Ship Simulator
English forum => Ship Simulator 2008 => Topic started by: Captain Titanic on December 06, 2007, 22:46:26
-
Hello people.
I just recently worked out this little bug. Not on ship simulator, but on the Titanic itself. Its about the iceberg, and how the Titanic hit it.
Titanic was heading strait forhead (forward) when the Iceberg was sighted. It semmed that Captain Smith, who was a strong beliver of the ship being "unsinkable", was warned about icebergs all day long. However Captain Smith was not at the wheel. Anyway. The crew, after reciveing the call from the bridge, shouted HARD TO STARBOARD! Which means sharp right. But the ship did not turn starboard, it turned PORT (left) It turned left, not right. But all the crew shouted "HARD TO STARBOARD!" Does anyone understand this error? I don't know if this acctually happend in the real 1912, but in the film "Titanic" it did. ???
Titanic
-
Hello Captain Titanic,
It is not the first time this question is being discussed, look for instance at http://www.shipsim.com/ShipSimForum/index.php/topic,1957.0.html
or search the forum. Encyclopedia Titanica is also a very good reference.
Welcome,
Luc
-
Cap’n T,
“Hard a’ starboard†means turn the ship’s head to Port. It has always meant that since the days when ships were steered by tillers, until that helm order was outlawed in the thirties.
Marty
-
No it doesnt:
Forhead: Foreard
Port: Left
Starboard: Right
"Hard a' starboard" means steep right. But the ship didn't go right. It went left. (port)
-
This is how it is now:
No it doesnt:
Forhead: Foreard
Port: Left
Starboard: Right
"Hard a' starboard" means steep right. But the ship didn't go right. It went left. (port)
This is how it was at the time ;)
Cap’n T,
“Hard a’ starboard” means turn the ship’s head to Port. It has always meant that since the days when ships were steered by tillers, until that helm order was outlawed in the thirties.
Marty
The movie was correct with the way the situation was on-deck at the time of the incident ;)
Regards.
DJM.
-
This is a quote of the reference:
Why was the order "Hard a'starboard" given, when it was intended for the ship to turn to port?
It's best to quote from John Harland, from his book 'Seamanship in the Age of Sail':
Orders to the helmsman were traditionally given in terms of "helm", that is to say, the position of the tiller rather than the rudder. 'Hard a-starboard!' meant 'Put the tiller (helm) to starboard, so that the ship may go to port!'. It will be realised that not only the bow turned to port, but also the rudder, top of the wheel, and prior to the advent of the steering-wheel, the upper end of the whipstaff. Cogent reasons existed, therefore, for giving the order in what one might call the 'common sense' fashion. The transition to 'rudder' orders was made in many European countries about a century ago...The change did not proceed smoothly everywhere, since old traditions died extremely hard in the merchant service, even in lands where the new convention was readily imposed in naval vessels...In the United Kingdom, the changeover did not occur until 1933, at which time the new regulations were applied to naval and merchant vessels alike...although the United States Navy made the switch from 'Port helm!' to 'Right rudder' in 1914, practice in American merchant vessels did not change until 1935.
Aboard Titanic, the command, "Hard a'starboard" would result in the helmsman turning the wheel to the left, which caused the rudder and the bow to rotate to port. This may seem confusing to the modern layman, but the deck officers and quartermasters of that period knew no other convention.
Also today, (yesterday too...) to avoid difficulties of interpretation of the orders by the helmsman, "port" and 'starboard" are forbidden (as they in fact describe the left and right sides of the ship when looking forward) and the words "left" and "right" are standard and mandatory.
That is the ;D long way to translate the posts of ;) mvsmith and ;) DJM ...
Regards,
Luc
-
Why take a Fictional, fake movie, and make such a huge deal about it!
How do you work out that the movie was fictional ???
Some of the character's were obviously fictional, but the story is based upon true events :)
Regards.
DJM.
-
Thanks, Luc, for amplifying.
It’s amazing how erroneous ideas about helm orders, and Titanic’s in particular, persist. There were many people who believed that Titanic’s wheel was backward—top spoke to starboard turned to port—and was a cause of the accident.
Even Kit Bonner, who was technical advisor to James Cameron, perpetuates the myth in his book Great Ship Disasters: “First Officer Murdoch reversed the wing engines full back, stopped the turbine engine, and had the pilothouse wheel turned to starboard, which turned the ship to port and away from the iceberg.†No wonder folks are confused.
Although it’s probable that there was no “right†action that would have saved Titanic after the berg was sighted, Murdoch did panic, and by reversing the wing engines, lessened Titanic’s chances of turning enough to miss the berg.
As Luc’s reference explains, the helm order given by the Sailing Master remained, from the days of the tiller, independent of what the helmsman actually did to implement it. This allowed the Sailing Master to not change his thinking depending on whether the vessel had a tiller, whipstaff, or wheel.
In fact early wheels could be either way depending on whether the builder decided to make the top spoke act as a tiller or as a whipstaff.
On 21 August 1935 the US Congress passed the Helm Order Act, which outlawed the use of Port & Starboard in helm orders. Orders must take the form Right…rudder, or Left…rudder. Most other countries did likewise at that time.
-
Why take a Fictional, fake movie, and make such a huge deal about it!
Actually, Shipfan, the subject was not entirely about the movie, but about a debate and misconception that began, shortly after the disaster, with the testimony of Hitchens before the US board of inquiry:
According to the transcript of the US inquiry as quoted in the Titanic – Nautical Society & Resource Center, Hitchens said “He (Murdoch) rushed to the engines. I heard the telegraph bell ring; also give the order ‘Hard a’ starboard’â€.
Seamen understood that the order was to turn to port. Just about everyone else went to work on wild theories about Murdoch screwing up, Hitchens not hearing correctly, or the wheel being hooked up backwards. And that silliness continues to this day.
Marty
-
Yes the Captain was in bed asleep.
-
Murdoch did panic, and by reversing the wing engines, lessened Titanic’s chances of turning enough to miss the berg.
Who says Murdoch panicked? What action would you take? Please take your time to think about it. Murdoch had 38 seconds to think of his plan, order it and see it executed. It was a perfect "port around" manoeuvre.
-
Al,
Perhaps I should have said a hasty decision. I realize he didn’t have much time to think. However, his instinct to slow the ship, while understandable, compromised the steering. Given the stopping distance of Titanic at that speed, and the closeness of the berg, his engine order could not have any significant affect on the force of impact, but it did lessen the rudder effectiveness. As I said, there was no way that collision could be avoided, but the best chance to lessen the damage was to turn as rapidly as possible rather than a slight reduction in speed.
Regards,
Marty
His “Port around†manoeuvre did fall somewhat short of perfection.
-
Al,
Perhaps I should have said a hasty decision. I realize he didn’t have much time to think. However, his instinct to slow the ship, while understandable, compromised the steering. Given the stopping distance of Titanic at that speed, and the closeness of the berg, his engine order could not have any significant affect on the force of impact, but it did lessen the rudder effectiveness. As I said, there was no way that collision could be avoided, but the best chance to lessen the damage was to turn as rapidly as possible rather than a slight reduction in speed.
Regards,
Marty
His “Port around†manoeuvre did fall somewhat short of perfection.
Hehe I was too hasty too :) But it is still debated weather he ordered full astern or just stop on both engines. The order to boiler room was "Shut all the dampers". If an engine should go full astern it would require as much steam as going full ahead. Also did the engine really come to a full spead astern in those 38 seconds, did the turbine engine come to a full stop also. There was no break on it so it would have provided some water flow around the rudder even though slower and slower. It is interesting to find out how the water reacted between the wing propellers and the centre ditto.
Port around manoeuvre was perfect, just the distance was not :)
-
Al,
In the end, it probably made little difference in the outcome. As you point out, the wing screws could not have had much affect on steering even if they had begun turning in reverse. The main cause of loss of steering would have been from stopping the center, turbine driven, screw, who’s wash on the rudder was important.
It’s unlikely that these questions will ever be answered fully. The archeological evidence has put to rest the absurd idea that the berg “sliced a big long gash in the hullâ€, but items such as the engine order telegraphs are too badly deteriorated to provide any clues.
Merry Christmas
Marty
-
If I had a time machine this ship is definitely the first place I would visit :)
Also Merry Christmas to you too.
Oh, did I write "break" ? I meant "brake" :D Christmas Break must be really needed :D
-
The captain wasnt in bed fast asleep. The Captain was on the bridge! And Quartermaster Hitches was at the wheel lol.
-
Listen kid,
You had better lose that lousy attitude if you want anyone on this forum to pay any attention to you.
Shouting is bad enough, but personal attacks of that sort are not tolerated.
Uppercasing your infantile tantrums does not get you more attention from the grownups.
The man’s name was Hitchens.
-
My apologies, I missed that post initially, it's now been edited.
Regards.
DJM.
Edit: Just realised why I missed it, I wasn't logged-in then. It's been a long day ::) ;)
-
Listen kid,
You had better lose that lousy attitude if you want anyone on this forum to pay any attention to you.
Shouting is bad enough, but personal attacks of that sort are not tolerated.
Uppercasing your infantile tantrums does not get you more attention from the grownups.
The man’s name was Hitchens.
Mvsmith
In your posts lately, it is quite obvious you are trying to become a moderator. Now why dont you look here! If you, in ANY way whatsoever, talk to me like that in ANY way. once more... One thing I will NOT tolerate on my posts is people like you being completely unuseful. If something in my comments are not nice, you tell me nicely! You better grow up a little because you have been rude on a lot of my posts lately Marty, And I wont have it. So If you have nothing god to say, just dont say anything. You better wake up. I do not call people "lousy" because someone spelt someones name wrong. Whats more, I take the Titanic very seriously
posts like: "Yeah the captain was fast asleep in bed" and all those comments I will NOT tolerate a bit. Over 1500 people died that night, and rude and silly jokes like that, I willl NOT have! And I shall call anyone who posts stuff like that whatever I want! Who knows how much of my family were lost then!
What I wount tolerate even more then that is posts like you cursing me because of that! How dare you in anyway. Better not post in my topics again Mvsmith. Because you dont have a nice tongue.
-
Ok, I think this has gone far enough. We don't need to see members attacking each other (whether they started a topic, or not).
I would like to point out here, some editing of posts has taken place. This can make it appear that one member is responsible for this topic getting out-of-hand. This is not the case.
Please refrain from making personal attacks on your fellow forum members.
Thank you :)
Regards.
DJM.
-
Captain Smith was on the bridge if—as is common convention—you include the enclosed chartrooms as part of the bridge. It’s likely that he was engaged in plotting a course change to the South.
He did not arrive on the maneuvering bridge until after he felt the collision.
He asked Murdoch what they had hit. After Murdoch confirmed that it was a berg, Smith told him to close the watertight doors. Murdoch replied that he already had.
Whether the captain was on the bridge, in the head, or drunk in his bunk—as one baseless canard has it, is irrelevant in fixing the ultimate responsibility. There was no reason for Smith to be by Murdoch’s side. Good Master Mariners are not micromanagers.
The responsibility for the disaster is Smith’s simply because he was running too fast in a bad place. The fact that it was Ismay who told him to keep the pedal to the metal does not in any way excuse him. Other captains have stood up to their landlubber employers, and are required to.
Other charges that have been piled upon him are largely of little consequence to the outcome:
Failure to post more lookouts; If those in the crow’s nest couldn’t see the berg, who else could have?
Failure to equip the lookouts with binoculars; seemingly a bizarre class thing, they would probably not have bought enough time.
Failure to post a maneuvering watch in the engine room; true, it takes many hands to quickly deal with reversing a reciprocating steam engine and shutting down a turbine, but again, it would not have bought enough time given the excessive speed and the inertia of the machinery.
Best evidence is that Murdoch did ring Full Astern, but the consensus of informed opinion is that he did so to alert the engine room, with the extra ringy-dingys, that they were in deep kaka. He had no expectation that the screws would reverse anytime soon.
Every single account that I’ve read has at least one error of fact. Even Bob Ballard, after actually looking at the ship and doing considerable research, has voiced some questionable theories. (I’ve often felt that Bob has less interest in ships while they are afloat.)
I‘ve had the privilege of many hours of conversations with Masters and Mates about the Titanic, and value their insight above that of many armchair experts.
One last, oft quoted myth is that Thos. Andrews came to the bridge to tell Smith that his ship was sinking.
Actually, both Smith and Andrews visited the orlop deck. There they discovered that Titanic was in danger of losing the Royal Mail contract as the postal clerks attempted to salvage the soggy bags.
-
I dont blame Smith for the accident. It was Brunce Ismay that I find guilty. He was the chairman for the White Star Line. And rather in the odd position of being on the ship that he owned (Titanic) He wanted to attract passengers to the Titanics future voyages (which never acctually Happend) by getting to New York earlier then planned. Personally I think that could be a bad act, because the New Your port were the Titanic was due to anchor might be full at the time, but it would be empty when the vessel was due to arrive.
The Titanic, in the middle of the North Atlantic, was going full speed ahead. Why? Because Ismay said so. As I said, he wanted to get to New York before plan so he could attract passengers. He didn't even care if the ship hit stuff. He thought the ship was unsinkable. He told Smith his command, who had to obey. So he told the crew, full speed ahead, while he went on the bridge (NOT IN HIS BED FAST ASLEEP!) the ship went at 25Kn... And the lookouts saw the Iceberg. "Hard a Starboard!" but it was too late. The engines were going to fast to turn, or to reverse, and Titanic hit the iceberg and sank, killing 1500 people with her.
Titanic hit the iceberg WHY?
The ship was going to fast WHY?
The crew did it WHY?
Captain Smith said so WHY?
Because Brunce Ismay said so WHY?
Because he is the owner of the ship. He can tell Smith to do whatever He wants!
It leads to Brunce Ismay. He was the cause of this disaster. Not because Captain Smith was FAST ASLEEP IN BED! :(
-
Ok, I think this has gone far enough. We don't need to see members attacking each other (whether they started a topic, or not).
I would like to point out here, some editing of posts has taken place. This can make it appear that one member is responsible for this topic getting out-of-hand. This is not the case.
Please refrain from making personal attacks on your fellow forum members.
Thank you :)
Regards.
DJM.
Ok I'll promise. But two words I am not so sure
Attack: Attack? combat? Im not useing a sword of a gun. Its the keyboard that is writing the words.
Fellow: Who said Mvsmith was my friend? Well Im not.
But I shall promise not to get out of hand. But You gotta admit. That comment from Fred 12 was way out of order. "The Captain was fast asleep in bed" Is he trying to make a joke? well he badley failed. 1500 people died on that ship. Nothing is funny about it.
-
But You gotta admit. That comment from Fred 12 was way out of order. "The Captain was fast asleep in bed" Is he trying to make a joke? well he badley failed. 1500 people died on that ship. Nothing is funny about it.
Surely you must agree that we all have our own opinions (including Administrator's and Moderator's). Starting a topic, then expecting people to post what you want them to post is asking a little too much.
The comment didn't appear to be meant as a joke to me, and I don't believe it was intended that way either. There are so many stories about what actually happened that night, who's to really say what happened ;)
The 'attack' I was referring to was where you stated that another member shouldn't post in your topics. This is a public forum, and all registered members share these topics. Any member who posts a topic, must expect that there are other members on the forum who like to have their say also, and they are fully entitled to do so :)
Regards.
DJM.
-
DJM.
How can a captain be fast asleep in bed, knowing that they are in the most dangorus part of the voyage, plus they were going at 25kn? Captains, have common sence. They dont snooze away while their ship is going 25kn forward, its the dead of night and the whole liner could hit an iceberg and sink... killing 1500 people with it?
I don't think you still used the rioght world. Its more like "defending" then "attacking" anyway who cares.
-
Hiya Captain Titanic :)
This isn't about who's right or wrong here with regards to the Titanic. I believe you are taking things much too personally. Any comments in this topic aren't aimed at you, they are directed towards replying to the topic at hand :)
Replies were made, and you took them as someone questioning the topic, and questioning you, then you reacted by telling other members that they were wrong and you were right. Unless any of us on the forum were actually there that night, how can any one of us say who's right or wrong about the events surrounding Titanic ;)
Forums are a great place to have a healthy discussion, especially with something you feel passionate about (which you obviously do about Titanic :)). Disagreements are a fact of life, it's how we deal with them that really counts, wouldn't you agree? :)
This isn't aimed at you personally, I'm just trying to be objective about things :)
Regards.
DJM.
-
Even Master Mariners need their sleep. Right, Angus?
Unlike watch standers, the captain is expected to be available all 24 hours. Therefore, he must grab his ZZZs when he can. A captain will often take to his bunk, not to sleep, but to rest. If he is to be useful in an emergency, it makes no sense for him to be more fatigued than the watch.
Testimony of survivors, along with knowledge of the daily routine, shows that Smith was tending to company-mandated duties by schmoozing with the passengers until late in the evening.
Smith is known to have been a teetotaler, but even sober the evening duties were fatiguing. It would be understandable and proper for him to hit the sack when they were over.
In fact, it is not known where he was before he appeared on the maneuvering bridge after Murdoch closed the watertight doors subsequent to the collision. The timing suggests that he was either in his chartroom or in his bunk.
It does not matter. Smith had already condemned more than 1,523 people to death by ordering an excessive speed (22.5kt) through dangerous waters (the exact number is not known because infants and any stowaways were not recorded).
The lookout’s visibility was about 40 seconds of steaming. By no stretch of the imagination can this be considered safe operation in waters that might contain bergs.
One cannot lay this off on Ismay. He had absolutely no authority to order an excessive speed. Smith could have—should have—refused.
To assert that Smith was intimidated and caved in to Ismay against his own judgment is to lay upon Smith an additional charge of cowardice.
The conjecture by Fred 12 that Smith was in his bunk at the moment of collision, whether sleeping or resting, is at least plausible and is not contradicted by any known facts. It is at least as valid as the thoroughly discredited conjecture that began this topic.
Marty
-
We are talking 1912 so I would understand if Smith was under "influence" from Ismay.
But it is a bit harsh to say that Smith condemned 1523 people to their deaths. From the telegrams that reached Smith he actually "turned the corner" later than usual, putting Titanic more south than it would have been.
When going to bed, chartroom, reading a book or what he did when he retired, he did order "keep a lookout for small bergs and growlers" (from the top of my head), and he did not expect icebergs in the path. Had he received the telegrams from "Amerika", "Californian" and "Mesaba" I am sure he would have handled otherwise. He was not a reckless man. In my book, to condemn someone means a deliberate action, and I doubt very much that Smith would sail into iceberg waters just because Titanic was "unsinkable". I also doubt that he had bought that theory as would no sailor.
-
Al,
Of course he gave orders to the watch to look out for bergs, but as you pointed out the speed and the viewing conditions gave only about 40 seconds of warning before collision. Even if he did not expect bergs that far south, he still should have considered the possibility.
The bottom line is that Titanic was travelling too fast for the conditions, and Smith gave the order to do so. He was found not to be negligent in doing so, because that was deemed to be standard practice of the day—run as fast as you like, and don’t worry about bergs until you see them. Then you can simply avoid hitting them.
By today’s standard the verdict would be different, but as you say, it was 1912.
Saying that it was his decision that allowed the disaster to happen is not the same as saying he committed a crime or was guilty of anything other than not being more cautious. I do think his judgment might have been clouded by a desire to end his career with a trophy. I do believe he had the stones to stand up to Ismay. The fact that he was not running at the max of 24.5 knots indicates that.
There are lots of woulda-coulda-shouldas in this tragedy; that’s why it will be debated forever.
Probably the debate should end with a quote from the famous Captain Ron: “Stuff happensâ€.
I hope you enjoy a good holiday.
Marty
-
Look people you can beleve that the captain was on the bridge. Thats just what I read> O.K.?
-
Maybe the captain was on the Bridge as part of the history says and maybe not as the other part says too.
On the ship at different “Departments†Bridge/Engine/Deck/Electrician/Cook and etc the people have a time o work and to sleep.
Image at the sea passage at some hours late at night the captain still have to stay awake after a day of work?
What are the duty officers for?
Today the most of the European owned vessels have a chief officer with masters license I think the same is applied in US too. Marty could you confirm me that?
Of course at the time “Maybe†the chief officer was not so experience of such a big trip and kind of big structure.
Unfortunately the accident happened.
For a ship with more than one propeller stop the engines trying to reduce a sideways collision could be a lake of strategy view at the moment. To maneuver ships with more than 4knots comes easer than at 4knots or less of course, at 13knots and even more the steering angle is much more pronounced to the ship. “Don’t forget†She had more than 1 steering winch / rudder / propeller. Could be easy to turn her to the port side by decreasing to 50% the power applied to the port engine and steering the rudders at 20 and or on the maximum of 35 degrees to the port. This action on such big a ship can swing the bow (Ship) to the wished side, is important to consider a relevant factor that the stern is sleeping to the opposite side of the ship’s turning moment.
Try to stop such a big displacement of mass in such short distance it’s not the best idea.
Keep in mind the every ship bear some amount of water together with her hull during any time when she is moving her big mouthed structure, this mass is well know as virtual mass for ship’s with passage in depth sea the mass volume can be closer to 10% of the ships displacement and during shallow waters passage this amount of mass can be bigger than 10% of the ships displacement. Another factor (Already proved after many test. Books Ship Handling, Principals of the naval architecture and Tug Use in Port) is the Bow cushion effects. This factor acts like “cushion†in case of a sideway bows collision this acts like an energy absorption tool, this effect is daily faced by pilots and the captains during berth massive vessels on harbors (Not pier) as the water is moved along the vessel and between vessel and Jet has no way to get out sometimes the pilot is forced to increase the tugs force during berthing. This mass of water will slide through the ship’s bow and stern Between ship and berth.
In the case off a berg the same effect can be pronounced especial if the vessel turns the force the side opposite of the collision side.
Unfortunately that’s was not observed in such a short time as even it have to.
With respect to all,
My Greetings
Tavares
-
Thank you, Tavares, for your insight.
Yes, in the US the captain is a Master Mariner whose ticket, for a ship like Titanic, would read: “any horsepower…upon Oceansâ€. He has three deck officers, or Mates, to stand the watches. He sleeps when he can, and is available at any time when necessary.
You make a point, overlooked in nearly every discussion of the collision, that even if the bow had cleared the berg, the stern would have slammed into the berg. The swing could not have been reversed in time.
Best regards,
Marty
-
look nobody has proved that captain smith was asleep or not although it is FACT that smith was in his quarters on the bridge in his room asleep or not is and was his own business. And he came out fairly immediate and he was not woken by crew from his room. by the way when people please speak on fact on the titanic. not on the 1997 film. Which portrays Smith ismay and murdoch as bad guys. It annoys me greatly the part of murdoch shoting himself and taking a bribe. Whatever about smith and ismay is another days work and there is evidence needed that will never have. It was the media and the propaganda that sank titanic. The unsinkable ship as it was portrayed. Truely White star line's fault because of the the pressure they made themselves. I personally think murdoch showed his great seaman's ship that some people forget about because he avoided the berg hiiting the stern as mvsmih mentioned briefly. Which was more important!
To dicuss the Titanic a new great forum is online and i am official annoucing from the Titanic Research Group- http://mrmarshall.proboards62.com/ (http://mrmarshall.proboards62.com/) please visit as excellent advice is availible from big titanic and ship enthusiastes are helping and are offering help with anything that you need to know
-
For all the academic arguments, the fact is that there is no action that Murdoch could have taken that would have avoided a collision, given the fact that there was at most 40 seconds of steaming time at 22.5 knots from the time the berg was sighted. We might argue that stopping the screws was counterproductive on a theoretical basis because it would lessen the ability to swing the bow away from the berg, but a port around would have been impossible in any case because the stern swing could never have been reversed in time.
Murdoch first rang Astern Full to alert the engine room of an emergency, he then rang stop. None of which had any significant affect on the outcome.
The disaster happened because Titanic was going much too fast in an ice field. Although not all ice warnings reached the bridge—for that we can fault Bride—enough information reached Smith that he should have reduced speed. He should have taken into account the ability of the lookouts to spot a berg in time. There was insufficient sea to form a foam line around a berg, and only starlight. The berg was only noticed when it blocked enough stars.
A point overlooked in almost all accounts is that neither Phillips nor Bride was a White Star employee. They were employed by the Marconi Company, which derived no revenue from navigational traffic. The personal messages from the passengers were the source of revenue that paid the salaries of the operators. Marconi’s official position was that navigational traffic had priority, but…
The myth that the berg “sliced a long gash†through many compartments persisted until video of the wreck was available. It should have been questioned by anyone who tried to open a can of beans with an ice cube, or who had heard of frames.
-
How can a captain be fast asleep in bed, knowing that they are in the most dangorus part of the voyage, plus they were going at 25kn? Captains, have common sence. They dont snooze away while their ship is going 25kn forward, its the dead of night and the whole liner could hit an iceberg and sink... killing 1500 people with it?
Hi Captain Titanic :)
What do you know about sailing and watch duty?
Do you think it's common sence to stay awake 24x7?
Do you know what happens to your resolution if you are awake 24 hours a day?
What difference would it make whether he was asleep or not? - Nothing!
His officers did what had to do and the presence of the captain wouldn't have changed anything.
Are you a historian, do you hold a STCW certificate or what qualifies you to have the insight you claim to have about watch procedures on board?
Regards
groennegaard
-
Having spent 25 years at sea serving all over the world 'hard a starboard' is turn right and 'hard a port' turn left. the commands are universal except in america where is is to difficult to understand......
-
If you carefully read part of LucATC's post again, maybe you'll reconsider?
Orders to the helmsman were traditionally given in terms of "helm", that is to say, the position of the tiller rather than the rudder. 'Hard a-starboard!' meant 'Put the tiller (helm) to starboard, so that the ship may go to port!'. It will be realised that not only the bow turned to port, but also the rudder, top of the wheel, and prior to the advent of the steering-wheel, the upper end of the whipstaff. Cogent reasons existed, therefore, for giving the order in what one might call the 'common sense' fashion. The transition to 'rudder' orders was made in many European countries about a century ago...The change did not proceed smoothly everywhere, since old traditions died extremely hard in the merchant service, even in lands where the new convention was readily imposed in naval vessels...In the United Kingdom, the changeover did not occur until 1933, at which time the new regulations were applied to naval and merchant vessels alike...although the United States Navy made the switch from 'Port helm!' to 'Right rudder' in 1914, practice in American merchant vessels did not change until 1935.
Regards,
Fred