Should Professionals Design Boats

Titanic was a series of poor choices, any one done different would have stopped the disaster. One issue not covered by most investigations was the steel mill subsituted a different alloy specificed by the professinally prepared plans (they could not deleiver the quantities required in time). The other alloy was same strength but more brittle, allowing the hull to rupture rather than bend inward. That alone might have changed the outcome, it was a non-professional making an engineering decision that proved fatal.

This was not discovered until they located the wreck and brought up hull samples and sent it to a lab. The mill knew, but they were not talking about it. Odd this gets little attention, likely because all of "experts" focus on the inquiry and testomony of survivors that could not have known. this is likely the reason the hull broke in half as well, which was also not even considered until after they found the wreck on the bottom in two peices. the strange behavior of the stern rising in the air, than coming down rapidly, and than slowying rising up again as it went down has baffled everyone until they found the wreck.

It is impossible to plan for every possible condition that might occur, and it is even more difficult to anticipated what someone might do during the construction process to thwart the best efforts of the designers intent.

 

My guess is the person who made the decision to substitute steel was a paid "professional", though perhaps not an expert in metallurgy or steel specifications for ships.

Not all professionals are experts in every field in which they work, and not all experts are "professionals".

 

And her sister ship sailing happily until the second world war.
The Titanic is always the example amateurs gave as a fantastic engineering mistake. The reality is quite different. History worth to be taken seriously, not through magazine, movies and TV show.

 

And then again you have excellent ships designed and built by professionals and then put under command of various Schettinos...
There are many possible variations of the original theme.

 

I've worked on a variety of work boats, up to and including the latest 6th generation semi-submersible mobile offshore drilling unit. The one question I have for all of the designers of these vessels, which are all incredible feats of engineering, is why, for the love of all that is holy, can't they design a toilet with the bulkhead far enough away from my knees that anyone over 5'8" tall can sit?

Halter built boats have a toilet stall so small that you have to keep the door open to use. The latest 6th generation MODU has me sitting side-saddle every morning.

 

Because you're payed to work and not to waste your time in that damn toilet.
Now get back to your duties!

 

Avoidance 101: Make jokes in answer to seriously posed question.

Come on. Isn't it possible to truly form a legit answer to this man's query, from a professional designers perspective and not an amateur comedian's?

 

they figure toilet room takes up space so industry develops standards to use minimum space for "average" size person (about 5'8"). So "average" size person, or below, can use it comfortably. the rest just have to be content that the average person is not so cramped. Same thing occurs in aircraft lavatory, if your male "equipment" is above average it will drag and make contact with the bottom of the toilet bowl.

 

Yeah but you get redeemed later, when you tell that story around.

 

It is also more economical to hire diminutive crew to reduce displacement thereby conserving fuel.

I am surprised they hired someone so vertically challenged.

 

I was helping a farmer milk cows and I got to thinking at two times a day 365 days a year, every minute saved in the process added up to over 12 hours a year.

In a regular job at 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, that comes to 250 days. Say you take sick days and bring it around to 240 days. 1 minute a day adds up to 4 hours a year. Plenty of people spend 10 minutes a day in the toilet at work, so over the course of a year, they get paid a 40 hr workweek for sitting on the crapper.

 

I've just got an idea... A refrigerated toilet seat. Do you think it could help increase the productivity?

 

yes, a smaller crew also weighs less, eats less and takes up less space. The airlines will never admit it, but ever notice how the vast majority of flight crew are tiny women and smallish men? There is a reason for that, for each pound saved on crew weight over $1 million is saved in fuel costs over that employees career. These calculations are done, I worked in the industry and know. But they will never admit to it lest the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will fine them. Even that fits into the calculations, fines are much less than the cost of fuel saved. They use the "vertically challenged" employees as ground crew, mechanics, ticket takers, etc.

consider they hire a 105 lb woman flight attendant, over an equally competent and fit 130 lb one that is a few inches taller; that could cost them over $25,000,000 in extra fuel cost over that employees career. The smallish flight crew is no accident.

 

..I'm 6'4 and 230, how much extra would hauling me around cost them...$50 million??

Plus, I wouldn't be too good at mincing around...

 

"Should professionals design boats?"
Sort of a vague question....

Do you really mean "design", and only that?

IMHO, a design for anything is only as good as the quality in which it is assembled, and the quality of the parts.
Titanic would be a good example. Design was decent, but maybe there was a steel quality issue, and maybe the crew had an issue as well.