Random TRANSPORTATION pictures - Page 748

Joe Bob · Joe Bob's Garage

The Titanic - Why did the Titanic sink?
"We have struck iceberg ... sinking fast ... come to our assistance."
The ship was doomed and it was slowly sliding into its watery grave. But why did the largest, most advanced ship of the century sink?

It was Captain Smith's fault

This was Captain E. J. Smith's retirement trip. All he had to do was get to New York in record time. Captain E. J. Smith said years before the Titanic's voyage, "I cannot imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that." Captain Smith ignored seven iceberg warnings from his crew and other ships. If he had called for the ship to slow down then maybe the Titanic disaster would not have happened.

The HMS Britanic....

It was the shipbuilder's fault

About three million rivets were used to hold the sections of the Titanic together. Some rivets have been recovered from the wreck and analysed. The findings show that they were made of sub-standard iron. When the ship hit the iceberg, the force of the impact caused the heads of the rivets to break and the sections of the Titanic to come apart. If good quality iron rivets had been used the sections may have stayed together and the ship may not have sunk.

It was Bruce Ismay's fault

Bruce Ismay was the Managing Director of the White Star Line and he was aboard the Titanic. Competition for Atlantic passengers was fierce and the White Star Line wanted to show that they could make a six-day crossing. To meet this schedule the Titanic could not afford to slow down. It is believed that Ismay put pressure on Captain Smith to maintain the speed of the ship.

It was Thomas Andrews' fault

The belief that the ship was unsinkable was, in part, due to the fact that the Titanic had sixteen watertight compartments. However, the compartments did not reach as high as they should have done. The White Star Line did not want them to go all the way up because this would have reduced living space in first class. If Mr Andrews, the ship's architect, had insisted on making them the correct height then maybe the Titanic would not have sunk.

It was Captain Lord's Fault

The final iceberg warning sent to Titanic was from the Californian. Captained by Stanley Lord, she had stopped for the night about 19 miles north of Titanic. At around 11.15, Californian's radio operator turned off the radio and went to bed. Sometime after midnight the crew on watch reported seeing rockets being fired into the sky from a big liner. Captain Lord was informed but it was concluded that the ship was having a party. No action was taken by the Californian. If the Californian had turned on the radio she would have heard the distress messages from Titanic and would have been able to reach the ship in time to save all passengers.

Was Captain Smith past his best?
Was money a key factor in the disaster?
Did laws need to be changed?
Who was to blame for the sinking of the Titanic?

Both America and Britain held inquiries into the disaster. both reached the almost identical conclusions.

The American inquiry concluded that Captain Smith should have slowed the speed of the boat given the icy weather conditions.

The British inquiry, on the other hand, concluded that maintaining speed in icy weather conditions was common practice.

Both inquiries agreed on who was most at fault - Captain Stanley Lord of the Californian. The inquiries stated that if Lord had gone to Titanic's assistance when the first rocket was seen then everyone would have been saved.

Both inquiries made recommendations:

All ships must carry sufficient lifeboats for the number of passengers on board.
Ship radios should be manned 24 hours a day.
Regular lifeboat drills should be held.
Speed should be reduced in ice, fog or any other areas of possible danger.

Joe Bob · Joe Bob's Garage

The HMS Olympic.....

After she ran into the HMS Hawke.....

mpeastend · 04-29-2012, 03:03 PM

Thanks JB...

URY914 · URY914's Garage

Joe Bob · Joe Bob's Garage

Captain Stanley 'Snooty Bastard' Lord....

July 7, 2009 | Posted by Mark Taylor
Two issues split the Titanic camp into warring factions: salvage and the Californian issue. The latter issue involves the role of Captain Stanley Lord of the SS California. On the night Titanic went down in 1912, his ship was in the vicinity. Due to the ice on the ocean, he had decided to shut down and wait till morning to proceed. His wireless operator had gone to bed and while rockets were spotted he did not believe it was a distress signal. In the aftermath of the tragedy, Captain Lord came under fire for failing to act. It was something that would haunt him for the rest of his life.

The two camps, the Lordites (pro-Lord) and the anti-Lordites (against Lord) have very different perspectives on the role of Captain Lord. The Lordites argue that the enquiries were hasty and a rush to judgment. The anti-Lordites argue the enquiries got it right, that Lord failed to act when the rockets were sighted. Now comes a new book that will likely reignite the debate. Daniel Allen Butler’s The Other Side of Night, according to the Scotsman makes a startling claim that Captain Lord was a sociopath. According to the article, Butler had commissioned a series of clinical psychologists to examine Lord’s sworn testimony as well as reports of his actions both before and after the tragedy.

“White rockets meant that somebody, somewhere, was about to die, yet Lord choose to ignore them. What has remained unexplained for more than nine decades is why Lord would so callously choose to disregard such a plea for help. “The answer, which lies in medical science, is that Stanley Lord was a man without conscience: he was a sociopath.”

The article notes that there were allegations that the officers under Lord were coerced to testify to support his position and that the ship’s log, which would have proved the exact location of the California, disappeared. And Butler argues Lord’s story changed over time while others stayed the same. Add to allegations he falisified entries in the logbook and the fact he expressed no sympathy for the victims over the years lends credence, Butler argues, that Lord was a sociopathic personality.

Well that is surely going to get those who support Lord fuming and dashing to their keyboards to type out responses. As for the book, I have not read it so I cannot say whether it is good, bad, or just okay. However relying on psychologists to render an opinion about a historical person is dubious. There was a trend in history many years ago to apply the techniques of psychology to historical figures. The problem is that you do not have the person right there so that you can make a proper clinical analysis. In the case of historical figures you have to rely on what was written about them or what they wrote about themselves. Certainly you can gain insights but it is far from a proper analysis or even a diagnosis. Without the person right there it is difficult to render a truly objective opinion as to what the true mental state was.