#hydrographics

Day 17: Back on Saturday, after a two day break, Smith sees only one witness, and then submits a vast number of charts and memorandums (some from the witness) and other correspondence to the record. Today is a day for ‘testimony’ from the experts. Today, the submissions are mainly from testimony of Captain Knapp, certain memorandums refer to certain charts. The best way I have found to view these, if you are so inclined, is start with Knapp’s testimony, and these will be interspersed within. If you are interested in doing so, please visit The Inquiry Project. 

Witness:

Captain John J. Knapp, United States Navy Hydrographer;

Submitted:

Chart 1 – “Ice as Reported Near the Titanic”;

Chart 2 – “Ice Barrier, Nearby Ships”;

Chart 3 – “Ships’ positions Near Titanic”; (shown above)

Memorandum 1 – “Reports of Wrecks, Derelicts, Ice and Other Obstructions to Navigation”;

Memorandum 2 – “Titanic – Ice Barrier, Nearby Ships”;

Memorandum 3 – “Memorandum on Ships’ position as Shown on Chart”;

Memorandum 4 – “In Re Drift Ice on and Near the Grand Banks”;

Memorandum 5 – Backing Trials Data from USS North Dakota & the USS Delaware(letter to Perkins); when reading, you may need to highlight the tables to get the words to show.. I did)

Memorandum from Captain Knapp – Re: Sea Lanes and Steamer Tracks

Memorandum from Geologist Otis Smith – Formation of Icebergs

(All of these submissions can be found by following the link given at the top)

 Notable Quotes/Lines of Questioning or Summarized Testimony:

Captain Knapp begins his testimony explaining to Smith the Hydrographic Office, of which he is in charge of, under the Bureau of Navigation of the Navy Department. This is quite a long explanation (how court reporters and record takers do it is beyond me wow!) and almost seems to me like something practiced beforehand. Regardless, it offers interesting insight into why he would be called to testify, and what he actually does in relation to the shipping industry. A number of times during his testimony, Captain Knapp provides charts and their accompanying memorandums, and then requests special attention be drawn to certain aspects. These are quite detailed, and to pick something notable is somewhat difficult. Therefore, I will focus more on other questions Knapp responds to, rather than the charts and memorandums, if there comes something super important, that will however be included.

“A trained seaman can and does estimate the probable speed and direction of drift of any dangerous obstruction, so that if he had knowledge of the existence of an iceberg or a derelict in a certain location at a given date he reckons its future position for an interval of a few days.” – Knapp

“It is impossible, under the testimony as given, to state just how direct a blow the Titanic struck the ice, but an idea may be formed as to the possible blow by using the accepted formula… will give the blow that would have been struck if she had kept straight on her course against this apparently solid mass of ice, which, at a speed of 21 knots, would have been equal to 1,173,200 foot tons, or energy enough to lift 14 monuments the size of the Washington Monument in one second of time.” – Knapp

On why there was not much of a shock noticed by passengers and crew: “A comparison might be made to striking a sharp instrument a glancing blow with the hand. There would be no apparent resisting shock. That part of the ice which cut into its outer skin was struck by the ship very much like the edge of a knife would be so struck by the hand. If the ship had struck end on solidly against the mass of ice, then there would have been the shock that takes place when a moving body meets an immovable body.” – Knapp

“A still further inspection of the chart will show that the Californian, if located in the position given by the master thereof, could have reached the scene of the disaster in about two hours, and, if located in the hypothetical position shown on the chart, the Californian certainly could have reached the Titanic in a little over an hour after she struck. The evidence taken in the hearings shows that the Titanic floated for two and a half hours after she struck the barrier.” – Knapp in Memorandum 2

For further reading on Californian location, read Memorandum 2, as well as Captain Knapp’s testimony immediately following Smith’s question: “What do these arcs indicate?”

From the International Rules enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of United States: “ART. 29. Nothing in rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner or master or crew thereof from the consequences of any neglect to carry lights or signals or of any neglect to keep a proper, lookout, or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.” Which Knapp summarizes to mean: “This rule affirms a sea maxim that a captain must, in an emergency, handle or navigate his ship in a seamanlike manner.”

And what we all have been waiting for: Geologist Otis Smith’s Correspondence on ICEBERGS 

“Masses of rock 50 feet or more in circumference are known to have been transported by continental glaciers and it is quite possible that large masses of rock may be carried by some of the icebergs, though probably most of the stones are comparatively small. However, one large rock firmly embedded in the ice at the point of contact would certainly be most effective in ripping open a ship's hull under the force of a glancing impact. Ice in such a great mass as the berg which was encountered is, however, probably quite competent to produce disastrous results experienced without calling for the presence of any included mass of rock.”– Geol. Smith