Page 172 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 23 - 26
P. 172
purpose of communicating with another ship. Mr. Scanlan: It seems to me to contemplate a standard of efficiency of the watertight compartments, and if this standard is to be insisted on for a matter which is so relatively small as the difference between ¾ and ½ of the additional lifeboat accommodation, what it appears to me is that it should be insisted on for the general purpose for which watertight compartments are provided, that is, for the general security of the ship. The Commissioner: It may be. 24723. (Mr. Scanlan.) Do you follow? - Yes, I follow that. 24724. And do you agree? - I can only tell you this. Lloyd’s, as we understand it, and all the builders do not believe in the particular arrangements recommended by Sir Edward Harland’s Committee. They think there is something better to be got. The Commissioner: Did Sir Edward Harland’s Committee recommend a longitudinal bulkhead? 24725. (The Attorney-General.) No, I do not think so. The Witness: I am not sure. 24726. (The Commissioner.) They did not? The recommendation goes on, “With longitudinal bulkheads in combination with transverse bulkheads, the vessel should not, under the above conditions, list so as to bring the deck on either side below the water level.” That seems to me to contemplate longitudinal bulkheads? - My recollection is this: we went into the matter very closely at the time that the longitudinal bulkhead was one of the difficulties. 24727. (Mr. Scanlan.) Surely you must have considered this matter on those two mornings that you sat as a Sub-Committee of the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade? - Yes, we made a recommendation about it. 24728. I see you made a recommendation and you stated to me just now that you yourself did not understand what is meant by this requirement of the Board of Trade. Am I correct? - No, I think I do understand it clearly. The Commissioner: I think he said just the opposite, Mr. Scanlan - that he understood it. The Attorney-General: Has your Lordship paragraph 7 of that Committee’s Report? I think that will supply the answer to your question, that they did undoubtedly contemplate it. The Commissioner: “7. Owners desiring to take advantage of any exceptions made in favour of efficiently subdivided vessels, should furnish the Board of Trade with the following particulars and drawings: - “(a) Longitudinal elevation in section showing the sheer, the bulkheads, the bulkhead deck and any other decks proposed. “(b) Plan and elevation of each bulkhead showing recesses and doors, if any, with their positions marked, together with details of the appliances for opening and closing them. “(c) Proposed bulkhead freeboard and corresponding loadline; also the lines of the sills of the sidelights between the bulkhead deck and the bulkhead loadline. “Where bulkheads are constructed as specified in Appendix B they may be regarded as of sufficient strength without further calculation.” Is it necessary to look at the various things mentioned? The Attorney-General: No, I do not think so; it only shows that they did consider it. The Commissioner: You mean about the longitudinal bulkheads? The Attorney-General: And the particulars and drawing they were recommended to require. Sir Robert Finlay: There is nothing under 7 about longitudinal bulkheads. The Attorney-General: Yes, “longitudinal elevation.” The Commissioner: No, I do not think so - “longitudinal elevation in section.”
   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177