This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
Ship Speed in a Fog
(Sec pages 171-179, February, 1956 Proceedings)
A. G. Graham, Master SS African Enterprise.—I regard Mr. John C. Carrothers’ article on the Hot Foot as the finest “biography” of a ship that I know. It brings back the older and more carefree days of contemporary seafaring, or so I think, and is a delight to read, Eleven months later appeared Mr. Carrothers’ “Uneasy Lies the Head That Wears a Crown,” which is so different in spirit from Hot Foot that it is hard to believe that both could flow from the same pen. Let me make this clear with some excerpts, the first one from Hot Foot, 174:
“Entering the coastwise trade, it did not take long for the H. F. Alexander to attract attention. With scheduled regularity she ran her course (Seattle-San Francisco-San Pedro-and return) on a weekly turnaround, departing from her Seattle terminal at 5:00 p.m. every Tuesday. By revolution counters and minute hand she travelled the 2,336 mile course in 135 hours, with three eight-hour whistle stops en route. . . .
“The words of Herodotus in speaking of the
Persian messengers could now apply to Hot Foot. ‘Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor darkness are permitted to obstruct their speed.’ So exacting and tight was her schedule that it was necessary for her to have two skippers relieving each other on alternating trips. The stopwatch precision with which she covered her route made her whereabouts known at any given time. For this reason she became a moving aid to navigation. Many a mariner groping his way through the murk has been saved from destruction when, not hearing her whistle at the calculated time, he hauled offshore and headed for the sanctuary of deep water.”
Not quite a year later Mr. Carrothers apparently suffered a complete change of heart about maintaining schedules in foggy weather, for he writes in “Uneasy Lies the Head That Wears a Crown,” 70—71:
“It took a calamity of an Andrea Doria-Stockholm magnitude to expose the hazard of excessive speed in fog to the world. ... As far as the captain is concerned, he has a sacred obligation to meet. Neither fog, nor rain, nor hail, nor storm, nor gloom of night is ever permitted to delay him in meeting the obligation of his ETA.
“He then advocates what amounts to a Prohibit'on Law (my term, not his) concerning speed in a f°g, and states that “there is not a skipper afloat who would not be thankful for such control." I disagree.
Perhaps I should explain that I am the faster of a 17-knot 82-passenger ship on the New York to South Africa run. My ship cannot compare to either the Doria or Stockholm ln size or prestige, but we get our share of 9°th fog and traffic at both ends of our run fnd I also have a schedule to maintain that ls important to us; so my problems are pretty Wuch the same. I am unable to reconcile Mr. Carrothers’ conflicting viewpoints regarding speed in a fog, so I shall line myself UP on the side I favor. I remain a devotee of lhe Hot Foot or Tory school of thought in these matters, and for the following reasons.
As we all know, our Supreme Court has interpreted “moderate speed” in Article 16 to Wean ability to stop a vessel’s way within a distance not exceeding half the visibility, with the added proviso that a ship need not stop completely but may always maintain bare steerageway in the thickest of weather, assuming no immediate danger ahead. This ls what seafaring men would call an extremely cautious speed, not a moderate speed. Nevertheless, it is the law and has remained the law i°r longer than the Volstead Act, though it has met with a similar lack of observance by the navigators of all nations.
Mr. Carrothers claims this is because ship- Wasters fear the wrath of their owners. I beg to differ. It goes far deeper than that. Ship- Wasters are practical men and they know that strict observance of the presently interpreted Woderate-speed rule would mean the end of the passenger liner. How many people would buy tickets on trans-Atlantic liners if they Were unable to know—within days—of their arrival time at destination? And how many Wvestors would risk their capital in expensive but unscheduled, fogbound, white-elephants whose turnarounds would be completely unpredictable? Can anyone, in all fairness, expect or want a crack liner to “reduce her speed to the lowest possible point consistent With good steerageway” (quoting from a Supreme Court decision in The Martello, 153, hh S. 70) and then maintain such speed (say about 4 knots) throughout “the long days and nights of continuous fog extending clear from the Grand Banks off Newfoundland practically to New York” (quoting from “LTn- easy Lies the Head That Wears the Crown,” p. 70, and I agree that such is often the case).
This does not mean that ships should disregard the Rules of the Road. They are excellent rules, including the one in question. Article 16 states that a vessel in reduced visibility should go “at a moderate speed, having careful regard to the existing circumstances and conditions” all of which makes a lot of sense. Shipmasters are not expected to be lawyers, and that sentence—to me anyway— means a lot different from bare steerageway in a thick fog. If it means anything as inflexible as that, why doesn’t it say so? To me it means a reduction of speed below full speed, though just how much will depend on the existing circumstances and conditions. These will vary widely at different times and places and will include such items as traffic conditions expected in the vicinity, the maneuverability of your ship, whether you have radar or not, how well it is functioning, how well it can be “read” by you and your officers, and especially whether it shows targets ahead or not. The last item is a highly important one and should call for extreme caution, including stopping dead in the water if the situation warrants. That is what I (and I think most shipmasters) think Rule 16 really means. The trouble is that all masters know that reducing even down to half-speed in a thick fog is as much a violation—legally—as full speed; so some of them don’t bother to reduce at all until appraised of something ahead. The theory here is that you might as well be hanged for a wolf as a sheep, or however the saying goes. This is wrong, of course, but is a natural result of the inflexible and impractical interpretation of “moderate” speed. Even so, the safety record of ships at sea is nothing to be ashamed of, so the average shipmaster’s appraisal of moderate speed seems to have been pretty good as a practical matter over the years.
In my opinion, the loss of the Andrea Doria was not the result primarily of speed in a fog, or of anything else except plain and unexplainable human error. Both ships were manned by experienced and intelligent navigators who knew the obvious steps to take to avoid a collision when that danger became evident on their radar scopes. Why nothing was done on either ship is one of those mysteries that is not peculiar to the sea or to fog. Collisions happen in clear weather as well as in fog, and on the highways and skyways as well as at sea. As one authority puts it, “How often has it not happened that the watch officer of a giving-way ship on a collision course with another ship in plain sight, has held his course and speed until collision took place? He seemed hypnotized. . . . Absentmindedness, semi-hypnosis, day-dreaming—call it what you want” (United States P and I Agency, Inc. Letter #040157). Human failure is a fact of life that cannot be legislated out of existence, and its unhappy results will plague us from time to time in all walks of life.
Fortunately, sea disasters occur so rarely that a collision of an “Andrea Doria-Stockholm magnitude,” fifty lives lost, becomes a “calamity” simply because it happens at sea, and makes front page news all over the world; whereas the constant slaughter that takes place on our highways is so common that it goes practically unnoticed. If anybody wants to reform any speed demons, by legislation or otherwise, let him take first things first and start on the highways. And may I suggest that the National Safety Council take a look along Steamship Row sometime for a change when seeking nominations for “admirable performance” citations for safety. I think that they—and the general public—would be agreeably surprised. For the record of passenger-ship safety over the years—whether from collision or any other cause, and despite the hazards of heavy traffic, fog, and tight schedules if you will—is a very impressive one. As for collisions alone: I am writing this at sea with no access to statistics, but I am reasonably sure that since 1913, when I first started to sea, I can count the major passenger-ship collisions on my fingers—war casualties excepted, of course.
The safety record of the Hot Foot, glorious and heart-warming as it is, is nevertheless being equalled or beaten by ship after ship as time goes on. These ships are only waiting for another (or the same) Carrothers to discover and publicize their achievements; and this job I hope “our” Mr. Carrothers will do. Though I cannot agree with Mr. Carrothers’ ideas as a maritime reformer, I do have a high respect for his ability as a writer of authentic and interesting maritime history.
A Coast Guard Officer’s Comments
(See pages 1065-1068, October, 1957 Proceedings)
Lieutenant Commander C. J. Maguire> uscg.—Logical inconsistencies and irrele- vancies in “North Atlantic Lane Routes” becloud the true problem, if there is one. Captain Rude’s concern is that he finds the present Rules governing speed in fog inadequate. He proposes instead universal lane routes extending to “all areas of the high seas” in which limitations upon speed might be relaxed.
The rejection of the present rule is based upon the false premise that “reduction in speed” is a vague and undefinable standard. But the “moderate speed” called for by the Rules has long since been defined as the speed which will permit a vessel to be stopped within half the distance of visibility. The rule is settled, whether one likes it or not. It is not wanting from consideration of safety at sea. Collisions result from its breach.
The true question raised in the article is whether the rule is practical, judged by standards of commercial necessity. No one argues that commercial factors outweigh safety factors in the determination of proper speed in fog. Change, then, is desirable only if it be found that there are circumstances under which the present rule could safely be abandoned and that the alternative will be at least as effective.
On portions of the high seas adjacent to principal harbors, lane routes are impossible. The rule of “moderate speed” must there be retained. In mid-ocean, sea room and radar undoubtedly combine to bring about speeds in excess of “moderate” in fog, but in collision liability attaches according to the present rule.
Until overpasses and cloverleaves become a reality at sea, there cannot be “universal” lane routes for unlimited speed. But if only a few lanes are established and made mandatory, safety is not preserved, for restricting the speed of ships crossing the lane will not help to avert collision.
Captain Rude seeks to derive advantage from the fact that only angled collisions will occur, on the theory that present rules adequately assess in the hypothesis of fog; the present rules do adequately assess liability in fog; and the purpose of the rules is not the determination of liability but the prevention of collision.
The digressions on qualification of licensed officers to use radar and the use of bottom contour for navigational purposes have no bearing on the question of speed in fog as a factor in collision.
The existing rules may be defective, but the proposed substitute does not remedy a defect nor offer an acceptable alternative. The present rules are not arbitrary limitations placed upon vessels for the hampering of commerce. With or without radar, they are the dictates of prudence developed from the practice of good seamanship.
Nelson: The Two Hundredth Anniversary
Professor Carroll S. Alden, usna (ret.), Annapolis, Maryland.—On the 29th of September, 1758, Horatio Nelson was born in Burnham Thorpe, a village in the shire of Norfolk, where his father was rector. I sought out the place some years ago and found the church whose definite records go back to the 1300’s, but the church, or an earlier one on the same site, dates from Saxon times. Here Nelson was christened, and below the choir on the north side lie his father and mother. Touching were Nelson’s words written in a letter when he was cruising off Ushant a year before his end: “Most probably I shall never see dear, dear Burnham again, but I have a satisfaction in thinking that my bones will probably lie with my father’s in the village that gave me birth.” The lectern in the church is of oak taken from his flagship HMS Victory, and in the chancel are flags of HMS Indomitable, flown at the battle of Jutland.
His mother, Catherine Suckling, grand niece to Sir Robert Walpole, died when he was nine years old. Her brother Captain Maurice Suckling offered to take care of one of the boys. Thus it was that Nelson at the age of twelve interceded with his father that he might go to sea with Uncle Maurice. In those days a captain, as a part of his patronage, had
opportunity to take into the service a limited number of lads as midshipmen, and his later influence was of great advantage in the matter of assignment or promotion. Thus Nelson’s naval service began when he was about twelve, and he was promoted to post-captain a few months before he had reached twenty- one.
Nelson lived in a critical time—history was was in the making. Though always physically weak, it was the inner strength that animated his frail body and gave him unusual endurance and power. Religious conviction and firmness of faith marked his life.
The late Rev. Henry Hibbard, rector at Burnham Thorpe, sent a seedling from a yew growing in the south-west corner of the churchyard to the U. S. Naval Academy. He speaks of a tradition, “That the village lads dared Nelson, when he was a young boy, to go there at midnight and break off a twig; this challenge was cheerfully accepted and carried out.” The yew tree was planted near the southeast entrance of the Academy Chapel and is flourishing today.
American Auxiliary Steamship “Savannah,” 1819
(See cover, December, 1957 Proceedings)
Commander Alexander C. Brown, usnr.—On this cover appears a painting of the pioneer auxiliary steamship Savannah of 1819. The artist, Mr. Frederick J. Hoertz,
MARESTIER’S PROFILE OF THE SAVANNAH
has produced an undeniably spirited reconstruction of the first vessel to use steam in crossing the Atlantic and this comment recognizes the fact that the composition is characterized by verve and enthusiasm. It is regrettable, however, that some avoidable historical inaccuracies are to be found in the depiction of the ship.
Apparently for many years the basis of all portraits of the Savannah has been from allegedly contemporary ones. These, however, were produced in the 1850’s and show ships of that period rather than those of thirty years earlier. Such a drawing purporting to be an accurate Savannah is shown in a lithograph published by G. Hayward of Pearl Street, New York, which is still the most frequently reproduced despite its rarity today. This came out some time prior to May 20, 1854, the date a similar view appeared as a woodcut in Gleason's Pictorial. A similar Savannah appeared as a lithographic illustration in J. Franklin Reigart’s The Life of Robert Fulton, published in 1856. These or similar drawings claiming to be contemporary have served as the basis of virtually all Savannah depictions subsequently produced. Mr. Hoertz’s composition possesses a few more fanciful additions, but otherwise is no exception. Curiously enough, a “corrected” Savannah drawing similar in almost all respects was made by C. B. Hudson in 1889 under the direction of Captain J. W. Collins of th U. S. Commission of Fisheries to illustrate the Log of the ‘Savannah’ published in 1890 as part of the Report of the U. S. National Museum. This added a rough sea and even more spurious “authenticity” by reason of the government imprint.
About 1930, however, historian S. C. Gilfillan re-discovered a source which it is surprising had not been found before. This was Jean Baptiste Marestier’s invaluable contemporary Memoire Sur Les Bateaux a Vapeur Des Plats- Unis. This official report to his government made by a French engineer surveyed American steamship technology and was published in Paris in 1824 not long after Marestier returned home. It appeared in two volumes, one of text and the other plates, both extremely rare today. In Part II, Figure 10 shows the starboard outboard profile of the Savannah and Figures 32, 33, and 34 give details of her interesting folding paddle wheels and machinery.
Dr. Gilfillan, to the best of my knowledge, first announced his “discovery” in an article entitled “The First Seagoing Auxiliary,” published in Yachting, July, 1930. This reproduced the Marestier drawings together with one of the familiar inaccurate ones showing the Savannah as a ship of the 1850’s. In any event, in his book, Inventing the Ship (Chicago, 1935), Dr. Gilfillan cited the fact that “all previous pictures were based on one late and very poor lithograph” and deplored that Marestier’s “invaluable source has remained unknown to all specially concerned with this famous ship.”
Happily, in most subsequent instances Marestier has received his due. Some excellent scale models, notably one by Frederick A. Craven in the Mariners’ Museum, Newport News, Virginia, have been based on his drawings. When the Savannah commemorative three cent postage stamp was issued a few years ago to note the 125th anniversary, designer Victor S. McCloskey, Jr., followed this model and produced an acceptable vessel. One notable characteristic shown is the 45-degree angle bend near the top of the smokestack in the way of the ship’s main stay.
Mr. Hoertz’s ship has a straight funnel and he provides an anachronism in supplying her with what purports to be a complete bridge and elevated pilot house structure. Even the crack American transatlantic liners of the Collins fleet of the 1850’s were steered from aft, the officers conning from the tops of the