Page 163 - British Inquiry into Loss of RMS Titanic Day 19 - 22

said officer, a copy of such entry being afterwards made in the official logbook. “(d) That openings in watertight bulkheads through which coal may be worked during the voyage, be fitted with approved double doors as described above, or any equally safe arrangement. In no case should a watertight door be considered as forming part of a watertight bulkhead when coal, which may be passed through it while the vessel is at sea, is liable to rest against it. “6. A compartment subdivided by one or more longitudinal bulkheads should be treated as one compartment only, unless the owners satisfy the Board of Trade that the vessel will not have her stability seriously reduced, or list, so that any part of the bulkhead deck at the side is under water, in the event of the space between a longitudinal bulkhead and the vessel’s side, or of two such adjoining spaces on the same side of the vessel being open to the sea. If the Board of Trade be not satisfied in the above respect trimming valves should be fitted to each such longitudinal bulkhead, each valve being workable from above the bulkhead deck, and having an index showing whether it is open or closed. “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. “8. We recommend that each watertight compartment intended for occupation by crew or passengers should be provided with some independent means of escape, other than by watertight doors, available under all circumstances. Having regard to the great additional safeguard which such subdivision as we recommend would provide against loss not only by collision or stranding, but also by fire, we would suggest that the Board of Trade might well offer a larger concession than that mentioned in Section 7 of the Reference to this Committee, as an inducement to owners to subdivide their vessels to the extent that we have indicated under the several grades. We therefore submit that in such case owners might be relieved of the obligation to carry any part of the additional boats, rafts, and other life-saving appliances required by the rules issued by the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances) Act, 1888.” 22261. (The Attorney-General.) The effect of that is this. The Committee thought, having regard to the great additional safeguard when the subdivision which they had recommended had taken place, that a greater inducement should be offered than existed under Rule 12 of the Life- Saving Appliance Rules which exempted such a vessel, with efficient watertight compartments to the extent of one-half of the additional boats and rafts which were required. This Committee seemed to have thought that there should be a greater inducement even than that, because they thought it was so much more important to have efficient bulkheads than it was boats, and that you could therefore exempt them from providing further boats if they made the subdivision of the ship into watertight compartments more efficient. That is what it amounts to? The Witness: That is it. The Commissioner: Pursuing the policy of reducing the boats in consideration of the increase of the watertight compartments.