British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry
Day 31
Final Arguments, cont.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is very difficult indeed to say. Of course, if the water coming from the iceberg were colder it would find its way down below the water, which is of a higher temperature.
The Commissioner:
Below the water of the temperature of the sea.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, it would take some time, of course; it would not happen at once - just as the Labrador Current goes underneath the Gulf Stream as your Lordship has heard from "The United States Pilot." The Gulf Stream is a comparatively warm stream as many parts of the British Isles experience owing to its effect at the end of its course on the coast.
The Commissioner:
In Ireland.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, and the West of Scotland, and it is said also to get round the North of Scotland for a very little bit. But the Labrador Current comes down, as your Lordship knows, from the great opening between Greenland and the Labrador Peninsula. It comes down there with a Southerly course. Then after a time it impinges upon the Gulf Stream. It goes under the Gulf Stream owing to the temperature of the water, the Gulf Stream being some 50 fathoms deep or it may be a little more; and then the Labrador Current, when it has got past the Gulf Stream, which is a pretty wide stream, reappears on the Southern side.
The Commissioner:
I think that appears in the book you have referred to so often.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It does, my Lord. These considerations, I think, have considerable importance when we come to estimate the reasons which probably actuated the Captain of the "Titanic" in the course which he took.
"You say it is apparently very rare to get such a flat calm as there was that night? - (A.) I only remember it once or twice in about twenty years' experience - the sea absolutely calm, without a swell, as it was recorded to have been."
I submit that is a very important answer indeed, and it agrees with the other evidence.
Then Question 25065 is: "(Q.) And if I followed correctly what you said earlier it would make it more difficult to pick up an iceberg with the eyes? - (A.) Decidedly. (Q.) If you had this calm sea? - (A.) Yes, decidedly so. (Q.) Although it was a clear night? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) There would be no indication of the water breaking round it? - (A.) No, there would be none in a condition like that. It takes very little sea and very little swell, with the northern bergs which are submerged about seven times to one above, for what we call a splash to get up and give you an indication." Where you have a white iceberg, such as is common, such as all the Witnesses describe as the sort of iceberg that they have known, you see them as you see that great cartoon there; but where you have a black berg, which is very rare, a berg which in all probability had recently capsized, then the entire absence not only of wind but of swell is of the most vital consequence, because you are deprived of the breaking of the water at the foot of that black berg which would produce a white line, which would be visible and which would call attention to the berg. It is not of great consequence if it is a white berg because that is seen a long way off, as all the Witnesses have said; but if it is that very rare thing, a black berg, like this, then if you have a perfectly calm sea, absence of all wind, and absence of all swell, it is fatal, because the black berg does not catch the eye as the white resplendent berg catches the eye, and you are deprived of the invaluable guide of the water breaking at the foot of it.
But there comes in the importance of what Sir Ernest Shackleton and many other Witnesses say, that such a sea as that is a thing in the Atlantic which might never occur again. "I only remember it once or twice in about 20 years' experience - the sea absolutely calm, without a swell, as it was recorded to have been"; and then he adds "It takes it once or twice in about 20 years' experience - the Northern bergs which are submerged about seven times to one above, for what we call a splash to get up and give you an indication." I submit that is of crucial importance.
Then he describes the phenomenon of the ice-blink which shows a luminous effect on the iceberg.
The Commissioner:
I do not know that it is very important, but I do not know what produces the ice-blink.
Sir Robert Finlay:
We had one theory about which I confess I have some doubts given by one of the commanders, that the sunlight is absorbed during the day and given out at night. I am not satisfied myself about the correctness of that theory; but I suppose it is a sort of phosphorescent light from the white iceberg which has been subject to the influence of the sun all day. I do not believe it is the sunlight being absorbed and given out; but that blink undoubtedly does come. There is no doubt about that.
The Commissioner:
A great many people talk about this ice-blink and I was wondering whether it was caused by the reflection of the starlight upon the crystals.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I do not think so, my Lord; I have no satisfactory theory.
The Commissioner:
Let me read this to you. It is out of "The United States Pilot," 1909 edition, at page 35: - "During a fog or in the darkest night, the proximity of the position of an iceberg may frequently be known if a good look-out is kept by a peculiar whitening of the fog known as ice-blink." I do not know whether there is any other reference to ice-blink in this book.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I am not aware that there is, my Lord, but they have not been speaking about fog.
The Commissioner:
It is not a very clear passage.
Sir Robert Finlay:
No, it is not at all clear.
The Commissioner:
Because they apparently assume one of two conditions, either a very dark night or a fog.
Sir Robert Finlay:
If you get a very dark night without a fog how can you have a peculiar whitening of the fog which is not there?
The Commissioner:
That is what I mean.
Sir Robert Finlay:
I think it is really a condition independent of the fog. It is undoubtedly a sort of light given off from the iceberg. What the theory of it is I am unable to explain.
In the second part of this same book, my Lord, at page 22, there occurs this passage: "Both by day and night the ice-blink is almost always visible on the sky towards the ice. Ice-blink is a bright yellowish white light near the horizon reflected from the snow covered ice and seen before the ice itself is visible." Of course, if there is reflection there must be some source from which the light is proceeding, which is reflected, and they say that in the darkest night or even in a fog you may have it; so that it is left somewhat obscure what the precise explanation of the phenomenon is. About the fact there is no doubt whatever.
I had better read what Sir Ernest Shackleton says about it. It is at page 721, Question 25069. "(Q.) We have been told of the phenomenon of the ice-blink? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Would that be affected at all by the night we have had described or is it a variable thing. - (A.) On a night such as you have described, if there was a big field of ice, the blink would most certainly be seen very, very clearly. If there was really what we call big fields, miles and miles of ice, then you would see the edge, what we call the water sky, that is where the ice-field ends. (Q.) But you would not expect to get the ice-blink with an iceberg? - (A.) No, I would not." I confess I do not quite understand that answer in view of all the other evidence and the passages from "The United States Pilot" which have been referred to. "(Q.) Does that mean it does not throw off any of its luminosity? - (A.) Well it does not reflect any light that there may be, one single berg; it takes ice in the mass to do that; it is like a whole lot of deck lights along the side of a ship; they look one glare instead of isolated things."
The evidence is absolutely unanimous that in the North Atlantic - I do not know how it is near the South Pole - the ice-blink is expected. You do not always see it, but it is a very common thing, and from an iceberg.
Then he is examined by myself. He gives the tonnage of his boat. That is Question 25074. I find I overstated it; it is not 300 tons, it is 227 tons.
The Commissioner:
Did Sir Ernest Shackleton navigate the seas down to this point in a wooden ship of this sort?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, he did. He started from New Zealand. It was a most gallant exploit. I suppose a bigger boat might have had very great difficulty in getting through. Your Lordship sees he had to pick his way painfully through enormous fields of ice, bergs to the right, bergs to the left and bergs in front, which no bigger boat could have achieved. He very nearly got to the South Pole; he did get to the Magnetic South Pole. Then at Question 25075 he is asked: "How high was it on the forecastle at the stem above the water? - (A.) When we were loaded it was about 14 feet; 14 feet from the forecastle to the waterline." That of course displaces the importance of all the evidence he had given about the propriety of having a man on the forecastle. It is a different thing altogether to a man on a forecastle 14 feet above the water from having a man on the forecastle some 60 feet above the water. "From the crow's-nest it was about 90 feet."
The Commissioner:
Where was the crow's-nest on this ship?
Sir Robert Finlay:
On the foremast.
The Commissioner:
At the head?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Very high up.
The Commissioner:
You are speaking of the "Nimrod"?
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes.
The Commissioner:
It seems to me as if the crow's-nest must have been at the top of the mast.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. He said to me, I think, that the "Nimrod's" crow's-nest was about the same as that on the "Titanic," 90 feet.
The Commissioner:
That would be ninety feet.
Sir Robert Finlay:
They are about the same height, so that in that respect at least the "Nimrod" was equal to the "Titanic." "(Q.) Then the comparison you are making is between the height of ninety feet in the crow's-nest on your foremast? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And a height of fourteen feet on your stem? - (A.) I do not make a comparison. I say from ninety feet, which is the crow's-nest of the "Titanic," we will say, which equals our crow's-nest, and from the waterline, as near as we can get it. If we could have got right down to the waterline we would have done so. The advantage lies in being as near the waterline as possible. You suffered from a disadvantage, certainly, in the "Titanic," by not being able to get as near the waterline as we did in the 'Nimrod.' (Q.) If I gather rightly, your view is that if you are near the waterline, it is an advantage in seeing icebergs? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) And that is an advantage which a small boat like yours, which most of us have read about, has. You had that advantage in that boat? - (A.) We had that advantage over other vessels to a certain extent. (Q.) Your outside rate was six knots? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You slowed down in ice to four knots? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) You say you slowed down. I suppose you experienced in going to the South Pole a very great deal of ice? - (A.) Yes, a great deal. We first got into the vanguard of the ice before we got to the heavy pack, and then we got into the region of icebergs, where we had to turn and twist." That explains what he had in his mind, I think, the region of icebergs.
"Sometimes we would have eight hours' run, but ice suddenly comes up in front of you, and then you slow down at once. (Q.) The pace you speak of, four knots, was when you were among the ice, "turning and twisting, as you have described it? - (A.) Yes, when we were in the region. I would not like to compare in any way the North Atlantic, with its comparatively few bergs, with the South, but if I were going 20 knots, I would want to get down to the steerage way just as when I am going six knots I want to get down to four knots. (Q.) But you do not compare the state of things which you found, as you were approaching the South Pole, where you had to turn and twist among the icebergs and masses of ice, with what prevails in the North Atlantic? - (A.) No, I do not compare it. The point I look at is, when you get a very fast speed, you must slow down, even as we in narrow waters had to slow down in our little ship. (Q.) Slow down to four knots? - (A.) We did. (Q.) What do you suggest a liner should slow down to? - (A.) I am not qualified to give an opinion, but I should suggest a liner should slow down sufficiently to give her steering way, which is, of course, more than the full speed of my own smaller ship. (Q.) What do you estimate would give a vessel like the "Titanic" steering way? - (A.) I am not qualified to say. I do not know enough of the turning movement of ships over 10,000 tons. I should say 10 knots." It is now agreed 6 knots.
The Commissioner:
It is agreed at 6 knots.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. "Is your suggestion that all liners in the Atlantic should slow down to 10 knots" - that should be 6 knots now - "as soon as they know that they may come across an iceberg? - (A.) As soon as they know they are in an absolute ice locality, which they can tell now because of the wireless."
That is the passage I referred to before as containing his idea as to what is an absolute ice locality.
"(Q.) My expression was, 'as soon as they know they may come across an iceberg'? - (A.) No, I do not say that. (Q.) What do you mean by an absolute ice locality? - (A.) The locality where it is reported, and where it is generally known that more than one iceberg will be met - where you are likely to meet masses of ice floating about. (Q.) Assume one or two icebergs are reported; do you say that if the vessel may pass near one of these icebergs she ought to reduce her speed to 10 knots? - (A.) No, I do not. I do not say just for one iceberg or two icebergs or ten icebergs if they are nowhere near one another, but if there is a general indication of ice in the locality within a certain area which is fairly well known, a vessel ought to be slowed accordingly at nighttime. (Q.) At nighttime? - (A.) Yes, only at nighttime, unless it is thick in the day. (Q.) Can you give me an idea of the extent of the indication of ice that you say should lead to the reduction to 10 knots. You would not reduce for one or two or ten icebergs? - (A.) No. I would reduce if I heard that ice was generally reported, specifically from more than one-quarter. I am taking very modern methods, that is that ice is reported by wireless. (Q.) If it is reported you mean you have something, I will not say equaling, but approaching the collection of icebergs through which you had to thread your way? - (A.) Oh, no; the ice is generally known in the Atlantic. (Q.) But one or two or ten would not be sufficient. I wish only to understand exactly what you mean by the absolute ice region, which you think should lead to slowing down to ten knots an hour? - (A.) I should say that if ice was reported in any quantity, bergs and floes, when the vessel is anywhere near that latitude and longitude and had a late report of, say, even the day before, at nighttime she should slow till she was past that latitude and longitude in which icebergs and floe ice were seen. (Q.) Do you think that the practice in the North Atlantic has been all wrong for the last 20 or 30 years? - (A.) I do not say that. I say a certain state of things has evolved in the last few years by public desire and competition."
If I may take an illustration, I think what the Witness had in his mind was something similar to the state of things shown in that oblong. Your Lordship remembers the parallelogram which was indicated by the "Mesaba" message, not received on the bridge. There, as Mr. Lightoller said, "If we had got that message I am certain we should not have gone ahead." That is the sort of state of things that Sir Ernest Shackleton obviously has in his mind which would approximate to what he had to encounter on the way to the South Pole.
Then at Question 25099 your Lordship says: "You say what? - (A.) I say the state of full speed as evolved in the last few years with the great public desire for speed. (Q.) To get to their journeys end? - (A.) Yes. (The Attorney-General.) By competition? - (A.) Yes. (Sir Robert Finlay.) You have been following this case I take it? - (A.) I have to a certain extent. (Q.) And you know we have had evidence as to the practice existing among gentlemen who have been in the trade for 25 years? - (A.) Yes; I think the gentlemen that have been in the trade for 25 years have been acting under the instructions of their owners."
Now that only illustrates Sir Ernest's complete ignorance of the conditions prevailing in the North Atlantic trade. He had crossed the Atlantic four or five times as a passenger, and then we have this which is really an echo of what has appeared in some newspaper; it is not a point upon which he can pretend to speak as an expert.
"(Q.) Have you any ground for saying that? - (A.) No more than a general feeling that I have had and the feeling I have had that when the owner is on board you go."
Really that is only interesting as showing that Sir Ernest was out of his element. Towards the South Pole he is supreme, but when he gets into the North Atlantic he is no better than any ordinary man.
"(Q.) And supposing the owner is not on board? - (A.) I do not want to make surmises, and I do not want to lay down any particular Rules; but there is a general feeling among people at sea that you have to make your passage. If you do not make your passage it is not so good for you. That is only my own personal point of view. I do not know whether I should not refuse to answer this particular question."
The Commissioner:
It certainly is by no means an uncommon impression that a good passage may improve a Captain's position in the eyes of his employer, and that a bad passage will hurt it.
Sir Robert Finlay:
But not a good passage involving risk, because nothing is more serious for the Company than an impression getting abroad that risks are run.
The Commissioner:
I should think one of the greatest disasters the White Star Line ever had is this - I mean in their own financial interests.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes, incomparably, from every point of view of course. Your Lordship knows that for the eleven years before there had been only two accidents to passengers. Of course, if the enormous loss of life which unfortunately took place on this occasion had been spread over all the period, the eleven years, it would have only yielded 0.038 - thirty-eight one-thousandths of 1 percent. But it is all compressed. It strikes the imagination, and then people speculate as to how it happens, and they say "Oh, Sir Ernest says there is this terrible competition and racing across the Atlantic and record passages." Your Lordship has the evidence, and can appreciate all that sort of talk at its true worth.
Then at Question 25106 I say "You have been in the North Atlantic trade to some extent yourself?" I put that question in all ignorance, because in the earlier part of his examination he spoke of his four or five passages across the Atlantic, and I thought he had been professionally engaged. Then he says, "I have only been as a passenger. Well, once in 1891 I was across the Atlantic in March. (Q.) Were you in command of a vessel? - (A.) No, I was only seventeen years old then. (Q.) But the other times you speak of in the North Atlantic you have been merely as a passenger? - (A.) Yes, that is all. (Q.) But apart from this voyage when you were seventeen, of ice in the Atlantic you have had no experience? - (A.) I have had no experience, no, of actual ice in the North Atlantic. I happen to be aware of the conditions though. (Q.) Now with regard to the coldness, the connection of cold with the presence of icebergs. You know of course of the Labrador Current? - (A.) Yes. (Q.) Is the cold very often due to the Labrador Current? - (A.) I would not say that so much, but I would say the breaking up of the ice was due to the Labrador Current. I mean it comes down with the Labrador Current, but the other current goes to the North." He is speaking of the Gulf Stream which does not run North exactly, but it runs to the North of E. E.N.E. has been given as its direction, and I think that is approximately correct.
"It is sometimes very clearly defined, but then again these currents sometimes come far out of their usual route. (Q.) You would not say, I suppose, that a fall in temperature was anything like a certain indication of the presence of ice? - (A.) No, I would not at all. (Q.) Not at all? - (A.) Excepting under very definite conditions, such as a dead calm and a sudden fall in the temperature, because if you are in colder water, and as I said before you have not an equal temperature of the air, then you have a haze. If both the air temperature and the water temperature are the same the effect is that the weather is clear."
Then your Lordship points out, what is the fact "My recollection is that the fall of temperature began on the Saturday. (The Attorney-General.) Yes, it did; it became more acute on the Sunday afternoon. (The Commissioner.) It gradually fell and fell rapidly, but began Saturday. (The Attorney-General.) Yes. We know very little of the wind on the Saturday. (Sir Robert Finlay.) I think we have information on the morning of the Sunday that there was wind. (The Commissioner.) There was wind of a kind up to three o'clock in the afternoon of the Sunday, and then it fell and became dead calm." That is correct. "(Sir Robert Finlay.) Yes. The point is the cold had began before the wind dropped. (The Commissioner.) Oh, it began on the Saturday. (Sir Robert Finlay - To the Witness.) I think you said that the importance you would attach to a fall of temperature in this connection was if there was a dead calm? - (A.) Yes. If the sea and the air are about the same temperature I would consider ice; but all those methods, such as dipping up water in buckets to get the temperature are no good." Then there is the re-examination by the Attorney-General, who says as Question 25115: "We have been speaking hitherto about icebergs; but supposing you had a wireless telegram to the effect that there were icebergs and a large quantity of field ice in the region which the ship had to cross, would that in any way accentuate the risk - which you say would be run? - (A.) The field ice? (Q.) Yes? - (A.) I think field ice for a ship of the class of any ocean liner is almost as bad as an iceberg, because going at a speed like that the kinetic energy is so enormous and field ice is very often 20 feet deep; it is like running on a rock almost."
Then Mr. Cotter puts a question about searchlights, but I do not think I need trouble about that. Then Question 25120: "(Q.) I should like you to answer this. If you can see the berg at a sufficient distance to clear it, is there then any object in reducing speed? - (A.) My Lord, if there is one certain iceberg and one berg alone, or two or three bergs, there is no object in reducing speed, but if you are in an area where there is floe ice and bergs which might perhaps be met at any moment, where if you put the helm hard a-port you might run into another one, then there is need. (Q.) We have no evidence that the "Titanic" saw what you call floe ice, pack ice, or anything of that kind. There were telegrams warning the ship of the existence of such ice. But taking icebergs, if you can see them at sufficient distance to avoid them, is there any object in slowing down? - (A.) I do not consider there is any need to slow down if you can see every iceberg at a sufficient distance to avoid it, but I doubt if you could when you come into such a region."
That is the old question of the absolute ice region. "Now, I am going to ask you about that. We have been told that on this night the conditions were very peculiar, that the sea was as flat as a table top, and that there was no sort of swell, and therefore nothing that would make a ridge round the waterline of the iceberg on which the eye would fall. We have been told that this iceberg was black, and it has been said that in those circumstances it is very difficult to detect the existence of a berg in time to avoid it. Is that so? - I agree with that, my Lord. I think it would have been a very difficult thing with a ship going at that speed to have done so. (Q.) Do you think the speed makes any difference in picking up a thing? - (A.) I do not know about picking up, but slower speed gives you a longer time from the time you see it at the same distance. (Q.) Of course, it does. I did not understand your observation. Now, you know these conditions as they have been described - whether accurately or not I do not know - but they have been described to us. How far off do you think the men in the crow's-nest, if they had been attending to their business and not talking to each other, ought to have seen this berg? - (A.) I would not like to put a definite figure on it but I should think the men in the crow's-nest saw that berg about as soon as you would ordinarily expect a man to see it." That is under these conditions. "That means they saw it just as the ship was striking the berg? - (A.) Had not some three minutes elapsed from the time it was reported? (The Commissioner.) I think not."
The Commissioner:
Oh no, that is a mistake.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Yes. "(The Attorney-General.) It is rather difficult to say. We know what was done, and we have to estimate the time. (The Commissioner.) She was right on the berg before any time elapsed? - (A.) I should think, my Lord, that in the case of that particular berg it would be a very difficult thing to pick it up at all. A man might have said to his companion "Do you think you see anything?" but arising out of that I should like to say that all Officers, as far as I know, and Captains of ships in modern times, are only too ready to hear reported from the crow's-nest, or wherever it is, any report of any sort even though the light reported is not there."
The Commissioner:
Well, that is what some other Witnesses have said.
Sir Robert Finlay:
It can be only be helping to relieve the monotony of life on board ship; I should have thought a report of what does not exist is not helpful.
The Commissioner:
What I mean is this. I think it was in answer to Mr. Laing one of the Witnesses said that a man would never be reprimanded for reporting - even though he was mistaken, and there was nothing to report.
Sir Robert Finlay:
Certainly, I entirely agree in that, because it would be a very great mistake to leave an impression on the minds of the men that they were committing an offence by reporting when they thought they saw something, even if it turned out not to be there.
The Commissioner:
I do not know whether it was Mr. Laing, but somebody said he thought that if that went on for very long the connection of the look-out man with the ship would be speedily terminated.
Sir Robert Finlay:
To put a very strong case, suppose a man were flogged every time he reported an object which turned out not to be there, I should think it would very seriously interfere with the efficiency of the look-out. It is evident you must not censure the man. On the contrary, you praise him for reporting what he thinks he sees even if it turns out not to be there. But that is a different thing from saying that you are glad to have reported what does not exist. You are very glad the look-out men are zealous.
The Commissioner:
I understand he means he is glad the man reports even though there is nothing there, because it shows he is anxious to do his duty.
Sir Robert Finlay:
That is obviously what he means.
The Attorney-General:
One of my friends says he remembers that Sir Ernest added sotto voce." It used to be different in my young days."
Sir Robert Finlay:
It is put very neatly in Mr. Lightoller's evidence at the top of page 326, Question 14294. "I will put this to you" - it is by Mr. Scanlan - "Supposing a man on the look-out fancies he sees something and strikes the bell, and it turns out not be anything, I should think he would be reprimanded? - (A.) He is in every case commended. (The Commissioner.) I do not understand that. Is he commended when he signals that there is something ahead when there is nothing ahead? - (A.) Yes, your Lordship," and it is obvious for the reason your Lordship has just indicated.
The Commissioner:
Then it was Mr. Scanlan made the observation?
Mr. Scanlan:
It is in the next question, my Lord.
Continued >
