This is an example when Razzle-Dazzle factors are pushed to the limit (aka: too cocky or over confident):

"When anyone asks how I can best describe my experence in nearly 40 years at sea, I merely say, uneventful. Of course there have been winter gales, and storms, and fog the like, but in all my experience, I have never been in any accident of any sort worth speaking about.
....I never saw a wreck and never have been wrecked, nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort. You see, I am not very good material for a story"
Captain Smith - Commanding Officer of the RMS TITANIC


1889 A captain runs his ship - REPUBLIC - aground in New York
1890 Same captain runs the - COPTIC - aground in Rio De Janeiro
1909 Same captain runs the - ADRIATIC - aground outside New York
1911 1st voyage of RMS OLYMPIC - same captain collides with and almost sinks - O.L. HALLENBECK - in Manhattan
Sep 1911 Same captain aboard - OLYMPIC - collides with HMS HAWKE sigificantly damaging both ships
Feb 1912 Same captain aboard - OLYMPIC - knocks off one of her propellers on a well known wreck in the Grand Banks

The captain is none other than Captain E. J. Smith, buried aboard his last command - RMS TITANIC

This is why Proper Planning Prevents [censored]-Poor Performance.

I like it! Probably a prime example of a**-kissing and company politics at its best.

Sue

We here in Jersey would call that guy a d****ebag..LOL

He apparently was prized and kept on by the company (The White Star Line) because of his ablity to entertain the 1st class passengers! There is nothing like keeping PRIORITIES straight!!!

Just what they needed on the Titanic, another singing friggin' frog!!!

Actually, he was an Englishman!!

It sounds as if the White Star Line had a "if you have a problem, promote it" policy back then...

For what it's worth, in Captain Smith's time harbor channel markings were unlighted, non-standard, and frequently missing completely. There was no anti-collision radar, and few functional radios before 1910 or so. The Rules of the Road were subject to each captain's interpretation, losses of power were frequent, and the propulsion systems of the time couldn't always deal with the tide, wind and currents. I'm not trying to excuse the man's judgment aboard the Titanic or any other vessel - I just think his career needs to be judged in the context of his time rather than ours.

Don't forget the following when assigning blame to Captain Smith:

• No GPS to precisely locate the ships in relation to shorelines
• Latitude was still determined by sextant - was there an accurate means of establishing longtitude at that time?
• The Titanic carried more lifeboats and safety equipment than was required by marine regulations at the time
• Weather forecasts were imprecise at best - no satellite images of clouds, fog banks, storm fronts.
• The Titanic had several flaws which may have contributed to sinking faster than what was expected (the bulkhead system of doors only went up about 2/3 of the ships height.)
• Lookouts did not possess night vision goggles.
• and finally...ETS did not exist to help with the disaster planning.

I'm not trying to absolve Smith of all responsibility, I'm just trying to put the situation in historical context. BTW - I'm still amazed that it took only 66 years from the first powered aircraft flight to landing on the moon.

Longitude was then determined by a chronometer set to Greenwich Mean Time, compared to apparent noon at the ship's current location. The difference in time = the difference in longitude (basically).

While we're at it, I believe that neither the Olympic or Titanic had bow thrusters. Especially in a crowded harbor, if a stiff wind bore directly on the 2+ acres of area that the side of one of those ships presented, a collision was all too likely unless there were tugs standing by. It's easy to forget that a ship moves in a fluid, and does not track like a vehicle on dry land.

I'm not a sailor by any means, but from all I have seen/read (mainly Hollywood I am afraid), it seems that his biggest booboo, as far as the Titanic goes, was failing to SLOW DOWN when entering a known area of iceburgs. Wanting some type of speed record was his undoing, and of course all of the passengers and crew. Seems like poor judgement to me...

This still happens. Shipping schedules are very tight, every hour not moving cargo is wasted. Combine that with traditional captain-crew dynamics and the vagaries of navigation on the sea and you get lots of accidents, for a scary look:

http://www.cargolaw.com

Also, as mentioned in Gonzales' Deep Survival book, Normal Accidents by Perrow is a good read about how complex systems, such as ships, nuclear plants and the space shuttle are prone to catastrophic accidents just because they are tightly coupled, dynamic systems. There are lots of examples where ships steered INTO each other.

Did bow thrusters or anything similar exist then?

Or am I missing the point again.

So we measure his screw ups in the hundreds of thousands of dollars rather than billions? Judging by the context of his time, his track record was menace and certainly not the one I'd want for the captain of my new flagship on her maiden voyage.

Put generously, he was a klutz. I don't want a klutz operating on me, either.

Here's some factors to know...

Captain Smith operated the latest technology and still had a much higher accident rate than those others who were safely navigating in the same waters and under the same conditions.

He was valued by White Star Line because of his abiity to schmooze with the 1st class passengers, not for his attention to details or his leadership abilities.

Bow Thrusters are a fairly new invention and are completely useless when moving forward at 3 MPH or faster, with the exception of the Trolling Motor design on the Fast Frigates (Oliver Hazard Perry class). US Navy crews refer to this system as "Impulse Power". US Coast Guard crews on Icebreaking Tugs (Katmai Bay class) also refer to their Hull-Air Lubrication Systems, in open water, as "Impulse Power". That's another story.

Aids to Navigation (AtoN) systems still fail, get towed off station by vessels that hit them, and are sunk when run over. No Deck Officer ever completely trusts a floating AtoN.

Celestial Navigation is not that difficult, especially when one does it 4 - 6 times a day. Yes, south of Cuba, we used it regularly until GPS became a fact of life around 1984-5. This was due to having only 1 good Loran-C line (30,000/Raymondville, Tx) south of Cuba.

I started sailing around 1973 as a fisherman, over 10 years on Icebreaking Tugs, Buoy Tenders, Corvettes, and Patrol Boats. I have been in towboats since Dec 1999. I have sailed the North Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Carribbean Sea, The Mediterranean Sea,and the Black Sea, the Intra-Coastal Waterway, the Great Lakes, and the Western Rivers. My duties have NEVER been uneventful and probably are worth writing about (if I could remember everything).

I bow to your superior experience. My own experience is limited to small craft (sail and power) on the Great Lakes, South Jersey Shore, and Florida (Atlantic Coast). I've taken sun sights from the decks of sailboats and have never found it easy, and quite frankly heaved a huge sigh of relief when GPS units became truly affordable. I still have my reservations about your position that Smith really had it no tougher than modern captains do, but you've certainly got the sea time on your side.

I did once represent (yes, I'm a lawyer) a boat owner who put his boat on a low harbor breakwall in the middle of a dark and rainy night, and lost two of his passengers, including his best friend of 20+ years. We were able to show that the harbor entrance lights were not functioning as indicated on the latest charts. Wind and currents were unusually strong and this was before GPS was widely available. He was found guilty of negligent homicide, which I always felt was harsh. Maybe my view of Smith is affected by that experience.

My impression was that he felt that Smith had it as good as everyone else OF THAT ERA, and was not comparing him to modern captains...

The problem there consists of being judged by people who weren't in that situation. Which is what I am doing here, but I'm not sending anyone to prison over it. When someone has a consistent track record of accidental incidents, it is not an accident. Everyone who sails will find themslves in predicaments from time to time, it's how they handle those incidents that separates them from being an incident or a non-incident.

We responded to a distress call in Escambia Bay 1 night after we had anchored due to zero visibility (fog). We covered 32 miles of inland waters in 3 hours with a 100ft Buoy Tender (USCGC RAMBLER), passing through bridges and chokepoints with Radar and Lookouts. We arrived at the Boeing 727 crash site without incident and went to work. If we had hit a bridge, we would have been screwed (Capt would have gone to Courts Martial) for obeying orders. We made it by following the Rules of the Road & by the Grace of God, so nothing was said.

Sometimes errors can not be seen soon enough or corrected fast enough to avoid disaster, but that doesn't happen at a somewhat steady rate as in the case of Capt. Smith.

My point of this post is that proper planning, monitoring & constant situational awareness is required @ all times, in all endeavors. A little humility can keep one from converting minor errors into a disaster. Don't be too proud to say this was a mistake and to take action to correct the situation. Like reducing speed when transiting through an area that is known to have icebergs.

I apologize if I'm coming off as condescending or another so-called "expert", for I'm one who sees a photo of a shipwreck and thinks-"there but for the grace of God, go I". None of us are perfect.

If you don't mind my asking, what is the source for this information? The reason I ask is that your post hints that Smith was at fault in all of these incidents but upon closer inspection it doesn't actually say that. I would like to know the full details of each before passing judgement. For example, the times when he ran his ship aground, was he forced to do so to avoid a collision? When his ship did collide with another how do we know that one or more of the other captains were not at fault? Were any of these incidents the result of mechanical failure? If I remember right, never before had there been any ships that even approached the size of Olympic and Titanic. There was bound to be some sort of learning curve with vessels that big, at least when trying to maneuver around a tight harbor. In that respect Smith was a guinea pig of sorts.

Of course none of this detracts from your main point: complacency kills. And by 1912 it definately appears that Smith had lost his edge.

I had no idea he had such a history of poor seamanship. How did he ever keep his job with the White Star Line? He must have known someone or married into the right family.

I don't have the details, my info source is a company safety bulletin. No mention has been made as to fault and the Rules of the Road have changed since those days. Fault is not the issue, complacency and lack of attention to details is the point of the post.

I know from personal and professional experience that a sailor who gets into EXTREMIS this often and fails to avoid the situations as he had; indicates there is a problem with that person.

There were other vessels that were slightly less in size than the White Star TRIO (OLYMPIC, TITANIC, and BRITANIC), but it wasn't that big of a difference and the laws of Physics don't change.

By the way, OLYMPIC ran ground and became a wreck.
BRITANIC became a Hospital Ship and was torpedoed and sunk around the Greek Islands in the Aegean Sea, I believe.

Perhaps it was an extremely UNLUCKY design as well as everything else.

My understanding was that the Titanic was not capable of breaking any speed record crossing the Atlantic. She was going to be known for her size and opulance rather than as a greyhound.

However, the profit by the owners would increase by taking a fast route. This possible would mean less meals served for passengers, bonuses for delivery of mail and/or cargo. Remember, crossings weren't measured by minutes in those days. Shaving significant hours off the schedule made the difference.

Actually, she was trying to break the time/speed record for an Atlantic Crossing, according to Bruce Ismay's testimony. He denied pressuring Capt Smith on that point but who knows.

I know that there are times that the company has wanted me to do this or that and I (and many other Capt's), have refused until conditions have changed/improved. That's what it takes to keep things safe!

Sounds like Captain Stubing from The Love Boat. I don't think I ever saw him on the bridge at all.

I just did some googling on Capt Smith, found this and this . Both fail to mention most of the incidents listed in the original post here, and the two they do mention make them appear to be very minor incidents. Altho I still think that blasting along at full speed in iceburg country is a bad idea, it is possible that we have been a tad too hard on the good captain here...