BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!

Subject: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:22 PM

Titanic sunk by steering mistake, author says
         

Wed Sep 22, 11:50 am ET

LONDON (Reuters) – The Titanic hit an iceberg in 1912 because of a basic steering error, and only sank as fast as it did because an official persuaded the captain to continue sailing, an author said in an interview published on Wednesday.

Louise Patten, a writer and granddaughter of Titanic second officer Charles Lightoller, said the truth about what happened nearly 100 years ago had been hidden for fear of tarnishing the reputation of her grandfather, who later became a war hero.

Lightoller, the most senior officer to have survived the disaster, covered up the error in two inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic because he was worried it would bankrupt the ill-fated liner's owners and put his colleagues out of a job.

"They could easily have avoided the iceberg if it wasn't for the blunder," Patten told the Daily Telegraph.

"Instead of steering Titanic safely round to the left of the iceberg, once it had been spotted dead ahead, the steersman, Robert Hitchins, had panicked and turned it the wrong way."

Patten, who made the revelations to coincide with the publication of her new novel "Good as Gold" into which her account of events are woven, said that the conversion from sail ships to steam meant there were two different steering systems.

Crucially, one system meant turning the wheel one way and the other in completely the opposite direction.

Once the mistake had been made, Patten added, "they only had four minutes to change course and by the time (first officer William) Murdoch spotted Hitchins' mistake and then tried to rectify it, it was too late."

Patten's grandfather was not on watch at the time of the collision, but he was present at a final meeting of the ship's officers before the Titanic went down.

There he heard not only about the fatal mistake but also the fact that J. Bruce Ismay, chairman of Titanic's owner the White Star Line persuaded the captain to continue sailing, sinking the ship hours faster than would otherwise have happened.

"If Titanic had stood still, she would have survived at least until the rescue ship came and no one need have died," Patten said.

The RMS Titanic was the world's biggest passenger liner when it left Southampton, England, for New York on its maiden voyage on April 10, 1912. Four days into the trip, the ship hit an iceberg and sank, taking more than 1,500 passengers with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Charley Noble
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:50 PM

Interesting theory but it has taken a long time to surface.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 03:59 PM

Hmmmmmmmm??? I always heard it had something to do with that 297 feet of rope that the 1st mate brought on board with him???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:13 PM

Of course this couldn't be total bullshit intended to increase the sales of Patten's novel, could it?

Steamships had been around for about a hundred years by the time the Titanic was launched - expect they'd have learned how to steer 'em in that interval.

Lets see some corroboration.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Naemanson
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:18 PM

I think the steering claim has been disproved by the analysis of the ship's rudder. It was too small and the Titanic was too large to allow for rapid course changes. There is a good reason for tugboats.

Also, icebergs are very large below the water. The part you see is not the part that will get you.

I think that at the officer's meeting they describe they could have put forward the idea that they might have changed course to avoid the impact but...

On site, and without complete information, we humans tend to underestimate the extent of an accident. Usually it takes an in depth investigation to uncover the actual events that led up to the accident.

I am sure that Mr. Lightoller really believed what he wrote down but that does not mean he can be relied on to dismiss all those years of investigations.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:19 PM

Well, I hardly think that they would have sunk it intentionally!

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:29 PM

I think Gref F may have it right. Excellent publicity for Mrs Patten's book.

And it's as well to note that she is married to a retired Conservative Cabinet Minister...

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 04:45 PM

McGrath of Harlow: "And it's as well to note that she is married to a retired Conservative Cabinet Minister..."

Oh come on, get real!!...Do you actually think a wife married to a retired Conservative Cabinet Minister, would actually fib????

Are you suggesting we have dishonest people in government?? How dare you!!

Wink,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 06:44 PM

I contend the grassy shoal was the cause of the sinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:00 PM

LOL!!! Gnu, that's rich, can I use it?

Yeah, I heard about this. At least he wasn't drunk and letting his son pilot it, or something, he just didn't know how to drive a stick. Or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:03 PM

It is amazing just how long writers will profit buoyed by those who buy each new book and "new" (and often somewhat shallow) theories on what happened to this ship so long ago? It is more surprising that the news media get sucked into hyping up each book, as if something new is going to be uncovered. Is there really new in this so called news, or is it merely "s".

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: gnu
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:23 PM

Feel free Mrrzy. Of course, you will have to cite any all references to same as my publishers are sharks. As evidenced by their defense of my work in progress, "Sharks Ate Jack Dawson", based on a claim by Rose Dewitt Bukater that she accidentally let Jack die by not letting him climb up on the piece of wood she was saved by because she felt unchaste after their liason. It was not murder because Jack did not drown or freeze to death but, rather, was eaten by rarely seen Arctic Sharks which showed up out of the deep blue sea after an impromtu casting call.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:33 PM

Feeling unchaste can lead a young woman to all sorts of hasty and ill thought out decisions...

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 07:46 PM

I think it was either Jack the Ripper or someone else, maybe Snidely Whiplash.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Wesley S
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:03 PM

The Titanic was an inside job.....

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: MarkS
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:08 PM

Actually if they had not tried to steer out and just collided with the iceberg head on, the damage would probably been huge, but not fatal.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM

Didn't see the movie.

It was my understanding that they thought they had cleared the iceberg when the shup suddenly lurched and there was a gawdawful scraping sound. An underwater section of the berg had sliced a long gash along the Titanic's hull below the waterline.

One of the things that made folks feel confident in the idea that the Titanic was unsinkable was that bulkheads divided the ship into five presumably watertight segments. If they struck a reef or some such thing and one of the segments was punctured, the other four would easily keep it afloat. But a whole string of the compartments were sliced. The ones that were still intact, could have kept her afloat (but tilting a lot). But the compartments were not closed off at the top, and when water filled the ruptured compartments, water spilled over the top into the intact ones.

What sank the presumably "unsinkable" ship was a whole unforeseen domino effect.

Or so I've heard. Your mileage may vary.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: catspaw49
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:10 PM

Nothing new there though.......I'm not going to go back and look as I don't recall which book it was in, but I read a long piece describing the difference in steering commands but that didn't factor in as much as the fact they were trying a "breast about" maneuver that was no longer believed to be the right thing to do......and indeed it wasn't!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:26 PM

A "breast about" maneuver? I thought that was the one where guys lean over the railing holding signs that say "Show Us Your Tits!"

No, wait... That's the breast OUT maneuver, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:23 AM

I think Naemanson got it right when he wrote "I think the steering claim has been disproved by the analysis of the ship's rudder. It was too small and the Titanic was too large to allow for rapid course changes. There is a good reason for tugboats". I'm more interested in the second claim, that the ship could have stayed afloat long enough for rescuers to save everyone if Bruce Ismay hadn't ordered it to keep going. Does anyone have anything further on that claim?

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:28 AM

It is true that a moving ship that has been holed will take on water quite a bit faster than a stationary ship in the same condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:20 AM

A conspiracy from Hollywood sank the Titanic to promote the movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 12:52 PM

LOL, Grishka!

gnudarlin'...I want an autographed copy of your book when it comes out!

I wish they'd all just leave the puir old Titanic alone. Sheesh...it's like digging up a cemetery to confirm exactly of what each and every person buried there died, with a myriad of opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 02:06 PM

...digging up a cemetery to confirm exactly of what each and every person buried there died...

They do that often enough - though they normally wait a few more centuries before they do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: JHW
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 04:32 PM

There's this Titanic theory which I was assailed with at the Steam Fair at Hunton, North Yorks, unsuspectingly looking at the model boats.
It does involve selling another book.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: mousethief
Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:29 PM

You guys. Everybody knows it was the Trilateral Jesuits Templar that sank the Titanic.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:25 AM

JHQ - saw that in a TV doco a while ago ....

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: EBarnacle
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 12:58 AM

I read a book, not too long ago, in which an AB on the helm in the Suez canal misunderstood the instructions of the pilot who told him to larboard his helm, which he heard as starboard, which put him into the bank of the canal. Fortunately for him and the ship's owners, one of the engineers below realized what was happening and reversed the engines immediately, hauling them back into the channel. If this had not occurrec, the vessel may have had to be dynamited out in order to keep the canal clear.

Seems there was the early phases of WW II on and nothing was allowed to interfere with the flow of cargo. A similar scenario may have occurred in the Titanic situation. Not as implausible as some might think.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: GUEST,...on and on
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 01:37 AM

Might have to get one of my favourite T-shirt out again.
It reads:

Titanic
It sank
It's over
Get a life....

---

Please remember to use one consistent name when you post. If you post under a variety of names, you risk having all your posts deleted.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:06 AM

And then there was the inadequate number of lifeboats to make matters worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Micca
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 04:52 AM

As anyone who as ever done a "trick" at the wheel of a large ship   could tell you, even if he put some "wrong way" wheel on, and then they realised he was steering into the danger and not away, putting oppposite wheel on would not instantly stop the movement of the ships head, in fact with large ships if you start the head moving (for instance) to Starboard, even putting on a lot of Port lock it could take a substantial amount of time to halt and reverse the movement of the ships head. That is why big ships are difficult to handle in in or near port, unlike a car which respond instantly a ship 882.75 feet long 92.5 feet wide and weighing 46000 tons and with a top speed of 23 knots might take a little longer to respond. So maybe the story is true but not relevent much, except to sell books.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Amergin
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 06:46 AM

And here I thought it was going to be Obama's fault....

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: bubblyrat
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:13 AM

My next-door neighbour is related to the actor who played the slimy bodyguard who tries to shoot Jack in the film. For those of you who saw the film,and wondered if you'd seen that particular actor before; well, he played the lead in "Morgan; A suitable case for treatment", and he was the nasty "Mr Bliffil" in "Tom Jones" .
    As for the Titanic ; well, according to at least one book,there is compelling evidence to suggest that it wasn't Titanic at all, but a sister-ship of similar appearance,deliberately put in harms way in the hope of being involved in some mishap (which indeed it was !!) as an insurance fraud perpetrated by the financially embarrassed shipping company.Apparently, Titanic herself soldiered on for many more years,under a different name !!

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 08:50 AM

"But is there any news of the iceberg?"

Cheerily,
Charley Noble, for Les Baxter

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: frogprince
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 10:26 AM

Other than that, Mrs. Astor, did you enjoy the cruise?

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: bubblyrat
Date: 24 Sep 10 - 07:24 PM

Apart from that ,Herr Kapitain Langsdorff, was it a successful voyage?

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: NOMADMan
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 12:36 AM

Les Baxter??

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 06:03 AM

Sounds like someone's latched on to the hard-a-port v. hard-a-starboard debate again, which was more than amply covered during the enquiries that followed the disaster.

The need was to prevent damage to the props, reduce the vessel's way, and turn to port (i.e. away from the iceberg).

The engines were ordered stopped (to prevent damage), then reversed (to reduce the ship's way). The helm was ordered hard-a-starboard (towards the iceberg). The effect of reversing engines is to reverse the effect of the rudder, therefore hard-a-starboard with the engines reversed will produce the effect of full port rudder (away from the iceberg). Good seamanship.

Whether someone in 2010 (by which time the witnesses at the enquiries are all long-dead) thinks Lightoller lied is completely inconsequential. The evidence, indicating good seamanship once the hazard was sighted, was given and accepted at the enquiries.

End of, IMHO.

What some people will resort to in order to try to sell a book is beyond belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Micca
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 01:20 PM

Thank you Bacwoodsman for that clear exposition of the behaviour of a vessel under power!!
Charley, Thanks for the smile, Les Baxter!! LOL "Tarzan saves the Titanic" !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: gnu
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 01:32 PM

I'll second that... thanks Backwoodsman.

Perhaps it has been stated and I missed or forgot it... was there any account given of the speed of the ship at the time the berg was sighted?

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Sep 10 - 07:45 PM

Thanks Backswoodsman -

many people without actual related practical experience do not understand that 'driving a ship' is nothing like 'driving a car', 'driving a motorcycle', 'driving an aeroplane', 'driving a helicopter', 'driving a horse and cart', 'driving a swamp boat', 'driving a steam locomotive', etc, all of which operate by totally different mechanisms.

Experience with the current socially most common (car) really does not help one to understand any of the others.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 05:31 AM

If Kenneth Moore had been captain, Titanic would not have sunk!

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Sep 10 - 10:10 PM

Left hand Down a Bit!


Ah the days of the good old Navy Lark! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 06:01 AM

Disasters like the sinking of the Titanic was bound to happen at some point and unfortunately incidents like this helps prevent mistakes being made again.

Now if a woman had been driving we might not be having this conversation!

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:48 AM

... would we have finished packing and left the port yet?


:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Skivee
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:23 PM

My knowledge of hydrodynamics is a bit sketchier than aerodynamics.
That being said. Several years ago I saw a large scale model of RMS Titanic at the National Geographic Explorers Hall several years back.
My first thought on seeing how small the rudder was in relation to the hull, was that it was about 1/4th what I expected.
It may not have been the cause of the sinking, but my gut tells me that it didn't help a lick.
The "wrong way turn" thing seems unlikely to me, but I don't have a dog in this fight either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: Skivee
Date: 27 Sep 10 - 11:27 PM

Sorry for the poor editing skills above.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Sep 10 - 12:33 AM

While a rudder is essential on a ship that uses screws, the rudder by itself (irrespective of size) doesn't do much, depending on the speed the ship is traveling. The screws run at high or low speed, in forward or reverse, and occasionally one run forward and one run in reverse will have a lot more turning effect, especially when the ship is almost stationary.

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: JHW
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 04:04 PM

Just remembered at an early age I wrote a song about the Titanic and (crossthreading a bit) sang it on the pier ballroom stage at Cleethorpes, my first festival. Pete Betts used to sing it. I see (searching) that it got a mention on Mudcat this year:-

Subject: RE: Lyr/Chords Req: Sinking of the Titanic
From: folkypaul - PM
Date: 31 May 10 - 07:03 AM

A lot of years ago Pete Betts (Betsy) used to sing a song about the Titanic which doesn't appear to be in the DT the chorus went something like:

Pull ahead pull around,
We're bound for New York town,
Titanic is unsinkable
Tonight she will go down.

PaulO

(its actually Full ahead... JHW)

Subject: RE: BS: Titanic- sunk by mistake!
From: bubblyrat
Date: 14 Oct 10 - 09:32 AM

The science of the "Damage Control" aspect of Ship Husbandry and Handling was probably at a relatively unsophisticated level in those days, otherwise ,when it became obvious that the ship was going down by the head,then they would have brought everyone up fom aft,and "counter- flooded" enough stern compartments to correct the trim. The ship would have ended up lying much lower in the water,but LEVEL, and would almost certainly have remained afloat for much,much longer ,barring any sudden drastic deterioration of the prevailing sea state/ weather conditions. But.....nobody seems to have thought of it !!