evans had called Titanic back and said 'look old man, we can see a ship near to us firing rockets, is that you? Are you sure of your position? It is quite probable that the operator on Titanic would have said yes to both questions. He would also have informed Captain Smith that he had contacted the nearby ship.. the one Boxhall saw.. and that the other ship wanted confirmation of the position. Smith would have called Boxhall who would have confirmed the position and we would be back to square one as they say. Lord would have confirmation that Titanic was firing rockets and she was in the position she was giving out to everyone.
Jim C.
When it is in distress and requires assistance, a ship has several options to attract attention. There were and still are international rules describing these which I won't go into. However they were and still are visual and sound signals. Titanic chose only two of these. The visual signals she sent up were the pyrotchnics. Unfortunately, there was no way on the face of this earth that they would convey urgent need of assistance to any observer. However, Titanic was sending out urgent cries for help over the air-waves.. describing her plight and giving a position to which potential rescue vessel could head for.
The morse signal lights on theCalifornian and on the Titanic were extremely powerful and could be easily seen at a distance of at least 10 miles. At one time during the incident both vessels were using these tools. It is rediculous to suggest that one or other did not see this, yet the fact that this was happening was completely ignored by both Inquiries and subsequent researchers.
If you add the fact that the consensus by all of Californian's officers was that the nearby ship was between 5 and 7 miles away then the idea that the other ship was Titanic is even more ludecrous.
Te re-cap:
In an alternative scenario, Lord would be on the bridge of his ship flashing away continuously at the nearby vessel and not getting any response. The nearby vessel was not acknowleging his call-up signal.
At the same time, he could see what looked like white pyrotechnic signals rising from the other vessel but only to the height of her white mast head light. He knew that such a mast head light would be no more than 150 feet above the sea level whereas distress signals went 4 times as high,so he was not seeing distress signals. The only other type of pyrotechnic signal from ships would be stationary ones or ones rising to about 150 feet. He might however, guess that the signals were coming from a distance much further away, beyond the nearby vessel. Here is what Lord would see through his binoculars.
On a very dark night as was the case in 1912, you would not see the horizon. Everything would look black. I have lightened the night sky to help the illustration.
But Lord did not go on the bridge, he relied on the verbal description given to him by the officer on Watch, who was seing something similar to the above illustration. Lord knew how high distress rockets went in relation to the ship firing them. He was being given a description of 'squibs' compared to such rockets. Perhaps that's what produced the suggestion of private signals. Remember that is the word reportedly used by Lord when Stone called him for the first time. Not Company signals. Stone did not use the word 'Company' in his original written deposition.
Measure this against a wireless cry for urgent help from the biggest ship in the world being illuminated by something similar to a star shell every 5 minutes and giving exact co-ordinates. Remember, Captain Lord had seen Olympic at night so knew exactly what to look for.
Even if Evans had called Titanic back and said 'look old man, we can see a ship near to us firing rockets, is that you? Are you sure of your position? It is quite probable that the operator on Titanic would have said yes to both questions. He would also have informed Captain Smith that he had contacted the nearby ship.. the one Boxhall saw.. and that the other ship wanted confirmation of the position. Smith would have called Boxhall who would have confirmed the position and we would be back to square one as they say. Lord would have confirmation that Titanic was firing rockets and she was in the position she was giving out to everyone.
Jim C.
Martin Cooper
Member
Hi Jim.
Very well put.
This is what I was saying a year or two back in one of the threads, but you have explained it a lot better than I did.
Hope you are keeping well Jim.
Best regards.
Martin.
Very well put.
This is what I was saying a year or two back in one of the threads, but you have explained it a lot better than I did.
Hope you are keeping well Jim.
Best regards.
Martin.
Jim Currie
Member
Thank you Martin, I try as best I can.
I'm fine thank you. Hope you are too.
Jim C
I'm fine thank you. Hope you are too.
Jim C
Similar threads
