Going down with the ship

Professional Mariner Forum
1

I think this came up in an older post, but here’s some more chum from the Sunday paper:

THE ETHICIST

Must the Captain Always Go Down With the Ship?

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

May 23, 2014

In light of the South Korean ferry tragedy, I have been thinking about the maxim that the captain goes down with the ship. I find it outdated and in need of re-evaluation. Clearly the captain has a duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of his passengers, and he should do everything in his power as the ship is sinking to save the lives of others. But should he be morally obligated to effectively commit suicide because he made a mistake, even if it was a result of gross negligence and leads to hundreds of deaths? RYAN CAIN, NEW YORK

If a ship is sinking, maritime tradition dictates that the captain ensures the safe evacuation of every passenger before he evacuates himself. He (or she) is responsible for the lives of those onboard, and he can’t coordinate their exit unless he’s the last person off. In certain countries, like South Korea, some version of this has been codified into law, which is why the captain of the Sewol, Lee Jun-seok, faces criminal charges. He escaped while scores drowned. But maritime law varies by jurisdiction, so there is no universal legal standard for how a captain ought to behave when his ship is sinking. All we have is the maxim, which seems fair provided you don’t take it too literally — which I think you have.

The captain is not obligated to drown on principle. There are, certainly, examples where a captain has elected to remain on a boat while it sank into the sea (E. J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, is perhaps the individual best known for doing so). This, however, is not a reasonable job expectation. The value of a ship itself is not greater than the value of the person controlling it. Even if the captain’s own negligence results in hundreds of deaths, it’s not his symbolic duty to add his life to the total. If he’s no longer in a position to save anyone else, he can absolutely save himself.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/magazine/must-the-captain-always-go-down-with-the-ship.html?_r=0&referrer=

2

Say what :confused:
I never ever thought anyone expected a captain literally to drown himself.
I sure would be the last off though and I would MUCH rather be dead than be the last 2 skippers of passenger ships that sank while I had run off to leave everyone to fend for themselves.

[QUOTE=flotsam;138314]I think this came up in an older post, but here’s some more chum from the Sunday paper:

THE ETHICIST
Must the Captain Always Go Down With the Ship?

ILLUSTRATION BY MARK NERYS
By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN
May 23, 2014

In light of the South Korean ferry tragedy, I have been thinking about the maxim that the captain goes down with the ship. I find it outdated and in need of re-evaluation. Clearly the captain has a duty and responsibility to ensure the safety of his passengers, and he should do everything in his power as the ship is sinking to save the lives of others. But should he be morally obligated to effectively commit suicide because he made a mistake, even if it was a result of gross negligence and leads to hundreds of deaths? RYAN CAIN, NEW YORK

If a ship is sinking, maritime tradition dictates that the captain ensures the safe evacuation of every passenger before he evacuates himself. He (or she) is responsible for the lives of those onboard, and he can’t coordinate their exit unless he’s the last person off. In certain countries, like South Korea, some version of this has been codified into law, which is why the captain of the Sewol, Lee Jun-seok, faces criminal charges. He escaped while scores drowned. But maritime law varies by jurisdiction, so there is no universal legal standard for how a captain ought to behave when his ship is sinking. All we have is the maxim, which seems fair provided you don’t take it too literally — which I think you have.

The captain is not obligated to drown on principle. There are, certainly, examples where a captain has elected to remain on a boat while it sank into the sea (E. J. Smith, captain of the Titanic, is perhaps the individual best known for doing so). This, however, is not a reasonable job expectation. The value of a ship itself is not greater than the value of the person controlling it. Even if the captain’s own negligence results in hundreds of deaths, it’s not his symbolic duty to add his life to the total. If he’s no longer in a position to save anyone else, he can absolutely save himself.

3

Although I think Lee and Shittino (with golf clubs in hand) are despicable, I think it’s absurd to expect the Captain, as the article puts it, commit suicide by intentionally going down with the ship.

What about an airliner that crash lands on the runway, about to explode into a ball of flames? I guess the pilot should remain in the plane and burn to death after everyone has been evacuated! How come we never heard too much regarding the Asiana pilots who had an incident at SFO?

As the article pretty much says, I’m pretty sure no one really expects anyone to go down intentionally. In the case of someone like EJ Smith…I think it is beyond reasonable to give up a seat in one of the few life boats.

4

agreed…a master is not expected to sacrifice his life but he is expected to be the last man off or at least not disembark the vessel until he is convinced that all those who can get off have done so. It is always possible in a catastrophic accident that persons aboard are not going to be able to get off but it is a master’s duty to them that he stay as long as humanly possible and remain in command of the response efforts. The same holds true for all crew when it is a passenger vessel with the exception of lifeboat crew who must get off in their respective boats but others should also be expected to remain to assist the passengers.

Flight attendants are not aboard airliners to serve Cokes but to be there to assist the passengers as needed in an emergency. They are mandated by the FAA and must receive training in aircraft evacuation and many other emergencies which might take place during a flight.

5

[QUOTE=c.captain;138325]agreed…a master is not expected to sacrifice his life but he is expected to be the last man off or at least not disembark the vessel until he is convinced that all those who can get off have done so. It is always possible in a catastrophic accident that persons aboard are not going to be able to get off but it is a master’s duty to them that he stay as long as humanly possible and remain in command of the response efforts. The same holds true for all crew when it is a passenger vessel with the exception of lifeboat crew who must get off in their respective boats but others should also be expected to remain to assist the passengers.

Flight attendants are not aboard airliners to serve Cokes but to be there to assist the passengers as needed in an emergency. They are mandated by the FAA and must receive training in aircraft evacuation and many other emergencies which might take place during a flight.[/QUOTE]

Well said c.capt.

6

[QUOTE=Tugs;138342]Well said c.capt.[/QUOTE]

I am grateful for the compliment…thank you