On 18 Oct 2004 18:07:13 -0700, Jim Hampton wrote:

They [FCC] should stop being a mouthpiece for the current
administration and power companies and get back to trying to make the
airwaves a viable shared service for all.

I said that ten years ago and got an invitation to retire
early....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Which proves the point: Titanic was not being operated properly for the
conditions encountered. Other ships had stopped completely, or were
proceeding at greatly reduced speed, because of the ice.


The crew got paid...ergo, they were PROFESSIONALS!"

So, Master Amateur Mariner, when are you lecturing at the Naval
Academy on seamanship?


One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well. One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.
Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard. Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On 18 Oct 2004 18:07:13 -0700, Jim Hampton wrote:

They [FCC] should stop being a mouthpiece for the current
administration and power companies and get back to trying to make the
airwaves a viable shared service for all.

I said that ten years ago and got an invitation to retire
early....

Nothing wrong with retiring early.

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:


The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the
conditions.
That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake.

No, it was first and foremost an engineering screwup, if the rudder
had been properly sized the ship would have turned harder/quicker at
any speed and would have missed the iceberg. Particularly since the
collision was only a sideswipe.

*Maybe* Murdock had to reverse rudder so the stern wouldn't hit the berg too.

Titanic was "state of the art" for its time.

So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive
if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the
towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just
structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops.

So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup?

Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have
turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare.

Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned
away
quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant.
The ship was clearly
going too fast for conditions.

There's no "might have beens" about it. Unless you can explain why a
larger rudder wouldn't have turned the Titanic quicker so that it
missed the berg.

Simple. In a ship like Titanic, putting the rudder over isn't like steering
the front wheels of a car. In landlubber terms . . .

Save it for the landlubbers.

massive snip

You've snipped the part where I prove my points, of course.

By the way, ya want the list of ships I've been on during sinuous
coursing anti-submarine drills at 30+ kts? Ever stand on the deck of a
ship which is bigger the Titanic doing multiple banked s-turns turns
at combat power speeds? There's some "rudder ops" which will get ya
yer sea legs real quick . . .

Big deal. Were you driving the things? Did they do the tests with a hull,
rudder and propulsion system identical to Titanic's? Didn't think so.

Titanic and sisters were primarily designed to be liners, not military ships.
Sister Olympic not only evaded a torpedo attack in WW1, but chased down, rammed
and sank the attacking submarine. Kinda says something about rudder size and
manueverability...

Now answer my question and thankew.

Simple:

Suppose you're driving a car in conditions where your range of vision is 200
feet. And suppose it takes that car 10 feet to stop for every 10 mph of speed.


How fast do you drive the car under those conditions? If you go 50 mph and hit
something, is that an engineering screwup? Or is it a simple case of going too
fast for conditions?

I say it's simply going too fast. Better brakes, better headlights, etc., might
permit higher safe speeds, but if they're not in use, it's fundamentally the
driver's responsibility to operate at a speed safe for the conditions
encountered.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

Which proves the point: Titanic was not being operated properly for the
conditions encountered. Other ships had stopped completely, or were
proceeding at greatly reduced speed, because of the ice.

The crew got paid...ergo, they were PROFESSIONALS!"

So, Master Amateur Mariner, when are you lecturing at the Naval
Academy on seamanship?

One could sumise that if all the other ships in the area were
taking it slow, Titanic should have taken heed and go slow
as well.

Exactly! In fact, many ships (like Californian) simply stopped for the night.

One doesn't have to have knowledge of a field to
realize that. I'm sure that the ship's owners would have preferred
and understood a late but intact Titanic at the destination.

Of course!

Maybe the ship was "unsinkable" but I wouldn't want to test
that with paying passangers aboard. Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Almost everyone then knew Titanic could sink (the term used was "virtually
unsinkable"). What they could not conceive of was that she could sink so fast -
less than 3 hours from hitting the berg to hitting the bottom of the ocean.
That's why the rules did not specify "lifeboats for all" - they could not
imagine a modern ship in the North Atlantic sinking so fast that no other ship
would come to her rescue in time.

Of course WW1 would show just how fast even modern ships could be made to sink.

The comparison with new aircraft isn't as valid, though. Titanic wasn't a new
type of ship - Olympic was the first of the class, and had been in service for
months before Titanic's voyage. Both ships had undergone sea trials and the
crew supposedly knew how to operate the ship safely.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/22/2004 5:54 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Brian Kelly) writes:

So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive
if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the
towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just
structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops.

So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup?

Nor did the engineers ever conceptualize someone WANTING to fly into them
in such a way as to cause thier demise.

It's happened and it's fact, but I still can't imagine sitting in that
cockpit and intentionally doing that...

73

Steve, K4YZ

N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:


(N2EY) wrote in message
...

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:


The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the
conditions.
That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake.

No, it was first and foremost an engineering screwup, if the rudder
had been properly sized the ship would have turned harder/quicker at
any speed and would have missed the iceberg. Particularly since the
collision was only a sideswipe.


*Maybe* Murdock had to reverse rudder so the stern wouldn't hit the berg too.

Titanic was "state of the art" for its time.

So were the World Trade Center towers which were designed to survive
if an airliner plowed into them. But the engineers who designed the
towers didn't factor in the fact that airliners are not just
structural impact loads, the carry fuel too. Oops.


So their collapse was fundamentally an engineering screwup?

Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have
turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare.

Perhaps if the rudder had been larger, the Titanic might have turned
away
quicker and missed the berg. But that's really irrelevant.
The ship was clearly
going too fast for conditions.

There's no "might have beens" about it. Unless you can explain why a
larger rudder wouldn't have turned the Titanic quicker so that it
missed the berg.

Simple. In a ship like Titanic, putting the rudder over isn't like steering
the front wheels of a car. In landlubber terms . . .

Save it for the landlubbers.

massive snip


You've snipped the part where I prove my points, of course.

Hey kids! Trying to blame the loss of the Titanic on the rudder, while
certainly an interesting point, is only one point. The rudder was what
the rudder was. It functioned as well as it could, which was no well
enough. That is a different matter.

If I roll down the street in a loaded 18 wheeler at 100 plus miles per
hour, and try to stop within 300 feet - it will not happen. The brakes
are simply not up to the task. Does this mean that the brakes are poorly
designed or defective? Not even. I was operating my 18 wheeler way
outside it's design parameters.

Did the pilot and Captain not know the handling characteristics of the
ship? They should have.

Frankly that BBC story smacked of the "Everything you think you know is
wrong" sort of tale. The guy that was the hero is actually the coward,
and the guy they called the coward was actually the hero, blah, blah,
blah....

If the Titanic had not been simply scaled up from smaller designs, it
probably would have been a better ship. If the metal was better, it
would have probably not suffered the extent of damage, If the ships
compartments not been *open at the top*, it wouldn't have had a
cascading effect of water going over the top of one compartment, then
starting to flood the next compartment, tilting the ship more, and
exacerbating the problem until the water filled all the compartments and
it sunk. Watertight doors at the bottom meant nothing when the water
just went over the top.

Odd that in all the arguments, that one is overlooked. I would
postulate that the number one reason that the Titanic sunk at all is
that the compartments had the open top design. Were they sealed, the
Ship would probably just taken on a major list, and ridden low in the
water. But almost all the people would have survived.



By the way, ya want the list of ships I've been on during sinuous
coursing anti-submarine drills at 30+ kts? Ever stand on the deck of a
ship which is bigger the Titanic doing multiple banked s-turns turns
at combat power speeds? There's some "rudder ops" which will get ya
yer sea legs real quick . . .


Big deal. Were you driving the things? Did they do the tests with a hull,
rudder and propulsion system identical to Titanic's? Didn't think so.

Sounds like fun as long as it is a drill! ;^)


Titanic and sisters were primarily designed to be liners, not military ships.
Sister Olympic not only evaded a torpedo attack in WW1, but chased down, rammed
and sank the attacking submarine. Kinda says something about rudder size and
manueverability...

Now answer my question and thankew.


Simple:

Suppose you're driving a car in conditions where your range of vision is 200
feet. And suppose it takes that car 10 feet to stop for every 10 mph of speed.


How fast do you drive the car under those conditions? If you go 50 mph and hit
something, is that an engineering screwup? Or is it a simple case of going too
fast for conditions?

I say it's simply going too fast. Better brakes, better headlights, etc., might
permit higher safe speeds, but if they're not in use, it's fundamentally the
driver's responsibility to operate at a speed safe for the conditions
encountered.


HAR! I didn't read the whole letter before replying, and see that you
used a similar example!

The rudder was sufficient to maneuver the ship at a certain rate at a
certain speed. Was the Titanic not very maneuverable? Possibly. Is an 18
wheeler as maneuverable as a 'Vette? Not hardly. But if the 18 wheeler
tries to head down a winding mountain road at the same speeds the "Vette
can, and it crashes, it isn't the designer's fault.

- mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote


The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the
conditions.
That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake.


I agree with Jim.

A few years ago an AMATEUR sailor from landlocked Minnesota safely
crossed the Atlantic in a 10-foot wooden boat. He obviously understood
the seakeeping capabilities of his vessel and practiced good seamanship.

The loss of the Titanic, crewed by PROFESSIONAL sailors, can be laid
squarely at the feet at their obvious ignorance of the seakeeping
capabilities of their vessel and poor seamanship.

73, de Hans, K0HB

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) writes:

Trying to turn away, and in doing so exposing the side of the ship to the
danger, was the final mistake. That action can be understood, however, because
the decision to do it was made in haste. (Later analysis showed that had the
First Officer simply reversed engines and hit the 'berg head-on, the ship
would
have stayed afloat and few if any lives would have been lost).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Why are you laughing, Len? 1500 people died that night. Do you think
that's funny?

Riiiighhhtttt...

Yes, it is:

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/8912

http://www.cruiseserver.net/travelpa...ws_titanic.asp

http://titanic.marconigraph.com/mgy_grounding.html

Some time after the Titanic disaster, liner Niagara did indeed run
headlong into an iceberg. She did not sink and all of her passengers
survived (details in one of the references above).

KØHB wrote:
"N2EY" wrote


The fundamental problem was that they were going too fast for the
conditions.
That's an operational mistake, not an engineering mistake.



I agree with Jim.

A few years ago an AMATEUR sailor from landlocked Minnesota safely
crossed the Atlantic in a 10-foot wooden boat. He obviously understood
the seakeeping capabilities of his vessel and practiced good seamanship.

The loss of the Titanic, crewed by PROFESSIONAL sailors, can be laid
squarely at the feet at their obvious ignorance of the seakeeping
capabilities of their vessel and poor seamanship.


Now was this true, or was it just a story, a fictional tale, or a fable
if you wish, obviously exaggerated, and only intended to illustrate a point.

Oops sorry, cancel that last!!! 8^)

Go ahead, kick me, I deserve it......

- Mike KB3EIA -