Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please tell me what IIP is, and if there's any link to their study?
Thank you.
-
Let's stay in touch! Sign up for our occasional (but interesting) newsletter.
Discover new research on all aspects of the sinking, interesting Titanic facts, and learn more about the Titanic's passengers and crew.
When could they have seen the iceberg?
- Thread starter Robert T. Paige
- Start date
Please forgive my ignorance, but could you please tell me what IIP is, and if there's any link to their study?
Thank you.
Jim Currie
Member
Yes Sam, I understand that. I posted to show that rather than lying outright; If there was some kind of minor phenomenon on the horizon, then there would be a reason for it and we should not be surprised if there was.
Both men referred to a haze. Both were probably shouldering an enormous guilt complex.
I see the exaggerated haze story simply as a means of deterring from the perceived guilt of not have seen the iceberg soon enough. If, as I believe, these men were within 20 minutes of a warm drink and an even warmer bunk, it is quite possible that their concentration had wilted and they were either chin-wagging or dreaming of what was to come.
Aaron_2016
Guest
Fleet, Lee, and Shiers all testified that there was a haze at the time of the collision. Can't imagine that Lee alone would invent the haze and intentionally lie at the official Inquiry knowing that Fleet was also a key witness. Fleet saw the haze on the horizon, Lee saw the iceberg appear suddenly through the haze, and Shiers saw the haze on the forward well deck where he stood and could just see the outline of the iceberg as it passed astern surrounded in haze. It is baffling that the bridge would not have seen this and acted accordingly. Lightoller told the UK Inquiry:
"The Captain said, "If it becomes at all doubtful"; I think those are his words. "If it becomes at all doubtful let me know at once; I will be just inside."
Q - What about?
A - About the weather, about the distance I could see. Principally those two conditions it would refer to. If there were the slightest degree of haze to arise, the slightest haze whatever, if that were to any degree noticeable, to immediately notify him.
Q - I will take what you have just said. You said if the slightest degree of haze was to arise, that would be what was meant, you were to notify him?
A - Immediately; yes.
Q - And then did you understand, and do you represent, that if the slightest degree of haze arose it would at once become dangerous?
A - Well, it would render it more difficult to see the ice, though not necessarily dangerous. If we were coming on a large berg there might be a haze, as there frequently is in that position, where warm and cold streams are intermixing. You will very frequently get a little low-lying haze, smoke we call it, lying on the water perhaps a couple of feet.
Q - Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that it would be necessarily dangerous in the sense that there would necessarily be an accident, but there would be a risk of danger, would not there?
A - If there was any haze?
Q - Yes?
A - Undoubtedly.
Q - The slightest haze?
A - The slightest haze would render the situation far more difficult.
Q - Far more dangerous?
A - Far more dangerous if there were ice.
Yet nobody apparently notified the captain there was haze right ahead, or at least nobody who survived had testified that the captain was notified. It is interesting how Lookout Lee became very defensive with these three questions:
Q - Were you not then of opinion that the pressure of that haze made the passage dangerous?
A - I am not the officer of the watch.
Q - When this observation was made to you did you not think it a proper thing to communicate with the officer on the bridge?
A - Certainly not. The officer of the watch would ask you what you meant by it. He would ask you whether you were interfering with his duty or not.
Q - When you are going through a haze at night, is it usual to slow up, slacken speed?
A - That has nothing to do with me. I am not on the bridge. I am a look-out man, as I said before.
.
"The Captain said, "If it becomes at all doubtful"; I think those are his words. "If it becomes at all doubtful let me know at once; I will be just inside."
Q - What about?
A - About the weather, about the distance I could see. Principally those two conditions it would refer to. If there were the slightest degree of haze to arise, the slightest haze whatever, if that were to any degree noticeable, to immediately notify him.
Q - I will take what you have just said. You said if the slightest degree of haze was to arise, that would be what was meant, you were to notify him?
A - Immediately; yes.
Q - And then did you understand, and do you represent, that if the slightest degree of haze arose it would at once become dangerous?
A - Well, it would render it more difficult to see the ice, though not necessarily dangerous. If we were coming on a large berg there might be a haze, as there frequently is in that position, where warm and cold streams are intermixing. You will very frequently get a little low-lying haze, smoke we call it, lying on the water perhaps a couple of feet.
Q - Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that it would be necessarily dangerous in the sense that there would necessarily be an accident, but there would be a risk of danger, would not there?
A - If there was any haze?
Q - Yes?
A - Undoubtedly.
Q - The slightest haze?
A - The slightest haze would render the situation far more difficult.
Q - Far more dangerous?
A - Far more dangerous if there were ice.
Yet nobody apparently notified the captain there was haze right ahead, or at least nobody who survived had testified that the captain was notified. It is interesting how Lookout Lee became very defensive with these three questions:
Q - Were you not then of opinion that the pressure of that haze made the passage dangerous?
A - I am not the officer of the watch.
Q - When this observation was made to you did you not think it a proper thing to communicate with the officer on the bridge?
A - Certainly not. The officer of the watch would ask you what you meant by it. He would ask you whether you were interfering with his duty or not.
Q - When you are going through a haze at night, is it usual to slow up, slacken speed?
A - That has nothing to do with me. I am not on the bridge. I am a look-out man, as I said before.
.
Samuel Halpern
Member
If the pack ice was seen about 1/2 hour before impact with the berg, then Murdoch was negligent for not slowing down or calling Smith per Smith's orders. Even after Titanic struck the berg and came to a stop, obviously much closer to the pack ice then earlier, nobody could see the icefield until after day broke.
The field of pack ice was first spotted from Californian about 5 minutes before Lord ordered his helm put hard-aport and reversed his engine. At 11 knots, that means the brightening on the western horizon that he first saw was only about 1 mile away, perhaps a little more, when first noticed from a height of 45 ft. The horizon, if visible, would have been almost 8 miles ahead as seen from that height.
I think that haze story is just that, a story. We know the horizon was described as a soft horizon with no discernible dividing line between sky and water to be seen. Perhaps the lack of a discernible horizon line was attributed to haze by some of the lookouts.
The field of pack ice was first spotted from Californian about 5 minutes before Lord ordered his helm put hard-aport and reversed his engine. At 11 knots, that means the brightening on the western horizon that he first saw was only about 1 mile away, perhaps a little more, when first noticed from a height of 45 ft. The horizon, if visible, would have been almost 8 miles ahead as seen from that height.
I think that haze story is just that, a story. We know the horizon was described as a soft horizon with no discernible dividing line between sky and water to be seen. Perhaps the lack of a discernible horizon line was attributed to haze by some of the lookouts.
David G. Brown
RIP
Sam -- Murdoch had responsibility of slowing down only in an "in extremis" situation. A half hour ahead would have required him to rouse out the captain.
But, your point is still valid. With ice that close, some action was required for the safety of the ship. Slowing is always the first thought of highway drivers because they have no place to go outside the curbs and must slow or stop. But, Titanic was not so constrained. Captain Smith was free to go back to Cobh if he so chose for the safety of Titanic. It was a big, wide ocean out there and plenty of much safer water which should have been obvious to a man who was supposedly plotting ice reports (per Boxhall) up to the accident.
-- David G. Brown
But, your point is still valid. With ice that close, some action was required for the safety of the ship. Slowing is always the first thought of highway drivers because they have no place to go outside the curbs and must slow or stop. But, Titanic was not so constrained. Captain Smith was free to go back to Cobh if he so chose for the safety of Titanic. It was a big, wide ocean out there and plenty of much safer water which should have been obvious to a man who was supposedly plotting ice reports (per Boxhall) up to the accident.
-- David G. Brown
Jim Currie
Member
The job of a Lookout was to simply warn the bridge of anything that might be construed as a source of danger. They were only to use the phone if the danger seemed to them to be immediate or imminent. That's what Fleet did.
The sighting of a haze on the horizon was "as common as muck" as they say and certainly no reason to warn the bridge.
There was no haze in sight of the Californian. They saw the stars setting and rising on the horizon. (Groves even saw a miracle...a star rising in the south.)
The sighting of a haze on the horizon was "as common as muck" as they say and certainly no reason to warn the bridge.
There was no haze in sight of the Californian. They saw the stars setting and rising on the horizon. (Groves even saw a miracle...a star rising in the south.)
Samuel Halpern
Member
Question: What was meant by haze? Answer: An obscuration. If one cannot make out something that normally would be visible, one can easily conclude it was hidden by haze. Yet the meteorological conditions did not support what today is called haze. Nor it support the formation of low lying fog, which would also produce an obscuration. An unlit iceberg disappearing off the starboard quarter as the ship continued ahead would simply slowly disappear back into the darkness of the night and would not be seen again until it got light enough in the morning for it to be seen.
Robert T. Paige
Member
It was later in the night.......But there were reports from some in the lifeboats who also observed stars setting and rising on the horizon.The job of a Lookout was to simply warn the bridge of anything that might be construed as a source of danger. They were only to use the phone if the danger seemed to them to be immediate or imminent. That's what Fleet did.
The sighting of a haze on the horizon was "as common as muck" as they say and certainly no reason to warn the bridge.
There was no haze in sight of the Californian. They saw the stars setting and rising on the horizon. (Groves even saw a miracle...a star rising in the south.)
Robert T. Paige
Member
Likewise.
I tried searching on "IIP" with no resuits....But....Is it "International Ice Patrol" ?
I did find a link to that.
Please explain......to another ignorant landlubber.
Otherwise, no other crticism.
Keep up the good work with many thanks to all concerned !
Last edited:
Robert T. Paige
Member
Just a note to Jim, Sam and the "real sailors" on this website.
I made a post some time ago about once observing a light in the distance at sea.
It was a very dark overcast night... no stars, no moonlght, obviously no visible horizon.
If that had been the case, would it have been possible to sight an iceberg ?
If there had been an inquiry, I am afraid I would have been like Lee . LOL
Q- What did you see ?
A- I saw some bright lights in the distance off to port. It was a very dark night.
Q- Did you report this to the bridge ?
A-No.I am not an officer of the bridge, nor am I a lookout, I am just a radar technician. I just checked the range on the radar to see how far away it was. Just out of curiosity.
I had also just come out of our Radio Room on the ship to get some fresh air. (We had some rather heavy smokers.) It was very brightly lighted inside and I had not had my eyes "dark adapted" before going outside.
I made a post some time ago about once observing a light in the distance at sea.
It was a very dark overcast night... no stars, no moonlght, obviously no visible horizon.
If that had been the case, would it have been possible to sight an iceberg ?
If there had been an inquiry, I am afraid I would have been like Lee . LOL
Q- What did you see ?
A- I saw some bright lights in the distance off to port. It was a very dark night.
Q- Did you report this to the bridge ?
A-No.I am not an officer of the bridge, nor am I a lookout, I am just a radar technician. I just checked the range on the radar to see how far away it was. Just out of curiosity.
I had also just come out of our Radio Room on the ship to get some fresh air. (We had some rather heavy smokers.) It was very brightly lighted inside and I had not had my eyes "dark adapted" before going outside.
Samuel Halpern
Member
In 1925 data on iceberg visibility distances was collected by Lt. Commander Fred Zeusler of the US Coast Guard who was the Ice Observation Officer for International Ice Patrol (IIP) that season. His summary results for a medium sized berg are given in the table below.
Visibility Conditions - Distance (nautical miles)
Excellent day visibility and clear sky - 36 maximum
Generally good day conditions - 12 to 20
Daytime with hazy conditions - 9
Daytime with light fog and rain - 1
Clear moonlit nights - 2
Clear moonless nights - 1/2
Ref: Leo Shubow, Iceberg Dead Ahead!, Bruce Humphries, Inc., 1959.
IIP defines medium icebergs as having heights from 50-150 ft.
Visibility Conditions - Distance (nautical miles)
Excellent day visibility and clear sky - 36 maximum
Generally good day conditions - 12 to 20
Daytime with hazy conditions - 9
Daytime with light fog and rain - 1
Clear moonlit nights - 2
Clear moonless nights - 1/2
Ref: Leo Shubow, Iceberg Dead Ahead!, Bruce Humphries, Inc., 1959.
IIP defines medium icebergs as having heights from 50-150 ft.
Maybe it is a wrong thread to ask, but could somebody please tell me, if people from The Californian were able to see the Titanic's silhouette or they only saw her lights?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Robert T. Paige
Member
Were there any reports of results on the conditons on an overcast dark night with no light at all ?
I would call this "a worst case scenario."
Aaron_2016
Guest
Alfred Shiers saw the haze "where I was" - presumably on the deck where he stood or as he leaned over to see the iceberg astern. Difficult to say which as he said:
Q - Was the idea that you got, that the iceberg there was causing a haze in the air?
A - No, it looked hazy to me where I was.
Q - Do you think your eyes had got accustomed to the light at that time?
A - Yes.
Q - How long had you been on deck.
A - About 4 minutes.
Q - Was the haze behind the ship?
A - Yes, it was astern of the ship when I saw it where the berg was.
Q - Did the haze obscure the iceberg?
A - I could only just see the outline of it.
"It seemed like a mist. I could just see the dim outline of it. That is all I could see of it. It was hazy. I could only just see the outline of it......It seemed to be a haze and you could only just see the outline of the berg......The haze was both sides of it. It was just a thick haze. I could only just discern the shape of the berg."
Q - Did the haze extend high or was it low-lying?
A - I could not see how high it went.
Q - Did this haze obstruct your view of one part of the berg more than of any other part?
A - No. I could only just make out the shape of the berg through it.
Q. Through the haze?
A - Yes, it was dim. I could not see whether it was any colour or anything. There was only just the outline of it which seemed to be in a bit of a haze.
My impression is the iceberg was melting as it drifted into warmer currents which might have created a localised mist or haze around the berg. As Lightoller said - "If we were coming on a large berg there might be a haze, as there frequently is in that position, where warm and cold streams are intermixing. You will very frequently get a little low-lying haze, smoke we call it, lying on the water perhaps a couple of feet."
Photos of icebergs captured in mist, haze, or fog.
Provided by:
Worldpress.com
Jan Erik Waider
Stephen Gorman
Framepool Stock Footage
At night the iceberg would be very difficult to detect, especially if it had recently turned over and the blue ice above the surface was emitting a mist of its own.
.
Similar threads
