Tom Pappas
Guest
Point taken. Delete "wise."
Rocket Colours
- Thread starter Mark Chirnside
- Start date
George Behe
Member
Hi, Don!
>....time will do!
Not long ago on another bulletin board someone quoted a clause from the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906; the clause included the phrase:
"...rockets and/or flares, fired individually at intervals of not less than one minute,..."
All my best,
George
>....time will do!
Not long ago on another bulletin board someone quoted a clause from the Merchant Shipping Act of 1906; the clause included the phrase:
"...rockets and/or flares, fired individually at intervals of not less than one minute,..."
All my best,
George
It occurs to me that no matter the evidence against or in support of Captain Lord's position some have decided to condemn the man. While I definitly see why one would do that, I think it would be wise to look at the over all picture governing his decision making.
Whether he ignored the rockets or thought that they where something different from what they where isn't the issue. The Safe a prudent navigation of his vessel and his responsibility to the men aboard it where his sole responsibility and should be the issue being discussed as apart of this over all discussion. The fate of those on Titanic does not fall upon his (Captain Lords) shoulders, his shipmate Captain Smith is to be held responsible for this.
In my professional opinion and (and with 90 years of hindsight and my career being in the age of radio) Lord made a mistake by not waking his wireless operator but the biggest mistake was not making a formal decision and having it and the situation logged.
Some have argued that the fact he did not come to Titanic's aid was a decision in and of itself. As another Master Mariner I can not blame him for staying put, his responsibility was to his ship and his men, that was it, the problems that faced Titanic where not of his creating and not his to fix. If he felt that the ice around him was not dangerous then he wouldn't have stopped for the night, because none of us where there to see what he saw none of us can say with any amount of certainty the conditions in which Lord found himself. Because he was a Captain (a position that is not easily achieved) one must IMO give him the benefit of the doubt. I can however call him a poopy pants for not having the presence of mind to have his decision and the situation logged.
I have said in several threads that my officers only need to be told what I think is important, and that my orders in and of themselves give information about a decision that I have made to a competent officer. Hindsight tells me that this was a out of the ordinary situation one that I would hope would have caught my attention.
I grew up in the era of the Coast Guard and the era of Lawyers, and era where passenger ship captains can get sued for bad food and loose there jobs based decisions that are made for the safety of the ship and not the schedule. So, every decision that is even remotely questionable is logged.
Stanely Lord is guilty for not logging and informing his officers of a decision, especially after they had awakened him more then once about the situation. He is not guilty of manslaughter and he is not some evil being that slept peacefully knowing that 1500 people 10 miles away where about to die. Before folks make comments about Captain Lords decision to sleep after his ship stopped for the night, one might try being a skipper. Hindsight helps us see what happened, it does not help the men who where in the situation.
Whether he ignored the rockets or thought that they where something different from what they where isn't the issue. The Safe a prudent navigation of his vessel and his responsibility to the men aboard it where his sole responsibility and should be the issue being discussed as apart of this over all discussion. The fate of those on Titanic does not fall upon his (Captain Lords) shoulders, his shipmate Captain Smith is to be held responsible for this.
In my professional opinion and (and with 90 years of hindsight and my career being in the age of radio) Lord made a mistake by not waking his wireless operator but the biggest mistake was not making a formal decision and having it and the situation logged.
Some have argued that the fact he did not come to Titanic's aid was a decision in and of itself. As another Master Mariner I can not blame him for staying put, his responsibility was to his ship and his men, that was it, the problems that faced Titanic where not of his creating and not his to fix. If he felt that the ice around him was not dangerous then he wouldn't have stopped for the night, because none of us where there to see what he saw none of us can say with any amount of certainty the conditions in which Lord found himself. Because he was a Captain (a position that is not easily achieved) one must IMO give him the benefit of the doubt. I can however call him a poopy pants for not having the presence of mind to have his decision and the situation logged.
I have said in several threads that my officers only need to be told what I think is important, and that my orders in and of themselves give information about a decision that I have made to a competent officer. Hindsight tells me that this was a out of the ordinary situation one that I would hope would have caught my attention.
I grew up in the era of the Coast Guard and the era of Lawyers, and era where passenger ship captains can get sued for bad food and loose there jobs based decisions that are made for the safety of the ship and not the schedule. So, every decision that is even remotely questionable is logged.
Stanely Lord is guilty for not logging and informing his officers of a decision, especially after they had awakened him more then once about the situation. He is not guilty of manslaughter and he is not some evil being that slept peacefully knowing that 1500 people 10 miles away where about to die. Before folks make comments about Captain Lords decision to sleep after his ship stopped for the night, one might try being a skipper. Hindsight helps us see what happened, it does not help the men who where in the situation.
Virginia Dearing
Guest
This certainly gave me another perspective on the responsability of Captain Lord in the Titanic situation.Phjlly43]
Susan Leighton
Guest
Hey Erik,
As an environmental regulator, I represent...uh..uh..I mean I resent that remark.
Susan Y. Leighton
As an environmental regulator, I represent...uh..uh..I mean I resent that remark.
Susan Y. Leighton
Tom Pappas
Guest
Very true, and adequate rationale for not rushing pell-mell to Titanic's aid. But he didn't even answer the phone. Your comment about his failure to awaken Evans is right on target, because even if he didn't think he could help without endangering his vessel and crew, he had an obligation to find out what was happening and render whatever assistance he could in his circumstances.
With all due respect Tom, I hate it when you make a good point out of something I said, especially when what you take from it I wasn't even thinking about when I posted it LOL.
You make a good and very vaild point. One to which I have nothing to counter it with, he should have done as you say, but we say that knowing what happened, he had know way of knowing which does not excuse his actions but to my mind makes him....nieve is kind of the word I am looking for, where is a professional writer when you need one?? He thought he was innocent by keeping his eyes and ears closed because of the situation he was in. I don't know how else to put it.
You make a good and very vaild point. One to which I have nothing to counter it with, he should have done as you say, but we say that knowing what happened, he had know way of knowing which does not excuse his actions but to my mind makes him....nieve is kind of the word I am looking for, where is a professional writer when you need one?? He thought he was innocent by keeping his eyes and ears closed because of the situation he was in. I don't know how else to put it.
That is the one thing that sticks in my craw.
He did not even wake up Evans.
Morse code, over 10 miles, give or take, please!
We will never know, and I will leave myself to my own conclusions.
Take some action though!!!
Rostrom moved and acted.
The path he chose was dangerous to himself, crew, and passengers.
But I am glad he acted in the manner that he did.
-Don
He did not even wake up Evans.
Morse code, over 10 miles, give or take, please!
We will never know, and I will leave myself to my own conclusions.
Take some action though!!!
Rostrom moved and acted.
The path he chose was dangerous to himself, crew, and passengers.
But I am glad he acted in the manner that he did.
-Don
Lee Gilliland
Member
It is my understanding that up until Titanic, distress rockets were exclusively white, and all company signals were required to have at least one colored rocket to differentiate the two. It was not until after the disaster distress signals became any color, and company pyrotechnics were scrapped, so that this kind of mix-up would never be able to happen again.
Tom Pappas
Guest
From "Appendix B" of Leslie Reade's THE SHIP THAT STOOD STILL, entitled "Signals of Distress":
The international code for distress signals prevailing in 1912 was as follows:
WHEN A VESSEL IS IN DISTRESS and requires assistance from other vessels or from the shore, the following shall be the signals to be used or displayed by her, either together or separately:
* * *
AT NIGHT
(1) A gun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of about a minute;
(2) Flames on the vessel (as from a burning tar barrel, oil barrel, etc.);
(3) Rockets or shells, throwing stars of any colour or description, used one at a time at short intervals;
(4) A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
The international code for distress signals prevailing in 1912 was as follows:
WHEN A VESSEL IS IN DISTRESS and requires assistance from other vessels or from the shore, the following shall be the signals to be used or displayed by her, either together or separately:
* * *
AT NIGHT
(1) A gun or other explosive signal fired at intervals of about a minute;
(2) Flames on the vessel (as from a burning tar barrel, oil barrel, etc.);
(3) Rockets or shells, throwing stars of any colour or description, used one at a time at short intervals;
(4) A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
Lee Gilliland
Member
Thank you, Tom. I'm afraid my brain sometimes leaks.
David Billnitzer
Member
This is to Mark Chirnside, who was asking if anybody had ever tried to explain Lord's preoccupation with the color of the rockets. I can't find anything in Harrison's writings, but Padfield offers an apologist's explanation (p 198), but it seems clear (to me, anyway) that Padfield really isn't certain how to handle it. Here, verbatim, is how Padfield presents that passage from the Inquiry:
* * * * *
"Sir Rufus returned to the questioning: 'Why did you ask whether they were white rockets?'
"Because company's signals usually have some colours in them."
"So that if they were really white they would not be company's signals?"
Lord's answer to this question is his only one during the Inquiry that smacks of fencing. "No, some companies have white signals."
* * * * *
Dave Billnitzer
* * * * *
"Sir Rufus returned to the questioning: 'Why did you ask whether they were white rockets?'
"Because company's signals usually have some colours in them."
"So that if they were really white they would not be company's signals?"
Lord's answer to this question is his only one during the Inquiry that smacks of fencing. "No, some companies have white signals."
* * * * *
Dave Billnitzer
Mark Chirnside
Member
Hi Dave!
Thanks very much for your post, especially after this time. If Padfield feels he's treading on uncertain ground then he's not the only one! On the one hand, Lord asserts that company signals are usually coloured; then that some companies have white signals. I suppose those two statements are not mutually exclusive, yet there must have been something running through his mind that night with regard to his focus on *colour*. If Padfield is the only one who's attemped to address it, and he has not been able to clear it up, it seems we will remain in the dark. Perhaps that's a good thing: debate will live on.
Best regards,
Mark.
Thanks very much for your post, especially after this time. If Padfield feels he's treading on uncertain ground then he's not the only one! On the one hand, Lord asserts that company signals are usually coloured; then that some companies have white signals. I suppose those two statements are not mutually exclusive, yet there must have been something running through his mind that night with regard to his focus on *colour*. If Padfield is the only one who's attemped to address it, and he has not been able to clear it up, it seems we will remain in the dark. Perhaps that's a good thing: debate will live on.
Best regards,
Mark.
