Reversing Engines
- Thread starter steve b
- Start date
Mark Chirnside
Member
<FONT COLOR="119911">I was under the impression that Oliver saw Captain Smith stop the ship after she had gotten underway. After the collision. But I could be wrong.
It *only is my personal interpretation* that he is talking about after the collision, we all have different opinions and that's what makes this board so interesting. I agree with Michael Standart that the examiners' questioning, certainly in America, was nit-picking and my main irritation is the order. In Britain they asked about the orders: i.e., collision, evacuation, boats, rescue. However, Smith butterfly-flew from one issue to the next and Olliver was never called in Britain. In any case, witnesses' memories were fresher in America which further changes the issue.
It *only is my personal interpretation* that he is talking about after the collision, we all have different opinions and that's what makes this board so interesting. I agree with Michael Standart that the examiners' questioning, certainly in America, was nit-picking and my main irritation is the order. In Britain they asked about the orders: i.e., collision, evacuation, boats, rescue. However, Smith butterfly-flew from one issue to the next and Olliver was never called in Britain. In any case, witnesses' memories were fresher in America which further changes the issue.
Mr. Chirnside,
I know what you mean. I like the difference in opinion or what different people take out of testimony that other people over look and so on. I will have to go and look into it to see what I can dig out of it. If you are right however that could change a few thoughts of my own.
Erik
I know what you mean. I like the difference in opinion or what different people take out of testimony that other people over look and so on. I will have to go and look into it to see what I can dig out of it. If you are right however that could change a few thoughts of my own.
Erik
Michael H. Standart
Member
Hmmmmmm...as I recall, my main gripe was that some of the Senators (I named Burton specifically) were jumping to conclusions, by reading things into the witnesses testimony that were not explicitely there.
Still, I agree with Mark about the nit-picking and the way they jumped around from one subject to another. A nice way to fuel the confusion, and make it difficult to follow the train of thought of the inquisitors. I'm bothered also by the repetitiveness of the questions asked. It was as if Smith and Co. were trying to trip people up and play "Gotcha!"
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Still, I agree with Mark about the nit-picking and the way they jumped around from one subject to another. A nice way to fuel the confusion, and make it difficult to follow the train of thought of the inquisitors. I'm bothered also by the repetitiveness of the questions asked. It was as if Smith and Co. were trying to trip people up and play "Gotcha!"
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Parks Stephenson
Member
OK, let me re-word my last statement:
<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Either way I cut it, Scott's testimony conflicts with Boxhall's...a not uncommon event in my world of testimony-slumming.
I don't see how Boxhall could see FULL ASTERN immediately after the collision (in his words), while Scott saw STOP immediately after the collision and before the WT doors closed (in his words). That is, of course, assuming that Boxhall and Scott could see what they claimed to see. As everyone points out, it's hard to believe that Scott saw the telegraphs from where he said he stood. As I've pointed out, it's hard to believe that Boxhall could read the telegraph order on a darkened telegraph inside a darkened bridge without his night vision.
And here's another goody to chew on...we don't know for sure what the collision damage was. The sonar scans that everyone trumpets may (I would even go so far to say 'probably') have been grossly misinterpreted. There's no incontrovertible evidence as to the extent of the starboard side damage (yes, there was some)...for all we know, the fatal wounding could have been inflicted underneath the hull.
Parks
<FONT COLOR="0000FF">Either way I cut it, Scott's testimony conflicts with Boxhall's...a not uncommon event in my world of testimony-slumming.
I don't see how Boxhall could see FULL ASTERN immediately after the collision (in his words), while Scott saw STOP immediately after the collision and before the WT doors closed (in his words). That is, of course, assuming that Boxhall and Scott could see what they claimed to see. As everyone points out, it's hard to believe that Scott saw the telegraphs from where he said he stood. As I've pointed out, it's hard to believe that Boxhall could read the telegraph order on a darkened telegraph inside a darkened bridge without his night vision.
And here's another goody to chew on...we don't know for sure what the collision damage was. The sonar scans that everyone trumpets may (I would even go so far to say 'probably') have been grossly misinterpreted. There's no incontrovertible evidence as to the extent of the starboard side damage (yes, there was some)...for all we know, the fatal wounding could have been inflicted underneath the hull.
Parks
Mr. Stephenson,
I would love for you to join Captain Brown and a few others in a private discussion about this very thing. It is on ET just let me know via email if you would like to take part and I will set it up. It is a secure area and ideas will be kept amoungst ourselves.
Erik
I would love for you to join Captain Brown and a few others in a private discussion about this very thing. It is on ET just let me know via email if you would like to take part and I will set it up. It is a secure area and ideas will be kept amoungst ourselves.
Erik
Michael H. Standart
Member
By all means Sparks OM, join us there. We could use your insights.
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
Parks Stephenson
Member
I need to talk with Dave Brown about this offline. I have a problem with dual e-mail addresses.
Parks
Parks
Mark Chirnside
Member
It is one of the many mysteries of the Titanic (everything is: speed, ice, Californian, rockets,…!). If I recall from the Garzke 1996 report the slits in the starboard bow were identified in length but not width because it was beyond the limits of the sub-bottom profiler or some kind of thingy. Personally, with my belief about the damage to the double bottom under boiler room 4 I had previously wondered about the forward compartments’ double bottom damage. Boiler room 4 began flooding some 1 hour 20 minutes after the collision, but the other compartments were badly flooded (specifically, the two and three cargo holds; eerily, like Britannic) and the damage was never seen. But that’s for another story…
You wrote: I don't see how Boxhall could see FULL ASTERN immediately after the collision (in his words), while Scott saw STOP immediately after the collision and before the WT doors closed (in his words). That is, of course, assuming that Boxhall and Scott could see what they claimed to see. As everyone points out, it's hard to believe that Scott saw the telegraphs from where he said he stood. As I've pointed out, it's hard to believe that Boxhall could read the telegraph order on a darkened telegraph inside a darkened bridge without his night vision.
I perfectly agree with you; there are only three people who speak of the engine orders and they all seem to contradict each other. Assuming (always a tricky business) that they told the truth, or even saw it as they thought, my hypothesis seemed to fit each. From Boxhall’s British inquiry testimony, I change my last statement; he did see them after the collision:
As another variable, we don’t know exactly how long ‘immediately after impact’ was. It *might* still be before Scott:
There seems to me no time to ‘after the shock,’ but Boxhall never mentioned that the orders were changed when he was on the bridge and it seems he would have done…
Quite frankly, I was wondering whether to portray it from different people’s viewpoints but that would probably either come-out completely confused or contradictory. It is something I could try editing.
I am still worried about the fact that Hitchens never said anything about Murdoch’s report, but then again he didn’t mention ‘hard a port’ and said they hit the ice as he had got the helm hard over…
Well, more confusion and headaches…
Best regards,
Mark.
You wrote: I don't see how Boxhall could see FULL ASTERN immediately after the collision (in his words), while Scott saw STOP immediately after the collision and before the WT doors closed (in his words). That is, of course, assuming that Boxhall and Scott could see what they claimed to see. As everyone points out, it's hard to believe that Scott saw the telegraphs from where he said he stood. As I've pointed out, it's hard to believe that Boxhall could read the telegraph order on a darkened telegraph inside a darkened bridge without his night vision.
I perfectly agree with you; there are only three people who speak of the engine orders and they all seem to contradict each other. Assuming (always a tricky business) that they told the truth, or even saw it as they thought, my hypothesis seemed to fit each. From Boxhall’s British inquiry testimony, I change my last statement; he did see them after the collision:
As another variable, we don’t know exactly how long ‘immediately after impact’ was. It *might* still be before Scott:
There seems to me no time to ‘after the shock,’ but Boxhall never mentioned that the orders were changed when he was on the bridge and it seems he would have done…
Quite frankly, I was wondering whether to portray it from different people’s viewpoints but that would probably either come-out completely confused or contradictory. It is something I could try editing.
I am still worried about the fact that Hitchens never said anything about Murdoch’s report, but then again he didn’t mention ‘hard a port’ and said they hit the ice as he had got the helm hard over…
Well, more confusion and headaches…
Best regards,
Mark.
Parks Stephenson
Member
Odd thoughts:
I was trying the other night to reconstruct the bridge of the USS Constellation, the bridge where I attained my underway quals, and apart from general layout, I couldn't remember exact details. Of course, that was 13 years ago. I better remember the engine room of the USS Iwo Jima, which I was in just 4 months ago, but I could not tell you where every single valve and gauge was. Of course, I was only a visitor down there...my station was up in CIC with the combat system equipment.
I tried focusing the hazy eye of my memory to the USS Ranger fire of 1983. Things were so confusing then, even more so now that time has clouded the events further. I remember GQ being called away after an escalating series of "Fire, fire, fire" calls, the excitement of knowing something was happening (but not specifically what), the heat and stuffiness of a ship without ventilation, sneaking out of my GQ station (where I was doing nothing) to go help out, the exhaustion at the end of the day. I spent most of the day in the hanger bay, helping fire teams...but I can't remember exactly what it was I did. I'm obviously the last person anyone would want to interview if they were writing a history of the event. As I've said before, I have at least one specific, detailed memory of that disaster (the bodies of the asphyxiated on the fantail) that I know to be false.
I tried to recall the pattern of upholstery used on the seats of the last airliner I flew in. I couldn't. When I was married to my first wife, a Delta flight attendant, we used to sneak down to the galley in the L-1011 for some private time. I have tried to reconstruct the galley in my mind, but I can't do it. Of course, I had other things on my mind at the time...who would have imagined that I would have to remember details of my surroundings for later reconstruction? If the plane had crashed but I somehow survived, I would have had a difficult time describing the interiors for a group of modelers.
Found the scene that Bill Sauder has mentioned in the 1953 movie 'Titanic' (Bill had thought it might have been in ANTR...he may have gotten the movie wrong, but that's one heck of a memory to remember the scene at all!). The scene where Titanic begins her westward transit is worth watching again. It's nighttime, Quartermasters are standing by telegraphs, ringing all 3 (!) as the engine orders are given. After FULL AHEAD is given, the quartermasters stand down from their posts and the lights inside the telegraphs are turned off. Bill was watching it with me and we discussed the detail in that scene as I re-wound through the scene a few times. While all the details might not specifically apply to Titanic, it was obvious that the director had a maritime advisor on the set, because the actions were too specific to have been made up by a scriptwriter. Yes, it's a movie, but it's the only illustration I have concerning certain aspects of the use of engine-order telegraphs.
Aside from the boiler-room testimony about water coming in from the side of the ship, we really don't have any real proof as to the character of the damage on the starboard side of the bow. The sonar scans are unreliable...what has been shown repeatedly is an enhancement of the original tape, and after hearing about how the analysis was done, I have severe doubts about the veracity of the conclusions. The Marine Forensic Panel accepted the sonar scans, as we all have; therefore, their conclusions (I say 'their' because these conclusions were made before I joined the Panel) are just as suspect. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out" problem.
The damage to the Fireman's Passage stumps Garzke. He has an explanation that even he is not really comfortable with. I think Dave Brown has something to say about it.
Parks
I was trying the other night to reconstruct the bridge of the USS Constellation, the bridge where I attained my underway quals, and apart from general layout, I couldn't remember exact details. Of course, that was 13 years ago. I better remember the engine room of the USS Iwo Jima, which I was in just 4 months ago, but I could not tell you where every single valve and gauge was. Of course, I was only a visitor down there...my station was up in CIC with the combat system equipment.
I tried focusing the hazy eye of my memory to the USS Ranger fire of 1983. Things were so confusing then, even more so now that time has clouded the events further. I remember GQ being called away after an escalating series of "Fire, fire, fire" calls, the excitement of knowing something was happening (but not specifically what), the heat and stuffiness of a ship without ventilation, sneaking out of my GQ station (where I was doing nothing) to go help out, the exhaustion at the end of the day. I spent most of the day in the hanger bay, helping fire teams...but I can't remember exactly what it was I did. I'm obviously the last person anyone would want to interview if they were writing a history of the event. As I've said before, I have at least one specific, detailed memory of that disaster (the bodies of the asphyxiated on the fantail) that I know to be false.
I tried to recall the pattern of upholstery used on the seats of the last airliner I flew in. I couldn't. When I was married to my first wife, a Delta flight attendant, we used to sneak down to the galley in the L-1011 for some private time. I have tried to reconstruct the galley in my mind, but I can't do it. Of course, I had other things on my mind at the time...who would have imagined that I would have to remember details of my surroundings for later reconstruction? If the plane had crashed but I somehow survived, I would have had a difficult time describing the interiors for a group of modelers.
Found the scene that Bill Sauder has mentioned in the 1953 movie 'Titanic' (Bill had thought it might have been in ANTR...he may have gotten the movie wrong, but that's one heck of a memory to remember the scene at all!). The scene where Titanic begins her westward transit is worth watching again. It's nighttime, Quartermasters are standing by telegraphs, ringing all 3 (!) as the engine orders are given. After FULL AHEAD is given, the quartermasters stand down from their posts and the lights inside the telegraphs are turned off. Bill was watching it with me and we discussed the detail in that scene as I re-wound through the scene a few times. While all the details might not specifically apply to Titanic, it was obvious that the director had a maritime advisor on the set, because the actions were too specific to have been made up by a scriptwriter. Yes, it's a movie, but it's the only illustration I have concerning certain aspects of the use of engine-order telegraphs.
Aside from the boiler-room testimony about water coming in from the side of the ship, we really don't have any real proof as to the character of the damage on the starboard side of the bow. The sonar scans are unreliable...what has been shown repeatedly is an enhancement of the original tape, and after hearing about how the analysis was done, I have severe doubts about the veracity of the conclusions. The Marine Forensic Panel accepted the sonar scans, as we all have; therefore, their conclusions (I say 'their' because these conclusions were made before I joined the Panel) are just as suspect. It's the old "garbage in, garbage out" problem.
The damage to the Fireman's Passage stumps Garzke. He has an explanation that even he is not really comfortable with. I think Dave Brown has something to say about it.
Parks
Earl Chapman
Member
Hi Parks,
Interesting that Bill remembered that scene from the 1953 "Titanic" (the one with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck). I checked the scene and agree with you that a maritime expert assisted with the sequences. I then checked the film credits and the technical adviser for the film was Commodore Sir Gordon Illingworth, R.D., R.N.R. (Retired).
As Commodore Illingworth was a Royal Navy type, he may have advised scenes more reminiscent of the Royal Navy, rather than the British Merchant Navy, i.e. the ringing of all three telegraphs. I'll have to check through my Royal Navy manuals to see if it was normal RN practice to ring all telegraphs when leaving port.
Regards,
Earl Chapman
Montreal, Canada
Interesting that Bill remembered that scene from the 1953 "Titanic" (the one with Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck). I checked the scene and agree with you that a maritime expert assisted with the sequences. I then checked the film credits and the technical adviser for the film was Commodore Sir Gordon Illingworth, R.D., R.N.R. (Retired).
As Commodore Illingworth was a Royal Navy type, he may have advised scenes more reminiscent of the Royal Navy, rather than the British Merchant Navy, i.e. the ringing of all three telegraphs. I'll have to check through my Royal Navy manuals to see if it was normal RN practice to ring all telegraphs when leaving port.
Regards,
Earl Chapman
Montreal, Canada
Parks Stephenson
Member
Earl,
We had the same comment. The sharp ringing of the telegraphs was more RN than Merchant Marine. I was much more interested in the quartermaster turning the telegraph lights off. The point there is that Titanic's bridge was almost completely dark, so how Boxhall could have seen the position of the telegraph handles is beyond me.
Parks
We had the same comment. The sharp ringing of the telegraphs was more RN than Merchant Marine. I was much more interested in the quartermaster turning the telegraph lights off. The point there is that Titanic's bridge was almost completely dark, so how Boxhall could have seen the position of the telegraph handles is beyond me.
Parks
Paul Rogers
Member
Just a thought...
Quite often, the subconscious takes what it expects to see and hear, and then inserts this expectation into memory - quite ignoring what was actually seen/heard.
Boxhall may have expected to see the telegraphs at Full Astern when he entered the bridge. (Maybe his subconscious was anticipating a crash stop based on what information he'd picked up prior to the impact.) As he couldn't actually see the positions of the telegraphs, his expectation of "Full Astern" became his personal reality.
The same expectation could influence what Boxhall "remembered" Murdoch saying about reversing the engines. As a race, humans are notoriously bad at listening accurately...quite often inserting words and/or phrases that we think are said, especially if the original words and/or phrases appear illogical to us.
It may have been that Boxhall didn't actually look at the telegraphs at all - but only mis-heard Murdoch saying "Full Astern." Boxhall then created a picture of the telegraphs at that position in his memory, to back up his verbal recollection. All this would have been done quite subconsciously and without any duplicity on Boxhall's part, of course.
Regards,
Paul.
Quite often, the subconscious takes what it expects to see and hear, and then inserts this expectation into memory - quite ignoring what was actually seen/heard.
Boxhall may have expected to see the telegraphs at Full Astern when he entered the bridge. (Maybe his subconscious was anticipating a crash stop based on what information he'd picked up prior to the impact.) As he couldn't actually see the positions of the telegraphs, his expectation of "Full Astern" became his personal reality.
The same expectation could influence what Boxhall "remembered" Murdoch saying about reversing the engines. As a race, humans are notoriously bad at listening accurately...quite often inserting words and/or phrases that we think are said, especially if the original words and/or phrases appear illogical to us.
It may have been that Boxhall didn't actually look at the telegraphs at all - but only mis-heard Murdoch saying "Full Astern." Boxhall then created a picture of the telegraphs at that position in his memory, to back up his verbal recollection. All this would have been done quite subconsciously and without any duplicity on Boxhall's part, of course.
Regards,
Paul.
Similar threads
