http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

--
Adam

On 30/04/2012 20:44, ARWadsworth wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

That's really funny.

Tim W

Tim W wrote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

That's really funny.

Even funnier when they try it across a fast moving river.

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

He was a victim of the drought!

Another victim of the drought in Hampshire died when he tried to ford a
local stream that was under 5ft of water. It looks like he was taking a
shortcut to a small council estate. There was no need to ford the
stream, there's a perfectl good, safe route around it using two main
roads and a bridge. Darwin can be mildly satisfied.

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...
--
Tony Sayer

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:44:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Dennis drives a blue VW?


--

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Remember that a lot of modern cars have the inlet just behind the rad at
about the same height as the top of the wheels.

dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Remember that a lot of modern cars have the inlet just behind the rad at
about the same height as the top of the wheels.

yep.

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Fit water wings to the car, silly.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:44:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Almost made it, if he hadn't been an arse and probably driving
something with a low air intake too.

thinks
They're called the Somerset Levels for a reason, aren't they?
Like, might be prone to the odd flood?

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Remember that a lot of modern cars have the inlet just behind the rad at
about the same height as the top of the wheels.

In my Seat Toledo, it turned out to be just below the bumper! Luckily the
engine was cold.

In my Anglia (in 1971) I drove through a ford that was 21" deep - lots of
WD40 on the plug leads first.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 30/04/2012 23:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?


Drive slowly. It stops the bow wave getting too large and gives you a
chance to stop if it looks as though the water is getting too deep.
Also, know where your water intake is, or the fording depth of the
vehicle, if published. I've seen engines wrecked by sucking in water and
try to compress it. I've also watched an early Mini float downstream
while crossing a ford - fortunately into a barrier alongside the ford.

Colin Bignell

On 30/04/2012 23:59, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:44:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Almost made it, if he hadn't been an arse and probably driving
something with a low air intake too.

thinks
They're called the Somerset Levels for a reason, aren't they?
Like, might be prone to the odd flood?
As a child and young man I lived on the southern slope of the Mendip
Hills overlooking the Somerset levels. Every year we could see the flood
water, but it did no harm. Then they started serious drainage and
followed that by building property on areas that used to be prone to
flooding. This is the result. Sadly property is being built all over
flood plains, bound to give problems sooner or later, however well drained.

--
Residing on low ground in North Staffordshire

On 30/04/2012 23:04, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?


Drive slowly. It stops the bow wave getting too large and gives you a
chance to stop if it looks as though the water is getting too deep. Also,
know where your water intake is, or the fording depth of the vehicle, if
published. I've seen engines wrecked by sucking in water and try to
compress it. I've also watched an early Mini float downstream while
crossing a ford - fortunately into a barrier alongside the ford.


The rules for fording a-
Lowest gear.
High revs (even if this requires slipping the clutch)
Forward pace fast enough to hold an un-broken bow wave.

On older vehicles removing the fan belt helps.

And yes, a very sound knowledge of where your air intake and any vital
electronics are located.

Mike

ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

The kids in the rubebr dinghy earlier seemed to be enjoying it...

--
Tim Watts

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?


Trying not to dive it so deep all the electronics and the air intake go
below water?
--
Tim Watts

charles wrote:

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth
adamwadsworth@blue yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything
else?

Remember that a lot of modern cars have the inlet just behind the rad at
about the same height as the top of the wheels.

In my Seat Toledo, it turned out to be just below the bumper! Luckily the
engine was cold.

You were lucky - cold or not, you can still hyraulic the engine (ie snap
stuff off).

In my Anglia (in 1971) I drove through a ford that was 21" deep - lots of
WD40 on the plug leads first.

--
Tim Watts

On Tue, 1 May 2012 09:06:57 +0100, "Muddymike"
wrote:

The rules for fording a-

No 1 - Find out how deep the water is _before_ driving into it.

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?


Trying not to dive it so deep all the electronics

Well that in most all instances will be sealed. Least all the ones I've
come across are, apart from the high voltage switchgear on ignition on
older cars..

and the air intake go

Much more important;!..

below water?


I reckon the problem is that yer average *Joe these days knows sod all
of what goes on under the bonnet. They can't do or don't want to do any
maintenance themselves preferring to leave it all to the garage.

Hence they never get to learn just how a car works and what all the bits
of it do. I bet most all of them couldn't explain how the engine works
let alone know where the engine air intake is even;!..



* Inc Josephine too .. and prolly worse in this aspect...


--
Tony Sayer

Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 09:06:57 +0100, "Muddymike"
wrote:

The rules for fording a-

No 1 - Find out how deep the water is _before_ driving into it.

These chaps initially didn't have quite enough water, but once
they had sorted that... ;-)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59b_1335633237&p=1

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh.

On Tue, 01 May 2012 07:16:01 +0100, charles
wrote:


Remember that a lot of modern cars have the inlet just behind the rad at
about the same height as the top of the wheels.

In my Seat Toledo, it turned out to be just below the bumper! Luckily the
engine was cold.

In my Anglia (in 1971) I drove through a ford that was 21" deep - lots of
WD40 on the plug leads first.

Stalled an A35 Van going through a flood when they were building the
M27 and a pump had stopped in a road dip,(It was ere
http://g.co/maps/n28mn)
Truth was with poor lights ,no heater or screenwashers I hadn't
noticed it was a deep lake rather than the puddle it normally was on
my early am journey.
It was mechanical loading rather than wetness which stalled the
engine, an observer who had stalled on the far side after leaving the
puddle laughed his head off and said he was waiting for the AA.
The old car had a weak battery so I went straight to the starting
handle searching for the hole as the water was almost up to the
headlights. Previously all ignition parts had been liberaly coated
with PVC spray.
Started first crank and I left the laughter man with his mouth open in
amazement.Lot to said for a very simple machine.
Would not attempt to go through deep water in most modern cars unless
they had a lot of ground clearance.
About 23 years ago when I first had a company Diesel I thought it was
invincible ,engine wise it was as I ploughed through some deep flood
water. The boss didn't like the bill for replacing the phone unit
situated under the seat damaged as water poured in.
With all the gizmos under seats like seat belt tensioners and other
electronics getting water into the cabin can be now be expensive
rather than dry the carpets and mats and give the cabin floor a good
rinse.

G.Harman

On May 1, 8:31*am, Nightjar wrote:
On 30/04/2012 23:04, Tim Streater wrote:









In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Drive slowly. It stops the bow wave getting too large and gives you a
chance to stop if it looks as though the water is getting too deep.

Wonder about that after watching a Landrover go through a swollen ford
at the weekend, lannie with snorkel..

Intially thought he was being a bit keen with the bow wave going over
the bonnet until midstream when need for forward impetus showed up,
watching it go sideways against the flow, full Nigel Mansell style
opposite lock to get across without getting washed down to the weir...

Cheers
Adam

Also, know where your water intake is, or the fording depth of the
vehicle, if published. I've seen engines wrecked by sucking in water and
try to compress it. I've also watched an early Mini float downstream
while crossing a ford - fortunately into a barrier alongside the ford.

Colin Bignell

On 01/05/2012 11:54, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 09:06:57 +0100, "Muddymike"
wrote:

The rules for fording a-
No 1 - Find out how deep the water is _before_ driving into it.
These chaps initially didn't have quite enough water, but once
they had sorted that... ;-)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59b_1335633237&p=1

Chris
Have people learned nothing from Titanic. just look at the icebergs in
the background. lol

"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its side,
floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been thousands
dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat long
enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain death.

I know which was the better ship.


just look at the icebergs in the background. lol

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth
adamwadsworth@blue yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that
worked underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything
else?

I am sure that even at tickover water would not go up the exhaust.

ISTR the highrevs mean there is less chance of a stall if a little water
gets on the HT leads and restarting from a stall could be a problem as water
would now be in the exhaust.

--
Adam

On Tue, 01 May 2012 09:01:52 +0100, Moonraker wrote:

On 30/04/2012 23:59, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 20:44:09 +0100, "ARWadsworth"
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Almost made it, if he hadn't been an arse and probably driving
something with a low air intake too.

thinks
They're called the Somerset Levels for a reason, aren't they? Like,
might be prone to the odd flood?
As a child and young man I lived on the southern slope of the Mendip
Hills overlooking the Somerset levels. Every year we could see the flood
water, but it did no harm. Then they started serious drainage and
followed that by building property on areas that used to be prone to
flooding. This is the result. Sadly property is being built all over
flood plains, bound to give problems sooner or later, however well
drained.

Used to work in Leamington Spa, and to the left of the M40 J15 slip it
was under water for January and February, 2006 and 2007 ....

dennis@home wrote:



"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been thousands
dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain
death.

I know which was the better ship.


just look at the icebergs in the background. lol

I will agree with dennis here - the Titanic was of extremely good
construction in itself, relative to the day and its peers.

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better class of
fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's "unsinkability" by
under-fitting lifeboats and generally acting like nobs from the piloting
style (full steam at night despite iceberg warnings and no radar) until the
end (officers did not know the safe person compliment of a lifeboat and
launched many half empty).


--
Tim Watts

Tim Watts wrote:
ARWadsworth wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


What a plonker... Very funny though.

This one is funnier.

--
Adam

Peter Parry spake thus:

On Tue, 1 May 2012 09:06:57 +0100, "Muddymike"
wrote:

The rules for fording a-

No 1 - Find out how deep the water is _before_ driving into it.

"I don't understand it, the water only came half way up those ducks."

On 01/05/2012 12:44, Adam Aglionby wrote:
On May 1, 8:31 am, wrote:
On 30/04/2012 23:04, Tim Streater wrote:
....
In ,
tony wrote:

In , ARWadsworthadamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Drive slowly. It stops the bow wave getting too large and gives you a
chance to stop if it looks as though the water is getting too deep.

Wonder about that after watching a Landrover go through a swollen ford
at the weekend, lannie with snorkel..

Intially thought he was being a bit keen with the bow wave going over
the bonnet until midstream when need for forward impetus showed up,
watching it go sideways against the flow, full Nigel Mansell style
opposite lock to get across without getting washed down to the weir...

Vehicles equipped for deep fording do need a different approach, but it
is reasonable to assume that anyone driving on of those should have had
a bit of practice first. The advice I liked with the Discovery was to
remove the CD player (under the front passenger seat) before tackling
deep water.

Colin Bignell

On 01/05/2012 12:44, Adam Aglionby wrote:
On May 1, 8:31 am, wrote:
On 30/04/2012 23:04, Tim Streater wrote:
...
In ,
tony wrote:

In , ARWadsworthadamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything
else?

Drive slowly. It stops the bow wave getting too large and gives you a
chance to stop if it looks as though the water is getting too deep.

Wonder about that after watching a Landrover go through a swollen ford
at the weekend, lannie with snorkel..

Intially thought he was being a bit keen with the bow wave going over
the bonnet until midstream when need for forward impetus showed up,
watching it go sideways against the flow, full Nigel Mansell style
opposite lock to get across without getting washed down to the weir...

Vehicles equipped for deep fording do need a different approach, but it is
reasonable to assume that anyone driving on of those should have had a bit
of practice first. The advice I liked with the Discovery was to remove the
CD player (under the front passenger seat) before tackling deep water.

Colin Bignell


I have forded rivers in elderly Land Rovers with water over my boots. My
passengers were ok they could lift their feet up, I however got wet feet as
I had to keep mine on the pedals. No fancy preparation other than removing
the fan belt!

Before entering the water with a vehicle one of us would strip off and wade
in to judge the depth, and pick the best route. Chilly at best when wading
through snow melt in the Orange river.

Mike

On 01/05/2012 15:00, Tim Watts wrote:
....
I will agree with dennis here - the Titanic was of extremely good
construction in itself, relative to the day and its peers.

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better class of
fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's "unsinkability"

The actual 1911 quote from Shipbuilder magazine, which was later taken
out of context, was that when the watertight doors were closed, the ship
would be practically unsinkable.

by
under-fitting lifeboats

They fitted more than the law required. The Board of Trade held the
views that wireless telegraphy ensured the safety of passengers and
that, in any case, time would not allow more than 16 lifeboats to be
filled if a ship were sinking. Titanic managed to launch 18 lifeboats
out of 20 carried. The designer had originally specified 32, but the
owners thought that made the upper deck too cluttered.

and generally acting like nobs from the piloting
style (full steam at night despite iceberg warnings and no radar)

In 1912, radar was only a theoretical possibility suggested, that year
IIRC, by Marconi. Giving the lookouts binoculars might have helped though.

until the
end (officers did not know the safe person compliment of a lifeboat and
launched many half empty).

Lightoller knew the rating, but was concerned that the davits were not
strong enough to allow a full lifeboat to be lowered safely, so ordered
lifeboat six to be launched when only part full. He acknowledged that he
should have made provision for it to be filled once in the water.

Colin Bignell

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards


Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that worked
underwater.

Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...
If he'd driven more slowly he would probably have been OK
--
hugh

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , ARWadsworth adamwadsworth@blue
yonder.co.uk scribeth thus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17901615

watch from 56 seconds onwards

Perhaps he thinks he's got that Lotus that James Bond had that
worked
underwater.
Some people just haven't a clue on how to drive in a flood;(...

First gear and rev it to stop water going up the exhaust. Anything else?

Watch the bow wave and keep in the trough behind it. Water will not come
up the exhaust as long as the engine is running. If the engine stops DO
check the exhaust is not under water before you try to restart - other
wise you will hydraulic the engine.
Snorkels on land Rovers are not just cosmetic.
--
hugh

In message , Tim Watts
writes
dennis@home wrote:



"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been thousands
dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain
death.

I know which was the better ship.


just look at the icebergs in the background. lol

I will agree with dennis here - the Titanic was of extremely good
construction in itself, relative to the day and its peers.

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better class of
fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's "unsinkability" by
under-fitting lifeboats and generally acting like nobs from the piloting
style (full steam at night despite iceberg warnings and no radar) until the
end (officers did not know the safe person compliment of a lifeboat and
launched many half empty).


The Titanics initial design unsinkability was destroyed by removing
bulkheads to create a massive uninterrupted deck.
--
hugh

On 01/05/2012 15:30, Muddymike wrote:
....
I have forded rivers in elderly Land Rovers with water over my boots. My
passengers were ok they could lift their feet up, I however got wet feet
as I had to keep mine on the pedals. No fancy preparation other than
removing the fan belt!

Before entering the water with a vehicle one of us would strip off and
wade in to judge the depth, and pick the best route. Chilly at best when
wading through snow melt in the Orange river.

With a rope attached, I hope? People can be swept off their feet in as
little as six inches of water.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 1 May 2012 16:21:21 +0100, hugh ] wrote:

If the engine stops DO
check the exhaust is not under water before you try to restart - other
wise you will hydraulic the engine.

air comes in 'suck squeeze bang blow' combustion products are then
forced out of the exhaust

Engines don't suck air through the exhaust. Even if the exhaust is
flooded the engine will not hydraulic, it might not start but it will
certainly not hydraulic.


--

hugh wrote:

In message , Tim Watts
writes
dennis@home wrote:



"Gary" wrote in message
...

Have people learned nothing from Titanic.

the obvious answer is no.

Look at the Costa Concordia accident, It hit a rock, got a gash in its
side, floated for a few minutes and then capsized.
If the wind hadn't blown it into the shore there would have been
thousands dead. They couldn't even launch the lifeboats.

On the other hand the titanic suffered similar damage and stayed afloat
long enough to launch all its lifeboats and saved thousands from certain
death.

I know which was the better ship.


just look at the icebergs in the background. lol

I will agree with dennis here - the Titanic was of extremely good
construction in itself, relative to the day and its peers.

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better class
of fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's "unsinkability" by
under-fitting lifeboats and generally acting like nobs from the piloting
style (full steam at night despite iceberg warnings and no radar) until
the end (officers did not know the safe person compliment of a lifeboat
and launched many half empty).


The Titanics initial design unsinkability was destroyed by removing
bulkheads to create a massive uninterrupted deck.

I'll just clarify that I don't think the design was "unsinkable" (unlike,
say, a foam filled canoe) - just "very good". It did hold up for quite a
while despite having some bloody big holes ripped in it... Sadly, if there
had been enough lifeboats and the crew had been drilled on a full
evacuation, that design might have bought them enough time to save a
considerable proportion of the passengers and crew.

BTW - death or no death impending, I would not have wanted to be near the
furnace rooms when they flooded! I'll take drowing and/or hypothermia over
being steamed to death...

--
Tim Watts

Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better class
of fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's "unsinkability"
by under-fitting lifeboats and generally acting like nobs from the
piloting style (full steam at night despite iceberg warnings and no
radar) until the end (officers did not know the safe person compliment of
a lifeboat and launched many half empty).

You mean they knew they had no radar ??


No, I mean they had no radar - something people tend to take for granted
these days...

--
Tim Watts

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

Sadly, where something is foolproof, there will inevitably a better
class of fool, so the fools overcompensated for the Titanic's
"unsinkability" by under-fitting lifeboats and generally acting like
nobs from the piloting style (full steam at night despite iceberg
warnings and no radar) until the end (officers did not know the safe
person compliment of a lifeboat and launched many half empty).

You mean they knew they had no radar ??


No, I mean they had no radar - something people tend to take for granted
these days...

they had none because it wasn't invented. w

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18