flightsimer
Topic Author
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:41 am

Titanic has just struck the iceberg. She has two hours and 40 minutes to remain afloat. The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

[Edited 2012-04-14 18:44:12]
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
Airstud
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:49 am

Not cool.

Among the numerous stabs at Monday morning quarterbacking that have taken place re the Titanic, I've read that the ship actually would have survived if Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg. That way, only the foremost compartment would have flooded; instead of multiple ones.
Pancakes are delicious.
 
flightsimer
Topic Author
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:34 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:59 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):


airstud, is that you from Aces High?

Ive been watching a lot of the tv stuff that has been showed this past week on the accident and a lot of it was been made this year and there was a lot of interesting stuff talked about that previously never was before.

One of the things that partly complicated things was that after it struck the iceberg, it stopped, but then again was put underway which caused a massive surge of flooding until machinists called to the bridge to tell them to stop. James Cameron had a special as well and one of the things he said he would have tried was to back her up to the other ship which was only 6nm away.
Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12390
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:43 am

There is no doubt that the loss of the Titanic fascinates us even 100 years after it happened. You had a series of events, circumstances and people involved that somehow came together to use the cliche 'a perfect storm', much like we have seen with aircraft accidents.

For over 25 years since the remains of the Titanic were found, a number of various theories have been discussed adding factors that led to the ships loss. You had the hubris of the ships operators that it was 'unsinkable' in it's design. You had the failure to spot the iceberg in time, in part possibly caused by a recently developed theory that there was a false horizon due to temperature differences in the region. You had the presence of the ice flows or small icebergs, possible an affect of weather for up to 2 months causing a breaking off from larger and coastal based sources of icebergs and into the shipping lanes. Then there are theories of flaws in the steel and construction of the ship perhaps making things worse. You had pressure on and by the Captain of the ship to go faster than perhaps should have. While it did have wireless radio, that was still limited in it's use and information it could get quickly and accurately. Then you have, much like today, of regulations not keeping up with technology like the lack of sufficient lifeboat spaces leading to the doom of many lives.

Then you have the range of passengers from some of the richest persons in the world then to near penniless immigrants, that being a victim didn't matter what class you were.

One point made recently as to sinking of the Titanic was how it sank. In almost all major ship wrecks - recall the Costa Concordia earlier this year for example - most ships sink by them rolling to one side. In the case of the Titanic, it went nose down with almost no rolling to one side.

So RIP to all those lost that night.
 
seb146
Posts: 13907
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:50 am

Tragic as this was can we please just get over it? I am so sick and tired of hearing about Titanic every 2 minutes. It was tragic and Godspeed to those who lost their lives that night, but get a grip.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:33 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):
Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg.

Smith had gone to bed for the night shortly before the collision. I think Murdoch had the watch at the time, but I could be mistaken. That said, I believe that there were many things that led to the sinking, most being design flaws (ie - watertight compartments not being sealed at the top) that the crew had no control over.

I'd like to hope that we learned from Titanic, and that an incident like that won't happen again.

May all the souls that were aboard Titanic rest in peace (as there are no survivors left).

Marc
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:53 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):
Among the numerous stabs at Monday morning quarterbacking that have taken place re the Titanic, I've read that the ship actually would have survived if Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg. That way, only the foremost compartment would have flooded; instead of multiple ones.

They say that, also the ship had too small a rudder to turn effectively especially with the fact that they put the engines in reverse which further reduced turning efficiency. There also have been numerous investigations into the metallurgy of the rivets on the hull (which were very brittle IIRC) which is why the hull broke apart so easy.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):
Smith had gone to bed for the night shortly before the collision. I think Murdoch had the watch at the time, but I could be mistaken. That said, I believe that there were many things that led to the sinking, most being design flaws (ie - watertight compartments not being sealed at the top) that the crew had no control over.

There were many human factors, ignoring the countless iceberg warnings given to them from other ships and the fact is was going too fast for avoidance. Also with the watertight compartments too many were breached which lowered the ship to the point that water was going to spill over anyways.

I remember watching a documentary that suggested that the ship would have sunk faster and capsized had the watertight compartment were not sealed or left open.

Quoting flightsimer (Thread starter):
The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

Human arrogance was the reason behind that as their simply were not enough lifeboats making half the passengers and crew doomed from the start.

Today there is a lifeboat for every soul on the ship if they even had that then there would have been maybe a few dozen deaths (those below the waterline at the point of impact).
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
Airstud
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:41 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
While it did have wireless radio, that was still limited in it's use and information it could get quickly and accurately.

Actually, the technology onboard the Titanic was the most advanced available, and they were able to contact other ships and relay stations. But, again with the hubris:

The wireless had broken on April 14th, and the operators spent the whole day repairing it, so there was a backlog of a whole day's worth of outgoing messages that they were busy getting those messages out when the Californian telegraphed them, warning of ice fields. "I say old man, we are stopped and surrounded by ice," Californian telegraph dude Cyril Evans tapped out. Titanic radio operator Jack Philips, who needed maybe some help in the stress management department, telegraphed back, "Shut up! Shut up! I'm working Cape Race" (a relay station in Newfoundland).

I wonder what was in those backlogged messages that Philips was so frenetic about that an ice warning struck him as unimportant. Or I wonder if he was thinking, screw ice warnings, we're the TITANIC, baby!!!!

('Cause that would be the hubris, see.)
Pancakes are delicious.
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:13 am

Quoting Airstud (Reply 1):
I've read that the ship actually would have survived if Captain Smith had intentionally barrelled straight into the iceberg. That way, only the foremost compartment would have flooded; instead of multiple ones.

Your are correct. Perhaps one or two compartments might have been damaged and certainly the bow would have sustained heavy damage, but she would have remained afloat.
One correction:
Smith had turned in at the time leaving Murdoch and Lightoller in charge.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 4):
Tragic as this was can we please just get over it? I am so sick and tired of hearing about Titanic every 2 minutes. It was tragic and Godspeed to those who lost their lives that night, but get a grip.

Well, from the title it was obvious what was going to be discussed. No one forced you to click and read it. To many of us, Titanic still fascinates us like aviation fascinates you. The ship is more than the mushy love story Cameron released in 1997. Going back and examining what went wrong, what could have been corrected, and what were the consequences of that is still a great subject to debate.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 5):
Smith had gone to bed for the night shortly before the collision. I think Murdoch had the watch at the time, but I could be mistaken. That said, I believe that there were many things that led to the sinking, most being design flaws (ie - watertight compartments not being sealed at the top) that the crew had no control over.

Well Murdoch was in the wheelhouse as was Lightoller.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
Quoting flightsimer (Thread starter):
The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

Human arrogance was the reason behind that as their simply were not enough lifeboats making half the passengers and crew doomed from the start.

It was also more than arrogance. Remember that you were making a ship not just for the emigrant, but for the rich elite as well. White Star Line thought that having too many lifeboats:
1. Made the ship seem unsafe. Since it met the minimum required +4 lifeboats and since its design was revolutionary at the time, it wasn't necessary to add additional lifeboats. Thomas Andrew himself had suggested additional lifeboats but he was overruled.
2. Would take away the ingenious design of an unsinkable ship. Andrews was also overruled when he had requested that the watertight bulkheads went up to B deck (which might have bought some more time for Titanic as she sank).
3. Would take away the luxury part. The boat deck was principally for First Class passengers. Your top paying customers wouldn't have been too happy to walk around a deck full of lifeboats.

Let's not forget that numerous warnings had come in through the day reporting a thick pack of ice in their direction. Each message was noted as received and nothing else came out of them.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
They say that, also the ship had too small a rudder to turn effectively especially with the fact that they put the engines in reverse which further reduced turning efficiency. There also have been numerous investigations into the metallurgy of the rivets on the hull (which were very brittle IIRC) which is why the hull broke apart so easy.

I don't know whether the reversing of the engines was made right. The ship had 3 engines: two outer engines (one would always run in opposite direction of the other) and the central one (which could not be reversed).At any rate, the port engine should not have been reversed (assuming it was used to go forward) and the central engine should not have been stopped. The drag induced by stopping the engines effectively sealed her fate.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:17 am

Quoting flightsimer (Thread starter):

Titanic has just struck the iceberg. She has two hours and 40 minutes to remain afloat. The Destiny for over 1500 souls has been set in stone.

And it was all Obama's fault.  
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Your are correct. Perhaps one or two compartments might have been damaged and certainly the bow would have sustained heavy damage, but she would have remained afloat.
One correction:
Smith had turned in at the time leaving Murdoch and Lightoller in charge.

To be fair, we don't know that. We can only guess.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:25 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
To be fair, we don't know that. We can only guess.

Well, it's what experts today would have done, but that's because we know what happened by scrapping the side. Deaths would certainly have happened and that would not have helped Titanic nor the White Star Line in terms of publicity. But I really doubt a head-on collision would have damaged over 4 compartments.

Now, I just discovered a very interesting piece of evidence which suggests that Titanic's sinking was a conspiracy. I, myself, was shocked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:25 am

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
There were many human factors, ignoring the countless iceberg warnings given to them from other ships and the fact is was going too fast for avoidance. Also with the watertight compartments too many were breached which lowered the ship to the point that water was going to spill over anyways.

I hate to reference the movie, but is there any historical accuracy to the idea that Ismay pressured Smith to light the extra boilers to make a grand ending to his career?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Well Murdoch was in the wheelhouse as was Lightoller.

They were following the orders left by Smith, as far as I understand the events of the night. Smith had them continue at full speed. That, accompanied by the crystal clear night and calm seas made the iceberg invisible until it was too late. I do agree that if she had hit the iceberg head on, there would have been less damage, and even if the ship was to sink, it would have probably taken much longer - ie, perhaps long enough for the Carpathia to arrive on scene.

I must say though...I'm surprised that the 1997 film isn't on any cable channels this weekend. There were a bunch of documentaries on today, ABC started a two night mini-series, and there were a bunch of documentaries regarding Titanic.

Marc
 
dc9northwest
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:33 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:22 am

There are a few problems with knowing what happened to the Titanic:

1) Haven't found the black boxes yet
1a) No Ship Data Recorder
1b) No Cockpit Voice Recorder

As such, we cannot determine the exact causes of the crash.

Anyway, not having enough lifeboats for everyone on board? This is because it would inconvenience 1st class passengers? Really? If so, I have to say, it's a very conservative ship and, in fact,

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9):
it was all Obama's fault.  

Indeed.

[Edited 2012-04-14 23:32:18]
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:43 am

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 11):
I must say though...I'm surprised that the 1997 film isn't on any cable channels this weekend. There were a bunch of documentaries on today, ABC started a two night mini-series, and there were a bunch of documentaries regarding Titanic.

Actually, and unfortunately, this is deliberate. With the 3D film in theatres, the movie was pulled from retail shelves and from cable so as to encourage people to see the film. I found this out the other day while trying to buy the original film locally, and no stores anywhere had it. Even Amazon is supplying it from a 3rd party seller that wants nearly $60 for it. What I'm hearing is that a new DVD/BluRay will be released in a month or more.


Back on topic: I noted the time of the Titanic striking the iceberg and the time she sank, adjusting for time zones, at work tonight, and posted a small tribute on our company bulletin board. I had a moment of silence at 11:40pm, and another at 2:20am, ship time (GMT -3) today. I've seen the 3D film and will likely go back a couple more times to see it again.

Titanic is a very big deal for me, and a passion that I've had most of my life. I even own a small piece wreckwood from the ship, recovered the morning of April 15, 1912. It's close to me.
 
flyingturtle
Posts: 4604
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:41 am

After the Costa Concordia accident I trawled the Wikipedia for all things Titanic.

What struck me is that this disaster probably isn't anyones guilt. The regulations provided for "enough" lifeboats, the ship's design wasn't extraordinary for itself – it was approved by the maritime offices, the radio stations weren't manned all the time, as was it normal at this time; and it was even normal to give the passenger's personal messages priority.

And it was even normal to steam at full speed in known icing conditions. And I very much suppose that "iceberg ahead" wasn't a topic in the captain's training. Make it up as you go because because we count on your experience, Captain Smith...

So the blame falls on the Titanic being the biggest and most luxurious ship at her time... human hubris.
Keeping calm is terrorism against those who want to live in fear.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2286
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:59 pm

Today I've been following a live twitter feed of the events exactly a century after they occurred. Quite interesting, actually.
https://twitter.com/#!/titanic_live

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
There is no doubt that the loss of the Titanic fascinates us even 100 years after it happened.

I find it amazing how everyone knows the name Titanic yet hardly anyone knows about the Dona Paz whose collision and sinking killed nearly three times as many people.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 10):
Now, I just discovered a very interesting piece of evidence which suggests that Titanic's sinking was a conspiracy. I, myself, was shocked.

A more serious one that states that the Olympic (Titanic's older sister-ship) was disguised as the Titanic and White Star Line tried to sink it for insurance fraud. Like 99% of conspiracy theories it is complete rubbish. Still interesting to read about though.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:18 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 3):
There is no doubt that the loss of the Titanic fascinates us even 100 years after it happened.

But why? It is not even the worst maritime disaster of all time.
 
LONGisland89
Posts: 543
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:34 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:48 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Smith had turned in at the time leaving Murdoch and Lightoller in charge.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
Well Murdoch was in the wheelhouse as was Lightoller.

Sorry to be nit-picky but only three men were on the bridge at the time of the collision; Murdoch, Moody, and Hichens (quartermaster). Smith and Lightoller were in their cabins.
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:05 pm

Quoting windy95 (Reply 16):
But why? It is not even the worst maritime disaster of all time.

No but I think it is so fascinating because of the fact that it sank on its Madien Voyage. Had it happened after 2 years in service it wouldn't be nearly as fascinating and probably forgotten.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
seb146
Posts: 13907
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:16 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 8):
from the title it was obvious what was going to be discussed. No one forced you to click and read it.

Every time I have turned on the TV or read the newspaper in the past two weeks, that is all I have heard and seen. Like it is the only thing going on. I had no place else to vent, so I thought I would do it here.
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:37 pm

Quoting LONGisland89 (Reply 17):
Sorry to be nit-picky but only three men were on the bridge at the time of the collision; Murdoch, Moody, and Hichens (quartermaster). Smith and Lightoller were in their cabins.

My bad. But at the time Smith retired, he placed Lightoller in charge. A bit later (according to the movie) Lightoller went for his rounds and Murdoch was placed in charge.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 16):
But why? It is not even the worst maritime disaster of all time.

No but I think it is so fascinating because of the fact that it sank on its Madien Voyage. Had it happened after 2 years in service it wouldn't be nearly as fascinating and probably forgotten.

Not only that, all the fanfare about an unsinkable ship and revolutionary engineering and to be sunk by an iceberg...heck, not even Britannic had such coverage, though when she sank way fewer lives were lost and all the press was talking about was the war.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12390
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:19 pm

Indeed there have been greater losses life involving boats/ships due to accidents (not from acts of war) than the Titanic. One occurred in NY City about 10 year before Titanic's loss on an day steamer that had a fire on board in the East River that drifted to near a small island and another occurred in the Mississippi River just after the conclusion of the USA's Civil War due to a boiler explosion on a steam paddle-wheeler filled with Union soldiers trying to get home.

As with the investigation of aircraft crashes, the one as to Titanic led to major changes in ship safety. From redoing the formulas for amounts of lifeboats required, to better navigation rules in risky areas, improvements in the structures of ships, the loss of Titanic was while very tragic, did lead to changes to save lives later.

What happened to the Costa Concordia just a few months ago points out that we still have a long ways to go to improve ship safety from the course decisions of the Captain, to the set up of lifeboats the training of ship staff and when to give safety instructions to passengers. If the Costa Concordia didn't drift to a small island, close to a town and sunk maybe as little as 500 meters away in very deep water, 100's of lives could have been lost.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4076
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:07 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20):

The unsinkable fanfare is one of the myths that has popped up surrounding Titanic - no one, not even the White Star Line, claimed she was unsinkable prior to the sinking, it was something the media blew up after the event.

Also, the captain was never urged to increase speed by the owners.
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:13 pm

Question for those of you who are more nautical than I. Titanic had a hard time spotting the iceberg partly due to the weather conditions. What are ships doing today to avoid a repeat of this disaster? For example...I know there was one cruise company that had two cruises out to the actual location of the sinking. I'd like to think that we've come a very long way in being able to spot icebergs in 100 years. Have we?
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4076
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:18 pm

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 23):

Radar  

Here's a link about the mythical side of Titanic http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17515305
 
Cadet985
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 6:45 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:20 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
Radar  

I didn't know radar could detect icebergs. I learn something new everyday.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4076
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:31 pm

If they can detect clouds, they can detect icebergs.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 6650
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:57 pm

Is it true that WSJ was the only paper to accurately report that the ship had sunk? Others saying it was being towed to port.
Love Trumps Hate
 
727LOVER
Posts: 6650
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:00 pm

Quoting seb146 (Reply 19):

REALLY???????!!!!! A murder in Forida ring a bell????
Love Trumps Hate
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:01 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
Radar

Radar and constant vigilance from the International Ice Patrol, set up after the sinking.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19761
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:05 am

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
I find it amazing how everyone knows the name Titanic yet hardly anyone knows about the Dona Paz whose collision and sinking killed nearly three times as many people.

Was the Doña Paz the largest and most glamorous ship in the world making its maiden voyage?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:49 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
I find it amazing how everyone knows the name Titanic yet hardly anyone knows about the Dona Paz whose collision and sinking killed nearly three times as many people.

Was the Doña Paz the largest and most glamorous ship in the world making its maiden voyage?

Was not Titanic's sister ship and namesake for the the class the Olympic already in Service a year earlier? Far worse maritime disasters have occured and no one remebers them. Why should this one be any different?
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:45 am

You know, I find it funny that when it comes to non-political threads, anything that's being discussed by the media and Joe Average should NOT be posted here. However, when a politician screws up, the same people can't stop posting threads about it...anyway, back on topic.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 31):
Was not Titanic's sister ship and namesake for the the class the Olympic already in Service a year earlier?

Yes, but Titanic had other features that Olympic did not, like an indoor pool and Turkish baths. This gave her more tonnage, thereby letting Titanic claim the title of the world's largest ocean liner.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 31):
Far worse maritime disasters have occured and no one remebers them. Why should this one be any different?

Have any other ships as large as Titanic sank on their maiden voyage? Have those other ships claimed to have revolutionary technology and engineering when they sank? Were those ships claimed to have been unsinkable? Did those ships carry lifeboats for only half the passengers at the time? Were those ships sunk by colliding with an iceberg? It's because of this incident that ocean travel is safer. Had this not have happened, who knows?

Besides, there are plenty of other well known disasters, though not as popular as Titanic:
1. The sinking of the Lusitania led to the entry of the US to WW1.
2. The HMHS Britannic sinking in the Mediterranean Sea.
3, Andrea Doria.
4. Costa Concordia.

However, I do have to ask: did the sinking of Doña Paz accomplish any new safety regulations? Did the Andrea Doria?

On a side note, it turns out that there is still one White Star Line ship in existence. The SS Nomadic, tender to Olympic, has been undergoing a restoration to its formal self. The final phase includes restoring the insides. She has been painted with the White Star Line livery and it looks like she'll remain in Belfast as part of the tourist attraction.

Here's a picture and no, that's not a model, it's the real deal:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t5YiZqw6I_...8802636509_922661_1815579735_n.jpg
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
Airstud
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 4:18 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 32):
Have any other ships as large as Titanic sank on their maiden voyage? Have those other ships claimed to have revolutionary technology and engineering when they sank? Were those ships claimed to have been unsinkable? Did those ships carry lifeboats for only half the passengers at the time? Were those ships sunk by colliding with an iceberg? It's because of this incident that ocean travel is safer. Had this not have happened, who knows?

Just one more note about why Titanic's sinkage is a bigger deal to the public, is that there were many notables onboard; like Denver socialite Molly Brown (who survived) and John Jacob Astor (who didn't).
Pancakes are delicious.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:38 am

Amongst all the small links in the chain that led to Titanics sinking, it's the small ones I find so dreadfully tragic.

Smith had heard about Icebergs being further south than usual, so while sailing away from Ireland, he held a west by south west course for 5 or 6 minutes longer than normal before steering west my north west.
If he had waited another 10 seconds before ordering the turn, the Titanic would have just missed that berg!

10 seconds...

[Edited 2012-04-16 02:39:09]
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4076
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:10 am

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 32):
Were those ships claimed to have been unsinkable?

Didn't happen until after the sinking - see my earlier link.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 32):
Did those ships carry lifeboats for only half the passengers at the time?

Titanic carried more capacity in its lifeboats than regulations required at the time.
 
Airstud
Posts: 3092
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:38 am

Hey do we have any Haligonians on the boards here? Did The Chronicle-Herald do a big ol' commemorative edition Sunday for the sinking's centennial?

I visited Halifax in 2002 and enjoyed its quaint marimatime heritage, I would love to get a copy of Sunday's Halifax paper if it's got a spiffy Titanic section.

Whom do I call for back issues?
Pancakes are delicious.
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:43 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 35):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 32):
Did those ships carry lifeboats for only half the passengers at the time?

Titanic carried more capacity in its lifeboats than regulations required at the time.

Only 4 over. I believe regulations stipulated that ships over 10,000 tons were to carry 16 lifeboats as a minimum. The logic of this was that the lifeboats were intended to transfer passengers from one ship to another in case of an emergency. Of course, the only ship close by, the SS Californian, did not respond to the call made by Titanic which rendered the "ferry use" of the lifeboats useless.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:24 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 34):
If he had waited another 10 seconds before ordering the turn, the Titanic would have just missed that berg!

I assume you mean the turn days before to take a more southerly course.

If I assume that then using that logic you could say had the earth been created 1 day later than it was then the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago might have missed hitting the planet because it would be one day behind in its orbit. Or the impact that created the moon might never have happened making earth a vastly different place. Random effects are the reasons we exist today.

There is no way that that can have any bearing because by waiting those 10 seconds who says that they might not have struck an iceberg an hour later also.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:28 pm

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 38):

You missed the point, completely.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4076
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:56 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 39):
You missed the point, completely.

I don't think he did, hes just using reducto ad absurdum to make his point - you could change *anything* about Titanics voyage or situation and it would most likely have turned out different.

What if the grade of coal was slightly different, producing a 0.5mph difference in her speed?

What if the paint covering her hull was a little more efficient and produced less drag, giving her 0.5mph more speed?

What if the iceberg was shaped a little differently, with less sail area?

Etc etc etc.
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:18 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 40):
Etc etc etc.

I'm with garpd on this one though. Yes, you could change any number of things from the significant to the insignificant and things would have been completely different...but the thing about Titanic is that there were so MANY mistakes and flaws that led to the disaster, and if any single ONE of those things had changed, things would have been different. And really, it is astounding when you consider just how much worked against that ship:

-No.3 Iron instead of No. 4 in the forward hull gave the Titanic a vulnerability.

-Ismay's decision to place the appearance and grandeur of the ship in higher priority than bulkhead height and lifeboat numbers

- Prevailing wisdom that steaming through an ice field at high speed was actually safer than slowing down, as it was felt that getting out of the ice field as soon as possible was preferable.


- Pressure to make New York on time or early

-A fire in the forward boiler room that weakened a bulkhead causing it to fail early in the sinking.

- The supermoon of 1912 that allowed icebergs to drift farther south than usual because of a higher tide.

- The mild winter of 1912 that caused increased numbers of ice floes and bergs.

- Smith's "slightly too early" turn to the west as mentioned above.

- The delay of Titanic's maiden voyage due to work being done to repair Olympic after the collision with the Hawke.

- The misplaced binoculars of the lookouts.

- Jack Phillips' rude response to the Californian's reporting of ice after being deafened by the loud signal "Shut up shut up I'm working capre race" - highlights how passenger messages to home were placed higher priority than ice warnings that night.

- The Californian's failure to prefix their ice warning with "MSG" which would have meant immediate priority for the captain's attention (and failure of common sense to override protocol in this area).

-Smith's failure to order the ship to slow even after discussing with the officers about how the calm ocean would make the bergs harder to see.

- The timing of the collision...some speculate had Smith been on the bridge at the time, his experience might have told him that it was too late to make a turn, and to ram the berg head on instead...thus saving the ship. Likewise, a "hard to port" call would have resulted in fewer compartments impacted as well.

-The design of the ship that 4 bulkheads could flood and still be afloat seemed revolutionary, but in hindsight, most incidents that the Olympic class suffered flooded a minimum of 4 bulkheads. Had the lesson from the Hawke been heeded and Titanic modified for extra safety margin before her maiden voyage, she would have survived.

-No clear procedure in place for making sure all portholes were closed after a collision. Open portholes on lower decks may have contributed to the speed of flooding, as it did with the Britannic.

-No clear procedure for how to evacuate steerage passengers from lower decks, which ties into social attitudes at the time.

-A stuctural vulnerability in the hull created when placing the ship's galleys directly over the engine room, creating wide open, and therefore structurally weaker space (caused ship to break in two, hastening the sinking of the stern section)

-The lack of understanding about "women and children first" versus "women and children only", which allowed many unneccessary deaths.

-Failure of SS californian to keep wireless on through the night. Failure of its captain to respond to the crew informing him of distress flares in the distance, from Titanic.

-Failure of the lifeboats to return to the survivors of the sinking to help them aboard. Self-preservation took higher priority, and fears of being swamped outweighed desire to assist.

The list goes on. There are a million things that went wrong with that voyage. But in the end, I lay the greatest amount of blame on J. Bruce Ismay. Ismay himself made the most decisions regarding Titanic that ultimately proved fatal. Lowering the bulkheads to make room for the Grand Staircase and improve interior aesthetics, and the elminiation of most of the lifeboats from the design. Had a higher priority been placed on safety, Titanic would have survived with minimal loss of life (bulkheads), or foundered with minimal loss of life (lifeboats). I am not sure if Ismay himself had a hand in approving No. 3 iron for the forward hull riveting, but had No. 4 iron been used, it's likely the ship would have survived.

Ismay introduced a number of vulnerabilities to the ship. Everything else that followed exposed those vulnerabilities. But the WAY in which it unfolded reads like some sort of dramatic novel...every single thing that happened to that ship or around that ship seemed to help contribute to its doom. That is why it captivates us. There are heroes, villains, social attitudes, small mistakes with huge consequences...a work of fiction could not be more dramatic than what really happened. Titanic is legend because of it. She was the ultimate in human hubris and excess, and met with disaster as a direct result of that hubris.
 
ANITIX87
Posts: 2952
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:52 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:49 pm

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 41):
Likewise, a "hard to port" call would have resulted in fewer compartments impacted as well.

This is an issue I'm slightly confused about. Didn't Titanic turn hard to port? Along similar lines, both the Hollywood movie and the 2012 Miniseries have the commander at the time of impact calling for a turn to starboard (since regulations had not changed and the command "hard-to-starboard" actually dictated the wheel be turned to port). Is this incorrect?

TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
 
User avatar
Aloha717200
Posts: 3738
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 4:50 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:54 pm

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 42):
This is an issue I'm slightly confused about. Didn't Titanic turn hard to port? Along similar lines, both the Hollywood movie and the 2012 Miniseries have the commander at the time of impact calling for a turn to starboard (since regulations had not changed and the command "hard-to-starboard" actually dictated the wheel be turned to port). Is this incorrect?

A very common misconception. The movie actually got it right. Titanic DID turn to port, but the order given was "hard to starboard". Back then, the way that orders were given referred to the position of the forward part of the rudder. Turning the wheel to the left for a Port turn would result in the rudder swinging to the left as well, but the nose of the rudder, attached to the ship, would be pointed Starboard, or right, relative to the rudder's tail. In the movie you see the order "hard to starboard" given, and the ships wheel is turned left. This actually would have been the proper procedure in 1912.

So, a "hard to port" order would have turn the ship to starboard, resulting in the ship hitting the iceberg more directly instead of the berg scraping along the sides and shearing rivets from 5 compartments.

[Edited 2012-04-16 10:55:22]
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:22 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 22):
The unsinkable fanfare is one of the myths that has popped up surrounding Titanic - no one, not even the White Star Line, claimed she was unsinkable prior to the sinking, it was something the media blew up after the event.

Actually it was a newspaper reporter who reported that with all the safety features the ship had, it was practically unsinkable.
Repitition has dropped the word practically.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
einsteinboricua
Posts: 4666
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:50 pm

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 41):
The delay of Titanic's maiden voyage due to work being done to repair Olympic after the collision with the Hawke.

Also due to Captain Smith since he was in charge of Olympic when it collided with the HMS Hawke.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
GBLKD
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:02 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:00 pm

No mention in all of the coverage and documentaries of Violet Constance Jessop so far. For those of you who don't know, she served on all 3 Olympic class ships at one time and survived all 3 incidents.

On board Olympic when it hit HMS Hawke (stewardess)
Survived Titanic sinking (stewardess)
Survived Britannic sinking (nurse).

In the James Cameron film she was the inspiration behind the girl who was told on the boat deck to "put on a life jacket and show an example" and eventually left Titanic in lifeboat #15 IIRC.

Lived into her 80s in Suffolk.
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2286
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:02 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
Was the Doña Paz the largest and most glamorous ship in the world making its maiden voyage?

As Windy95 said; the nearly Identical Olympic was already in service.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 37):
Only 4 over. I believe regulations stipulated that ships over 10,000 tons were to carry 16 lifeboats as a minimum. The logic of this was that the lifeboats were intended to transfer passengers from one ship to another in case of an emergency. Of course, the only ship close by, the SS Californian, did not respond to the call made by Titanic which rendered the "ferry use" of the lifeboats useless

Not to mention that the lifeboats were not filled to capacity. Additionally, once Titanic had gone under, the lifeboats rowed away from the sinking site because those aboard were worried about too many people in the water getting aboard and sinking them.

Quoting GBLKD (Reply 46):

No mention in all of the coverage and documentaries of Violet Constance Jessop so far. For those of you who don't know, she served on all 3 Olympic class ships at one time and survived all 3 incidents.

She was rather lucky.
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 13438
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:22 am

NatGeo's "Titanic : The Final Word with James Cameron" was on this weekend, and it was, in a word, AWESOME. He and his team of Naval engineers, Titanic historians and scientists used their HD footage and mapping of the Titanic's debris field to reconstruct what occurred as if it were an NTSB investigation.

In this particularly interesting piece, they play the "What if?" game and try to determine how, if at all, they could have saved more lives if they could go back in time to one second after Titanic hit the iceberg:

James Cameron's team discusses saving Titanic passengers

Among the more novel ideas:

- Lowering mattresses down the outside of the ship over the hull ruptures to seal them.

- Filling one of the first 5 watertight compartments with the lifejackets of everyone aboard to mantain positive buoyancy and not allow the ship's keel to fail.

- Sailing Titanic at full-steam toward the nearest ship, six miles away.

- Sailing back to the iceberg and putting the passengers off on its surface.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
windy95
Posts: 2658
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 1:11 pm

RE: 100 Years Ago...

Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:07 pm

Wilhelm Gustloff - The Greatest Marine Disaster in History


http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com...wwii/articles/wilhelmgustloff.aspx

Quoting Airstud (Reply 33):
Just one more note about why Titanic's sinkage is a bigger deal to the public, is that there were many notables onboard; like Denver socialite Molly Brown (who survived) and John Jacob Astor (who didn't).
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 32):
Have any other ships as large as Titanic sank on their maiden voyage? Have those other ships claimed to have revolutionary technology and engineering when they sank? Were those ships claimed to have been unsinkable? Did those ships carry lifeboats for only half the passengers at the time? Were those ships sunk by colliding with an iceberg? It's because of this incident that ocean travel is safer. Had this not have happened, who knows?

It is said that the Goya,Wilhem, Gustloff, Cap Arcona, General Steuben ,Thielbek, Woosungand the Dona Paz are not a sexy or did not have "celebrities onboard". Your arguments are weak and do a diservice to the people who lost their lives in these disaters. So what that it was it's maiden voyage or that it hit an iceberg. It is way down the list when it comes to disasters at Sea.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 12 guests