42 STRUCTURE OF VESSELS AS AFFECTED 



show of confidence might tend to influence the authorities as well as the general public to 

 consider ocean travel without lifeboat equipment. 



It seems to me that it would be to the interest of safety at sea if — until the unsinkable, 

 fireproof ship is really an accomplished and proven fact — shipowners and naval architects 

 would give due attention to the quality and efficiency of lifeboat equipment and the handling 

 of lifeboats in rough water as well as in a smooth sea; in other words, lifeboats should be 

 provided which will stand being thrown against the ship's side without smashing and also 

 make it possible to carry the requisite number of boats without encroaching unduly on the 

 deck space, while representing less actual weight per person carried. 



Here in the United States we have ships so equipped; for instance, some of the army 

 transports. Formerly these ships of moderate size had lifeboat capacity (including rafts) 

 for only seven to eight hundred people, while with their new, up-to-date equipment they 

 can take care of two thousand people — i. e., the full complement of persons carried — in 

 practically the same deck space. The additional weight of the new equipment does not seem 

 to have affected the stability of the transports, although they are old and narrow and were 

 not designed originally for this added equipment. 



Certainly the increased weight of really efficient lifeboat equipment is a mere bagatelle as 

 compared with the increased weight of such a design as proposed by Mr. Dickie. 



A most important factor in connection with safety at sea is that officers and crews of 

 ships should be properly trained by actual drills in the handling and launching of lifeboats; 

 therefore it is decidedly important that the equipment be as complete and up to date as pos- 

 sible in order to facilitate and encourage such drills. 



It is all very well to say that lifeboat equipment will be of service only in exceptional 

 cases, but we should also consider the great amount of use for small boats every day — 

 whether the water be rough or smooth ; for instance, in embarking or disembarking from 

 ships which have to lie in open roadsteads, where there is no harbor; also in the work of 

 cable-ships and fishermen. 



As regards the added cost of such equipment, I think, where the question of safeguard- 

 ing human life is involved, this is certainly not great when compared with the premiums paid 

 for insurance on ships and cargoes. 



Until by actual tests the contrary has been proven, I contend that it is advisable to have 

 proper lifeboat equipment on the most modern passenger ships, even as the most modern 

 fireproof buildings are still provided with fire-escapes, and my contention is upheld by the 

 fact that shipowners, as well as owners of buildings, continue to insure their property. 



The Chairman" : — Is there any other gentleman who desires to shed additional light on 

 this subject? If not, we will be glad to hear from Mr. Gatewood with any comments on the 

 discussion that he cares to make. 



Mr. Gatewood: — In reply to Mr. Robinson's discussion of the paper, I would like to 

 state that it seems to be much more important to so subdivide the vessel that it will auto- 

 matically take care of the buoyancy and stability of the vessel, rather than to depend on the 

 pumping in of compressed air, which, under all circumstances, must be a matter of consider- 

 able time and of preparation. 



It will be noted that Paper No. 4 is devoted primarily to the conditions which arise in 

 the United States in the construction of vessels, and does not enter upon the wider discus- 



