True Course

[Parks Stephenson]

David,

The "salient and experienced comments" you seek were given by the men who were actually involved in the collision. I'm sure you'll know where to find them.

Parks

 

[monica e. hall]

Slightly nervous as I am about being in such expert (if disagreeing) company, I assume that David B. inferred that Boxhall would have been on the compass platform at about 11.30 because the thing had to be steadied every half an hour, and not because Boxhall actually said anything about the subject. Anyway, nobody asked him where he was at 11.30, only where he was at the point of impact (BI).In that evidence, he said he was coming out of the officers' quarters, and I guess he could have nipped to the loo or something equally mundane on his way back from the compass platform. So far as anything to do with compasses is concerned, I shall have to bow out - I could barely understand True Course in the first place...

 

[Charles B. Weeks Jr.]

Monica:
Please let me know what you don't understand in True Course, and I'd be glad to help you. The article was written to try to help people understand a rather technical subject, that would not be common knowledge. Hopefully that would help them to better understand what happened.
Regards,
Charlie Weeks

 

[monica e. hall]

Hello Charlie,
how very kind of you. It's not yours or Cathy's fault, it was quite clear from the article that you were trying to demystify a technical subject. It's just that when you are dealing with the lowest common denominator of technical understanding (that's me) you can't take a thing for granted. I was fine for the first few pages, great diagrams, understood the wandering pole etc. It was deviation that got me - not why it happens, but some of the terms. What is the azimuth, and I got confused about the significance of the shoreside range mark, which seemed to be a church. I got the adjustments OK, so I suppose all I'm really muddled about is a bit of the terminology and the exact significance of the shoreside range marks. If ever you want to run a future article passed the really stupid, I'm your girl....

 

[Charles B. Weeks Jr.]

monica:
Your not stupid, it took me awhile to understand it also. Magnetic compasses are powered, if you like, by the interaction of the earth's magnetic field and the magnets located under the compass card. As we explained they do not always even usually point at True North. Based on our location on the earth we can determine one error, (Variation) by picking it off a Pilot Chart. The other error is Deviation, this is caused by the iron and steel in the ship and its position in regard to the compass and north. When under way we want to know how accurate our compass is so we check it. If we are in visual sight of land and can line up to objects which are also on the chart and compare the bearing of the objects as seen to the bearing on the chart. The difference is our total compass error. Which as I said before is made up of Deviation and Variation. When we are out of sight of land we take a bearing (Azimuth)of a star, planet or the sun. The difference between the observed bearing and the calculated bearing, based on time and our location is total compass error. Does that help?
Regards,
Charlie Weeks

 

[Kyrila Scully]

David G., you've got a new book coming out? And I was savin' me pennies for the paperback version of White Hurricane (due out in Feb. according to Amazon). Now I'll have to save for this one as well. But happily so. If I can sell my condo in the next couple of months, perhaps I can join you all in Maine. I plan to resume my gypsy ways in a motorhome so I can be ready to attend any gathering of the ET fold. And I know in my heart that more than one person in the fold is an expert seaman, and appreciate all the views expressed for discussion.

Kyrila

 

[Inger Sheil]

I do not, however, see justification in the testimony for the claim that Boxhall was in the compass platform just before the accident. I think we can all agree that Boxhall was away from the bridge on appointed rounds about that time and it could be that he was on the platform at some point to help calibrate the steering compass. But there's not a hint of his being on the platform during the critical time discussed here in either his or Olliver's testimony or later remembrances. In fact, the lack of mention there is significant.

I have to agree with you here, Parks. As has been discussed at great length before, there is no inquiry testimony or other information that places Boxhall at that location immediately prior to the collision. However, Boxhall made a later statement in an interview that was consistant with his inquiry testimony as to his whereabouts immediately prior to the collision. This put him in his cabin after completing his rounds and immediately prior to emerging to return to the Bridge.

Boxhall does mention being out on the decks and at the compass during his final watch when asked about haze:

15340. Neither at 8 o'clock nor at any time during the night? - Whenever I was on the deck or at the compass I never saw any haze whatever.

But there is no evidence that puts him on the platform during the immediate period pre-collision - according to what he said, he had finished his rounds, was having a cup of tea and was about to return to the Bridge having been in his cabin. Any 'steadying' of the ship (if, indeed, it took place) had already been completed. We have nothing beyond supposition to place Boxhall on the compass platform at this crucial moment, and we have evidence against it.

 

[David Haisman]

Parks,

The response was predictable and the ''safe'' route for many is to refer to ''dodgy and the closing of ranks'' testimony other than to answer straight forward questions drawn from relative experience.



David

 

[monica e. hall]

David B. seems to be saying that Murdoch did indeed make a hard-a-starboard, but that it was (I infer) in connection with the compass steadying and not a manoeuvre to avoid the iceberg, if I read him aright. So it would have been before the berg was sighted? Timeline seems a bit short for that. Would steadying the compass necessitate a hard-a-starboard? Not sure why everyone thinks Murdoch saw the berg before anyone else, but I'm sure that is covered somewhere on ET so I'll search for it.

 

[Cathy Akers-Jordan]

Dave B. wrote: "This paper is a succinct discussion of compass navigation in the 1912 era. As such, it is "must" reading for anyone trying to de-mystify the various courses and headings given in the testimonies."

Thank you, Dave!

I'd also like to say that Charlie is a great mentor. I learned a lot from working with him on this!

Cathy

 

[Cathy Akers-Jordan]

Hi Monica,

Yes, deviation is confusing! It took me a while to understand it, too. I hope Charlie's additional explanation helped.

I'm glad you liked the rest of the article, but please let us know if you have any other questions.

Cathy

 

[Parks Stephenson]

David,

I intended my response to be predictable. I would hope that no one reviewing the disaster today would consider themself to be more knowledgeable about the sequence of events than those who were there and described their part in it. It's one thing to interpret the survivors' reported actions based on experience but quite another to contradict or dismiss them, based on an unproven assumption that they lied about or otherwise obfuscated their actions. Certainly, a man can be mistaken in his memory of events, but for a modern layman (which includes everyone who was not on that particular ship at the time) to prove the error requires proof drawn from other participants or remaining evidence. So, back to my original predictable point...if you want salient and experienced comments, my advice for you is to turn to the remembrances of the crew. Anything else is mere opinion by someone who wasn't there. I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you of all people...you say very much the same in many of your posts.

Parks

 

[David G. Brown]

Regarding Boxhall-- This discussion belongs in a thread of its own as it is not really directly related to compass error, etc. I will find an appropriate loacation to make a longer posting in response to what has been written above regarding the fourth officer. Look for it in a day or two.

In the meantime, I will reiterate my belief that the physical layout of Titanic's bridge--in particular the compass platform--and the inadequate communications among the members of the bridge watch created by that physical layout played a critical role in the accident. I commend Cathy and Captain Charlie for recognizing this significant detail.

--David G. Brown

 

[David Haisman]

Parks,
To answer my criticisms of David Browns article where he states some half a dozen erroneous shipboard practices,perhaps I should remind you that some of us are more knowledgeable than many of the self imposed experts on this site.
When I first went to sea, just some 40 years after the Titanic disaster, much of our training was a direct result of that tragedy along with many unchanged work practices continuing thereafter. Crossing the North Atlantic on Canadian voyages and stopping in ice fields off of the Straits of Belle Isle in dense fog with ships full of passengers was the norm in those days. Having no more assistance than a war time radar set showing more clutter than anything else, along with Lookout duties in those conditions came pretty close to what may have been experienced in Titanic's day.
Witnessing the masters and bridge officers thoroughly exhausted from days on ice routine was something you don't forget. To hear some of the ''experts'' on this web site criticising those same types has been pure sacrilege!
When David Brown writes such stuff as I was commenting on he should be answerable to what he has written or state quite clearly that it's not of his making but merely passing on such material. There are a lot of people out there that are under the impression that the Hollywood version of the tragedy of Titanic is gospel and as long as this kind of misleading text is bandied about,we are heading for a circus!
So, back to what I'm trying to put over and that is quite clearly this.
If people don't state that their writings are their own work or not, they should be prepared to accept criticism from those with relative experience.
I feel I have given out much information over the past couple of years regarding many ship board practices that were similar to Titanic's time but most of it unfortunately has fallen on deaf ears and has been a waste of my time.
I would have preferred some straight answers to my questions and criticisms but that would have been too much for some I fear.
Next Tuesday 13th, I shall be coming off line indefinitely as I can't be bothered to read this stuff much longer so if anyone wants a final ''dig'' before then they had better get their oar in quickly.

David

 

[monica e. hall]

Hi Cathy,
Thanks for reassuring me that you, a technical writer (!) had a few problems too. Very game of you, I think, to have undertaken it in the first place.

I think I've got it all in principle now, but am still a bit puzzled about the shoreside range markings, but I'll re-read it again and try to concentrate this time!
Monica