Was speed to blame?

[Mike Spooner]

If speed wasn't the course then its down to poor navigation? When look at other ships in the same area they are taking a safety precaution of the ice field ahead.
The way I see it. The captain is god on the ship in those days and nobody is to question his orders. Some what different today as quote from a experience sea captain who I sail with the other day how things have changed for the better.
Then any body who takes a quotes what was said in the two enquires has to be taken as a pinch of salt! The America enquires run by a bunch of Senators who know very little in the running of ships. William Smith in charged a lawyer who has clashed with Mr JP Morgan over railroad business and never got the better of him. He has a score to settle here! The British enquires in many ways was worst for the truth. As Lord Mersey set the enquiry as if it was court case! Where a bench set up as in a court room and a witness box with the crew members are cross examined by an experience barrister yet they were not allowed to have an barrister for there defence. With out that barrister you are treading on thin ice here. Were is the jury? Well there isn't one! As in any court case is up to the two barristers to convince the jury there argument is the winner case! Those have not been in a witness box is very neve racking experience
Where Mersey in aggressive tone of voice chipping in. Answer the question man. This is field day for them to pick holes in any answered be given. Clearly are not listening to what the experience sea men have to say. They have decided out come what suits them. Call this enquiry's for the truth? What a joke. Certainly to day if an enquires run on those lines would be thrown out of the window.
That is why we members probably find so fascinating to find and search for the real truth who said what?
Mike.

 

[Aaron_2016]

.....Those have not been in a witness box is very neve racking experience
Where Mersey in aggressive tone of voice chipping in. Answer the question man. This is field day for them to pick holes in any answered be given. Clearly are not listening to what the experience sea men have to say. They have decided out come what suits them. Call this enquiry's for the truth? What a joke. Certainly to day if an enquires run on those lines would be thrown out of the window.
That is why we members probably find so fascinating to find and search for the real truth who said what?
Mike.

The Commissioner was also apparently hard of hearing and the survivors had to repeat their answers again and again. Perhaps he could not understand their broad regional accents? e.g.


The Commissioner

"You do not speak so that I can hear you."

"You must bear in mind that I suffer from the infirmity of deafness."

"Do speak a little louder, please."

"Will you speak up. I do not hear you?"

"Do speak up. I did not hear the answer."

"Do not whisper."

"You must not whisper your answers."

"Speak up so that we can hear you."

"I am not following this."

It seemed to be catching as the Attorney-General said - "Neither am I, my Lord. I did not even hear it. Do you mind telling us again what you said then? I could not hear you. Try to speak up."

Lookout Reginald Lee grew impatient and said - "I think I answered that question before. Didn’t you hear me answer that question before?"

Lookout Frederick Fleet also grew impatient and said - "Is there any more likes to have a go at me?"

The Commissioner - "You seem to distrust us all."

Perhaps the crew did not like the tone in which the questions were asked especially if they used a strong upper class accent and seemingly looked down at them in a superior manner.


.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Hi Aaron,
I am glad you have put forward the above comments from the British enquires. This goes to show was it an enquiry or court herring?
The Commissioner, President of the enquiry, Attorney General, Lord Mersey. Replying back as YES MY LORD. How intimidating and threating can this be to the witness!
Yet I see for a truth enquiry they should of been seating around a table discussing the matter and Lord Mersey should been referred as Mr John Bigham and attorney as Mr Rufus Isaass. Then would not have had the difficulties hearing want been said. Then the is the case Lord Mersey has only hand picked the ones for the enquiry! This not a truth enquiry its a scam were those in powerful position are abusing the situation. The more look into this so call enquiry I am discussed with the whole affair. Lord Mersey should of never been in charge of the enquiry far too close to the Board of Trade. I can see why the second officer Charles Lightroller referred the enquiry as a WHITE WASH! How true it was. On the positive side we as members discussing the matter and may be controversial at times but coming nearer to the true of the loss of Titanic than the two shameful enquires.
Mike.

 

[Aaron_2016]

.....On the positive side we as members discussing the matter and may be controversial at times but coming nearer to the true of the loss of Titanic than the two shameful enquires.
Mike.

Very true. They needed to justify their speed at all costs. I personally believe it was a whitewash. Here is a video I made about the Inquiry and the official story.





.

 

[Jay Roches]

Hi Aaron,
I am glad you have put forward the above comments from the British enquires. This goes to show was it an enquiry or court herring?
The Commissioner, President of the enquiry, Attorney General, Lord Mersey. Replying back as YES MY LORD. How intimidating and threating can this be to the witness!
Yet I see for a truth enquiry they should of been seating around a table discussing the matter and Lord Mersey should been referred as Mr John Bigham and attorney as Mr Rufus Isaass. Then would not have had the difficulties hearing want been said. Then the is the case Lord Mersey has only hand picked the ones for the enquiry! This not a truth enquiry its a scam were those in powerful position are abusing the situation. The more look into this so call enquiry I am discussed with the whole affair. Lord Mersey should of never been in charge of the enquiry far too close to the Board of Trade. I can see why the second officer Charles Lightroller referred the enquiry as a WHITE WASH! How true it was. On the positive side we as members discussing the matter and may be controversial at times but coming nearer to the true of the loss of Titanic than the two shameful enquires.
Mike.

As I understand it saying "my lord" is like saying "Your Honor" in an American court. Of course the British should have set up an inquiry that sought to determine the truth "warts and all", but, being British and it being 1912, they couldn't think of anything other than having a Viscount (John Charles Bigham, First Viscount Mersey, aka Lord Mersey) presiding over an inquiry intended to show that the Board of Trade did no wrong. Unfortunately, inquiries have never really improved -- consider the criticism leveled at the 9/11 Commission's inquiry. At least, with the Costa Concordia, they had Captain Schettino to blame in full and didn't need to invent a scapegoat.

 

[David G. Brown]

You might think that Cap'n Jim and I are at odds over the speed / look out issue, but that's not exactly true. Jim is quite correct in all of what he said above about Titanic's speed and look out issues provided that the ship was in some way confined to confined waters. As long as Captain Smith chose to steam through the area where he knew there was ice, then all of what Jim wrote applies.

My view is that the Captain's mistake took place earlier in the evening, no later than 5:45 p.m. when the ship made a course change at "The Corner." At the time all of the known ice lay about 140 miles west of Titanic. Had he chosen the prudent option -- to keep on the Great Circle course for another 90 or 120 minutes. Then he could have shaped a rhumb line course south of New York to make sure Titanic stayed out of the known ice.

By following my suggestions, the ship would have always been making some degree of westing even though it was on the more southwesterly great circle. Smith would have been maintaining the maximum "V" made good ("V" = "velocity") toward New York. This is an old trick in wind ships that can't always sail direction to their destinations. Smith undoubtedly knew it, although probably under some other name. The idea as to sail as fast as possible in the general direction of your destination rather than trying to zig-zag, tack, and gybe in a hopeless effort to sail a pencil line on a chart. Had Smith dodged south, he would have been a few hours late. As it is, Captain smith is now more than 38,500 days late into New York.

Dodging south of the ice would have made speed irrelevant simply because these actions should have avoided ice danger that night. This is why I say the primary issue is not speed, but location. Captain Smith put his ship in the wrong place at the wrong moment and 1,500 people paid the ultimate price for his mistake.

- David G. Brown

 

[Mike Spooner]

Hi David,
We may argue or discuss to the cows come in whether it was excessive speed or poor navigation. Personal I think the combination of both. The question ask my self. How come other ships in the same area of the icefield took safety precaution to avoid the danger?
The question as I see it there is no back ground what Smith mind is going through at the time. First I have lot respect for him as he certainty had to do the hard way. Class barriers in those days were very strong. To gain a top line job of Smith caliber is was a case not what you know but who you know got this jobs. From a working class back ground he pass all his exams and proved himself he was the man for the job. A safe captain to. With over forty years experience in laymen terms how did he screw up that night and got himself in that mess in the first place? I first see this is high pressure and stressful job were you have to meet shipping schedules come what hell the Atlantic weather is throwing at you. Rough weather is always great concern to any captain were the lack of sleep will creep in followed by fatigue.
Smith had been through a very difficult time since the accident with HMS Hawke on the start of firth crossing with Olympic. Were is having to take the blame for and the credibility of White Star Line is under threat to. After the Olympic repairs at great cost to White Star and the loss of three return crossing the only source of income to pay for the ship. Smith is to suffer the worst Atlantic crossings of his career were lack of sleep creeps in. Then the damaged propeller blade in February on the other side of the Atlantic. This is only adding to the pressure of meet the schedule and the ship not functioning properly suffering from bad vibration. The faced yet again return to Belfast for the repairs. Smith is no idiot and knows only too well this costing White Star a fortune with mounting pressure to get the Titanic up and sailing. Then given five minutes notice to take command of Titanic. Personal think this was a very poor decision from White Star management. The coal bunker fire may not made the Titanic seaworthy. But its only adding to the pressure of keeping your mouth shut and concern if the Board of Trade will give that all important seaworthy certificate. With out than certificate you cannot have paying passengers. Smith is past the age of retirement and so what is happing to home life as well? The wife is no full to recognise the stress her husband is going through. She to must be saying, Dear isn't time to give up the job before you have a nerve brake down! Then the near miss with the New York liner in Southampton. Yet seven days before Olympic did not have that problem! Going too fast? I feel very sorry for Smith and failing to understand he is only human and there is limitation how far one can be pushed. Corporation concerns are not helping the matter too. As at this stage a huge investment has been made with this two new state of art luxury passenger liners yet were is the profits? Titanic is late on delivery who is paying the bills? Hundred years ago finical pressure are no different as today.
Mike.

 

[Daniel O.]

If Captain Smith had ignored Ismay and slowed down by 10 knots or so would they have stopped in time when the iceberg was spotted?

 

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Captain Smith did not went "fast" because Ismay wanted so, it was normal standard. Also the ship was not going top speed.

If they had gone 10 knots slower they might had avoid a collision (as Carpathia did).

 

[Mike Spooner]

The question that was asked was, "Was speed to blame?" This can be broken into to two separate questions.

1. Was speed a factor in causing the accident?
2. Was speed a factor in causing the ship to founder?

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I don't believe that speed was a major contributor in causing the accident. I do believe that it was a factor contributing to the degree of damage that finally resulted because of the higher energies involved.

The purpose of these forums is for people to express their opinions. I happen to agree with David on this one. Parks posted an opinion from Shackelton where Shackelton said, "you have no right to go at that speed in an ice zone."

Let me ask the question, When did the Titanic enter the ice zone? How is that region defined? If it should have slowed down, when did she reach the point where that action should have been taken from the information she had available to work with?

Sam gosh question1&2 are a bit nit picking. If want to be pedantic it was the weight of the water that sank the ship and not the iceberg or speed!

 

[Mike Spooner]

Hi, Can anybody tell me what route the Olympic took before Titanic did.? And did she have to face the same icefield as Titanic did? Come to think about was there a Cunard ship or any other liners too?

 

[Mike Spooner]

Agreed, Shackleton knew ice. He knew men. That combination made him an ideal explorer. However, he knew little or nothing about running a trans-Atlantic bus.

Shackleton's view of seafaring was that of a man with a nearly unlimited supply of time. Slowing or stopping was a viable alternative on a voyage measured in years. Captain Smith had exactly the opposite situation. He was concerned with days and hours. Speed was a luxury for Shackleton, but stock-in-trade for Smith.

Had Titanic sailed in 1890 before wireless, I would concede that speed might have been a contributing factor. But, in 1912 Smith had access to enough current ice information to have made a much better choice of course than he did. He could easily have taken Titanic 50 miles south on the great circle before joining a rhumb line to New York. The time difference on the voyage would have been minimal and the extra fuel burn inconsequential.

Mass and speed were factors in the damage to Titanic from striking on the berg. However, the impact was really an after-the-fact event with regard to the navigation decisions that allowed the accident to take place. Steel should never have been allowed to hit ice.

Smith wasn't going too fast, he was sailing in the wrong patch of water.

-- David G. Brown

David that last paragraph.

Smith wasn't going too fast, he was sailing in the wrong patch of water. Spot on!​

I have been racking my brains why the hell Smith did not slow down the ship before entering the icefield? His plan was quite simple. He plan to sail the ship further south of the icefield therefore so he had no need the slow down the ship. But some thing has gone wrong with navigation position. So I see all this endless questions of times and bells. I feel we asking the question of the navigation error. We know Boxhall and other officers have made miss calculation of position as descripted by Jim under Re Open Titanic Can of Worms. Now I my be harsh here. Surely isn't that the reasonability of the captain to check as well the officers have to? Especially on such an important crossing!​