_Assistant Secretary Marine Department, Board of Trade_.
* * * * *
REPORT OF THE LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES SUBCOMMITTEE TO THE MERCHANT
SHIPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
In accordance with the decision of the merchant shipping advisory
committee, at their meeting on Friday, April 28, we have given careful
consideration to the latter of April 4 from the board of trade, in which
the committee were asked to advise: (1) As to the manner in which the
table in the appendix to the Life-Saving Appliances Rules should be
extended so as to provide for vessels of tonnage up to 50,000 tons gross
and upward; and (2) as to whether rule 12 should or should not be
revised so as to exempt altogether from the requirement of additional
boats and (or) rafts, those vessels which are divided into efficient
water-tight compartments to the satisfaction of the board of trade.
In considering these questions, we have had specially in mind the fact
that the number of passengers carried does not necessarily increase in
proportion to the increase in the tonnage of the vessel. This is
particularly true in the case of vessels exceeding 10,000 tons, a type
of vessel which is practically only built to provide special
accommodation for large numbers of first and second class passengers.
Similarly there is no fixed relation between the tonnage of vessels and
the deck space available for the carrying of lifeboats under davits.
Increase in the length of a vessel is only one of the factors, and often
not the most material factor contributing to the increase in its
tonnage, and it should also be remembered, in estimating the space
available for the launching of lifeboats, that it is impossible to place
davits forward of the bridge, and very undesirable to have them on the
quarters of the vessel.
We are strongly of opinion that every encouragement should be given to
secure the provision of vessels which by their construction have been
rendered as unsinkable as possible, and which are provided with
efficient means for communicating with the shore or with other vessels
in case of disaster.
In view of these considerations, we have agreed upon the following
recommendations:
1. That it is questionable whether it is practicable to increase the
number of davits.
2. That any increase in the number of lifeboats to be carried can
probably be best effected by providing for the launching of further
boats from the existing davits.
3. That the table should be extended in the manner indicated below,
viz.:
-------------------------+-------------+---------------+----------------
| | Minimum |
| | number of | Total minimum
| Minimum | additional | cubic
| number of | boats to be | contents of
Gross tonnage. | boats to be | readily | boats required
| placed under| available | by
| davits. | for attachment| columns
| | to davits. | 2 and 3.
-------------------------+-------------+---------------+----------------
| | | _Cubic feet._
10,000 and under 12,000 | 16 | ---- | 5,500
12,000 and under 20,000 | 16 | 2 | 6,200
20,000 and under 35,000 | 16 | 4 | 6,900
35,000 and under 45,000 | 16 | 6 | 7,600
45,000 and upward | 16 | 8 | 8,300
-------------------------+-------------+---------------+----------------
It is further recommended that all passenger vessels of 10,000 tons
gross tonnage and upward should be required to be fitted with wireless
telegraphy apparatus.
4. That the rules should be amended so as to admit of decked lifeboats
of an approved type being stowed on top of one another or under an open
lifeboat, subject to suitable arrangements being made for launching
promptly the boats so stowed.
5. That the additional boats and rafts required under the provisions of
Division A, class 1(d) of the Life-Saving Appliances Rules shall be of
at least such carrying capacity that they, and the boats required by
columns 2 and 3 of the above table, provide together three-fourths more
than the minimum cubic contents required by column 4 of that table.
6. That vessels divided into efficient water-tight compartments to the
satisfaction of the board of trade should (provided they are fitted with
wireless telegraphy apparatus) be exempt from the requirement of
additional boats and (or) rafts. The committee suggest, in this
connection, that the board of trade should review the requirements
designed to attain the standards as to water-tight compartments at
present enforced by them under rule 12, having regard to the
developments of shipbuilding since the report of the committee on the
spacing and construction of water-tight bulkheads.
We have also had before us the board's further letter of May 17
inquiring whether, in the opinion of the advisory committee, it would be
advisable to prescribe a maximum depth for lifeboats as compared with
their breadth, and, if so, what that proportion should be.
In connection with this letter we have been supplied by the board of
trade with reports from their principal officers in Great Britain,
giving the dimensions and cubic capacities of the various kinds of boats
on five typical ships in each of eight ports.
We recommend that the board should be advised to alter the Life-Saving
Appliances Rules so as to provide that, in future, the depth of
lifeboats supplied to a British merchant vessel shall not exceed 44 per
cent. of their breadth.
NORMAN HILL.
S. CROSS.
GEO. N. HAMPSON.
T. ROYDEN.
THOMAS SPENCER.
A. M. CARLISLE.
WM. THEODORE DOXFORD.
ROBERT A. OGILVIE.
T. ROME.
J. HAVELOCK WILSON.
* * * * *
It will be observed that if effect had been given by the board of trade
to the report of the advisory committee the requirements for a vessel of
the size of the _Titanic_ would have reached 14,525 cubic feet (8,300
plus three-fourths of 8,300, namely, 6,225), with, however, this
qualification that if the vessel were divided into efficient water-tight
compartments (as she probably was) and fitted with wireless telegraphy
(as she certainly was) a provision of a boat capacity of 8,300 cubic
feet, equivalent to space for 830 persons, would have been legally
sufficient. This would have been much less than the accommodation with
which the _Titanic_ when she put to sea was, in fact, provided (namely,
for 1,178 persons).
Effect, however, was not given to the report. A question arose with
reference to the dimensions of lifeboats, and it was thought better to
get that question settled before proceeding to revise the rules. The
examination of this question involved making several experiments which
caused delay; and it was not until April 16, 1912, that a reply was sent
by the board of trade to the advisory committee. It will be noticed that
the date of this reply is just after the disaster to the _Titanic_
became known. I am, however, quite satisfied that instructions for the
preparation of this letter had been given in the offices of the board of
trade some days before the 16th, and that the letter was not sent in
consequence of the disaster. It is desirable to set it out.
* * * * *