PAMNO (N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article t, "Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals?

Yes - but there was nothing wrong with its design and construction. In fact, it
carried more lifeboats, and employed more modern safety equipment, than was
required by regulations at the time.

The Titanic's problem was improper operation. Steaming full speed into an ice
field on a cold, calm, moonless night after receiving no less than six warnings
of ice ahead was simply reckless. Doing so when the lookouts had no binoculars
was even more reckless.

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).

No officer in their right mind is going to plow straight ahead into an
iceberg to "save the ship". The rudder was grossly undersized so the
Titanic did not respond to the helm soon enough and swiped the ice.
Other ships of that era with properly designed rudders would have
turned away from the berg and missed it with room to spare.

73 de Jim, N2EY

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article t,
"Dan/W4NTI"
w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

Was not the Titanic designed and built by professionals?

Yes - but there was nothing wrong with its design and construction. In
fact, it
carried more lifeboats, and employed more modern safety equipment, than was
required by regulations at the time.

The Titanic's problem was improper operation. Steaming full speed into an
ice
field on a cold, calm, moonless night after receiving no less than six
warnings
of ice ahead was simply reckless. Doing so when the lookouts had no
binoculars
was even more reckless.

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).

No officer in their right mind is going to plow straight ahead into an
iceberg to "save the ship".

Sure they would - if they knew that the ship could not turn in time, and would
sink as a result.

The rudder was grossly undersized so the
Titanic did not respond to the helm soon enough and swiped the ice.

Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, was essentiaaly the same ship. A few feet
shorter and less luxurious, but the same basic design. Olympic went into
service first, and much of her crew was transferred to Titanic because of their
experience.

No complaints of a grossly undersized rudder.

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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 also the possibility that the cold water around
there made the steel the ship was constructed with somewhat
brittle. That the metalurgy of steel wasn't that well
controlled or understood back then. And that the batch
of steel used for the hull wasn't as good as it should have
been. And that modern ship builders would never use it
today. That the same ship built with good steel could have
taken that iceberg hit with much less if any damage.

I still wouldn't sail a ship thru iceberg infested waters.

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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 also the possibility that the cold water around
there made the steel the ship was constructed with somewhat
brittle. That the metalurgy of steel wasn't that well
controlled or understood back then. And that the batch
of steel used for the hull wasn't as good as it should have
been. And that modern ship builders would never use it
today. That the same ship built with good steel could have
taken that iceberg hit with much less if any damage.

More than a possibility, it's been documented from samples brought up from the
wreck. Lot of sulfur in that steel.

Perhaps what makes the Titanic disaster so intriguing is that there were so
many seemingly-small factors that contributed. The lack of even one of these
small factors could have averted the sinking, or at least the loss of life.

For example:

If the lookouts had binoculars, they probably would have seen the berg sooner,
and the attempt to steer around it would have been successful. (The binoculars
were locked in the second officers' cabin, but neither he nor the other
officers knew it at the time. Still there).

If any of the six ice warnings had been heeded, and speed reduced just a bit,
the attempt to steer around the berg would have been successful.

If the first officer had not tried to steer around the berg, the ship would
have stayed afloat.

If there had been lifeboat space for all, all could have been saved. (The
design of the Olympic class could accomodate enough lifeboats - special davits
were used that allowed more lifeboats, by stacking them on the boat deck. But
lifeboats cost money, took up deck space, and everyone thought they'd never be
used. So the full number were not provided. After the disaster, sister ships
Olympic and Britannic were equipped with adequate lifeboats by simply reverting
to the original plan).

If there had been 24 hour radio watch required, the nearby Californian could
have saved most if not all who perished.

If Titanic had used a standard distress flare signal, (I don't think such a
signal existed in April 1912) the nearby Californian could have saved most if
not all who perished.

If better steel, a bigger rudder, higher bulkheads, double hull (not just a
double bottom), or higher capacity pumps had been used, the disaster could have
been avoided or the ship kept afloat long enough for all to be saved.

If the officer on the Californian who knew Morse Code and who used to listen in
when "Sparks" was off duty had remembered to wind up the magnetic detector, he
would have heard the distress calls and Californian could have saved most if
not all who perished. But he forgot and heard nothing.

I still wouldn't sail a ship thru iceberg infested waters.

Not at full speed with inadequate lookout capability and a big, slow turning
ship!

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.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/20/2004 3:57 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Perhaps what makes the Titanic disaster so intriguing is that there were so
many seemingly-small factors that contributed. The lack of even one of these
small factors could have averted the sinking, or at least the loss of life.

That's why they call the events leading up to a mishap "the chain of
events"...Becasue if even one link in the chain had been broken, the chances of
the incident occuring would have been reduced.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Designed And Built By PROFESSIONALS....
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 10/20/2004 3:57 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Perhaps what makes the Titanic disaster so intriguing is that there were so
many seemingly-small factors that contributed. The lack of even one of these
small factors could have averted the sinking, or at least the loss of life.

That's why they call the events leading up to a mishap "the chain of
events"...Becasue if even one link in the chain had been broken, the chances
of
the incident occuring would have been reduced.


Not just reduced but in most cases totally eliminated. That's what's so
intriguing about the Titanic disaster.

For example, with or without a bigger rudder, even a slight speed reduction
would have given the crew more time to react, and the ship more time to turn
and avoid. As it was, Titanic almost missed the berg, so a little more time,
resulting in quicker turning would have been a critical factor.

The business about surviving taking the berg head-on was confirmed by computer
simulation. Done by expert professionals, too.

One idea was disproved by computer simulation. Some folks speculated that if
the watertight doors had been raised, the ship would have gone down level
instead of bow-first, and stayed afloat longer because the bow, gangways and
portholes would have stayed above water longer. Computer simulation showed that
with the watertight doors open, the ship would have sunk even faster, and that
power would have been lost much sooner, darkening the lights and silencing the
radio. Plus cutting off the pumps.

--

It should be remembered that none of the engineers aboard Titanic survived,
because they all stayed on duty keeping steam up and the power on until the
very end.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , PAMNO
(N2EY) 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?

Is that right after you finish the lectures on military land warfare at
West Point and USAF arcraft history at the Air Academy?

[just wondering...]

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.

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

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

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.

Robert, I will agree with you, but what happened to the Titanic
NINETY-TWO YEARS AGO isn't really a subject of this
newsgroup and doesn't come close (maybe a couple of light-
years) to amateur radio policy. :-)

Well, except to some who wish to turn this newsgroup into
a quasi-private Chat Room involving their own desires and
preferences...and to have them damn all others for not thinking
and feeling as they do. [yourself excluded]

For the bleeding-heart imaginary sailors aboard, I won't cry
great crocodile tears of a thousand-plus humans who perished
on the Titanic in 1912. Nope. I'll just reflect that the subject
made a LOT of money for Linda Hamilton's ex-husband and
employed many Mexican laborers on the set of "Titanic"...
many many years later with a little gilt statuette awarded for
Best Motion Picture to the producer-director. No crying great
tears on-stage on that Oscar Night.

Boeing doesn't test fly
new aircraft with commercial paying passengers.

Not many aircraft companies were busy working out Test
Proceedures for test-flying new aircraft in 1912... :-)

Boeing innovated the pre-flight checklist around 1940 or
thereabouts after they lost a prototype Flying Fortress (and
their chief test pilot) on takeoff.

Not to worry. U.S. amateur radio regulations are Up To Date.
They still require all amateurs to test for beloved morse code
cognition capability in order to have priveleges of operating
below 30 MHz...in the ham bands. It seems that some amateurs
bent on constantly re-living the past (in almost anything) think
that morse code skill is still the epitome of "radio operation" in
the year 2004. Very "progressive." State of the Art.