Why Not Abandon Ship?
I'm reading, in the aftermath of the Costa Concordia tragedy, the transcript of the conversation between the Port Authority and the cowardly Capt. Francesco Schettino. Coast Guard officials are forced to order the captain back to his ship to finish the evacuation of passengers and you can feel their frustration as they do this. Here's just a snippet:
Port authority: "You go on board. It is an order. You cannot make any other evaluations. You have declared abandoning ship. Now I’m in charge. You get on board. Is it clear?"
Schettino: "Commandant..."
Port authority over captain: "Are you not listening to me.."
Schettino speaks over Port authority: "I’m going..."
Schettino: "Call me immediately when you get on board. Our rescue officer is there."
Schettino: "Where is your rescue officer?"
Port authority: "My rescue officer is at the stem…Go …(can hear captain saying OK)…There are already bodies, Schettino."
Schettino: "How many dead bodies are there?"
Port authority: "I don’t know. I know of one. I’ve heard of one. You are the one to tell me how many there are. Christ!"
Schettino: "Are you aware that it is dark here and we cannot see anything?"
Port authority: "So? Do you want to go home Schettino? It is dark and you want to go home? Climb the ladder and get on the stem."
Port authority: "...and tell me what can be done, how many people are there, what do they need. Now."
Schettino: "Commandant, we are with the second in command…"
Port authority: "Then both of you climb up. What is his name?"
Schettino: "Dimitris Christidis."
Port authority: "You are your guard. Go on board, now!"
Schettino: "Commandant… I want to go on board, it is just that the other lifeboat here…there are other rescue operators... it has stopped and it is stuck there... now I’ve called other rescue operators..."
Port authority: "It is one hour that you are telling me this. You go on board. On b.o.a.r.d (says the word slowly almost spelling it out). And you immediately tell me how many people there are"
Schettino: "OK."
Now, here's my question: Why not abandon ship? Why not "every man for himself"? What should the culture say about this act? And why?
This cruise disaster is horrible enough in isolation but I wonder if it doesn't say something more about how we teach virtue and our basis for teaching morality.
- Comment (50)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
I've got a somewhat different take on the whole thing - I'm rather incensed at the constant comparisons to the Titanic disaster. Yes it's tragic that some folks will have lost their lives because of what appears to be reckless behavior by the captain. But this event is far from being in the same category as the sinking of Titanic.
I've just assumed that it must be a remarkably slow news week considering the media coverage.
Jul '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Why not? Because every so often a person in responsibility has a defining event that calls for them to honor duty above personal interest. A person incapable of such a mindset should not be awarded that charge, cough cough, Obama.
Edited on January 17, 2012 at 5:40pmRe: Why Not Abandon Ship?
The Great Adventure!: I've got a somewhat different take on the whole thing - I'm rather incensed at the constant comparisons to the Titanic disaster. Yes it's tragic that some folks will have lost their lives because of what appears to be reckless behavior by the captain. But this event is far from being in the same category as the sinking of Titanic.
I've just assumed that it must be a remarkably slow news week considering the media coverage. · Jan 17 at 8:13am
Really? Maybe it's because I just took a cruise (during which I constantly evaluated what I'd do in case of myriad different disasters) but my family and I are captivated by the news. I've yet to hear any Titanic comparisons, though. Maybe that would annoy me. But still, this was a large ship that was destroyed. Even during a huge news week, I imagine this would compete for tons of coverage.
Nov '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Always worth re-examining our ancient practices, if mainly to understand again why we adhere to them, and fortunately no one in authority appears to be questioning the sacred rule concerning the captain's responsibilities. I am comforted by this conversation, which I had not yet heard.
Aug '10
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Because the orderly and calm evacuation of passengers saves lives due to the lessening of mob effects from morale loss. It is a commander's job to maintain as much discipline as possible, to save as many lives as possible. This requires that the commander wait until others have been secured before worrying about his/her own safety. It is true in so many situations that it is ridiculous.
May '10
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Leaders are responsible for the people under them. A captain is responsible for everyone on board, and the crew are responsible for passengers.
In any event like this, involving so many people, there are likely to be stragglers. Some might be too afraid to act. Some might have been trampled in the rush to get out. Some might be too drunk from partying before the crash or too stressed to think clearly. A cruise ship is huge, so it might be impossible to quickly check every room before the ship sinks. But the crew should have been searching for and leading passengers as long as they could.
American culture values individual responsibility. That is not the same as every man for himself. We should each try to be strong, but we look after the weak. The welfare state is wrong because it makes government the means of charity. It thereby removes the spirit of charity by eliminating free will — forcing, rather than entreating, people to help. The virtue of self-reliance is not at odds with helping one's fellow man.
Edited on January 17, 2012 at 5:37pmMar '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Compare and contrast - Captain Sullenberger and Captain Schettino...
Has our culture so far gone that we need to ask or answer this question?
If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious - the womanizing captain (Schettino) is already being compared to Berlusconi, steering Italy onto the fiscal rocks, with a pretty girl on each arm.
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
David Williamson: Compare and contrast - Captain Sullenberger and Captain Schettino...
Has our culture so far gone that we need to ask or answer this question?
If it wasn't so tragic it would be hilarious - the womanizing captain (Schettino) is already being compared to Berlusconi, steering Italy onto the fiscal rocks, with a pretty girl on each arm. · Jan 17 at 8:38am
Yes, it does remind one of just how admirable the conduct of Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger really was.
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
A related question: Is it still 'women and children first' in evacuation procedures?
The answer: Nope. (And though it was at some point a cultural notion, it's never been a legal requirement)
Dec '10
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Kind of a follow up to Diane's - but here's Rich Lowry's column on the "women & children first" demise.
Mollie - I've never been on a cruise - and the prospect doesn't interest me or my wife - so maybe that colors my perspective. But I know that I heard at least 5 different references to the Titanic yesterday. Just ridiculous.
May '10
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
I strongly recommend Steyn's review of the movie Titanic, in which he compares the film's events to the reality.
Feb '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Authority and responsibility need to be coupled. If they are not, the organization or the society will fail.
In Nicholas Monsarrat's novel The Cruel Sea, the captain of a WWII antisubmarine vessel is confronted with a decision: should he rescue men from a tanker which has been hit and is on fire, even though this would place his own ship and crew in deadly peril?
It was Ericson's decision alone. It was a captain's moment, a pure test of nerve; it was, once again, the reality that lay behind the saluting and the graded discipline and the two-and-a-half stripes on the sleeve. While Ericson, silent on the bridge, considered the chances, there was not a man on the ship who would have changed places with him.
There are plenty of people, in all fields, who want the two-and-a-half stripes on the sleeve and the perqs that go with them, but don't want the hard decision and the risk that go along with them.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
I’ll just echo the comments of those who have said that a ship’s Captain is responsible for everyone and everything that happens on board. Captains don’t typically get to be Captains unless they have spent many difficult years at sea, are exceptionally capable mariners and shipdrivers (and have demonstrated it again and again), and have a certain kind of command presence that takes charge by nature. Moreover, at sea, help is distant and takes time—even in coastal waters. They are fully responsible because no one else can be: there is no one else.
Virtually as long as they’re have been ship’s this view has prevailed—it’s a truth so deeply engrained into nautical history, tradition, culture, and lore that it hovers in the air around a Captain just as he walks around the deckplates. But, if you needed some further legal proof, see Rule #2 of the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea.
Feb '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
This is a big deal because ships are very safe now. When something bad happens it's because the safety record has been so good for so long that people become complacent. With complacency comes carelessness. From the news reports so far it appears the captain caused the accident and compounded problems by failing to act as a captain must. But the universal revulsion to his behavior is reassuring.
To your question, the reason for control and orderly evacuation is to avoid panic. Panic can kill as much as the disaster; keeping a level head saves lives. Women and children first protects the weakest and is a sign of civilization. The strongest and most able are last and are expected to help the rest. Captain and crew are last of the last because they are the most knowledgeable and responsible. This order increases the likelihood that all will survive. Everyone for himself is the absolute last option, not the first.
There's been some disparagement of Italians by some writers comparing this to the differing cultures in the Eurozone. That's a mistake. The harbor master and the rescue crews have shown courage and level-headedness.
Feb '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
All of this is the other side of the "rank has its privileges" coin. When the s hits the fan, the Captain is the first to get a faceful of excrement and the last to clean it off.
Edited on January 17, 2012 at 6:48pmApr '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Now, here's my question: Why not abandon ship? Why not "every man for himself"? What should the culture say about this act? And why?
Ah "every man for himself", that is the central tenet of Buddhism I believe. The simple fact is passengers have no training to deal with emergency situations, also their familiarity with the ship or the operation of the life boats and their deployment is probably minimal to none existent. The crew and the captain are trained to deal with such events. That is their job. The idea that the captain of the ship was the first to leave and was not coordinating the orderly evacuation of the ship is absolutely repulsive. The coast guard is coming to the situation with no idea of how many people they need to save or the general condition of those people. They need some one to tell them what is happening on the scene. If it is not the captains job to do that whose is it? The ship was not sinking in the cold north Atlantic at night far from any coast. If there are any dead they or on this mans head.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Which reminds me: as you might have supposed, naval line officers study collisions and groundings. Often. When you read the after action reports for the many groundings that are case studies for young naval officers, one thing they all have in common is that it is never just one thing that goes wrong.
Disasters like this happen because of error chains: mistakes stemming from poor judgment, consistently bad habits, insufficient procedural compliance, lack of thorough preparation, last minute changes to watchbills, a deficit of operator proficiency--and so on. Can bad luck play a role? Yes--but its striking how bad luck often follows bad ships.
I'm sure you can guess who is responsible for allowing this culture of poor seamanship to develop within the crew of a ship....
Feb '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
Aaron Miller: Leaders are responsible for the people under them. A captain is responsible for everyone on board, and the crew are responsible for passengers.
In any event like this, involving so many people, there are likely to be stragglers. Some might be too afraid to act. Some might have been trampled in the rush to get out. Some might be too drunk from partying before the crash or too stressed to think clearly. A cruise ship is huge, so it might be impossible to quickly check every room before the ship sinks. But the crew should have been searching for and leading passengers as long as they could.
American culture values individual responsibility. That is not the same as every man for himself. We should each try to be strong, but we look after the weak. The welfare state is wrong because it makes government the means of charity. It thereby removes the spirit of charity by eliminating free will — forcing, rather than entreating, people to help. The virtue of self-reliance is not at odds with helping one's fellow man. · Jan 17 at 8:35am
Edited on Jan 17 at 08:37 am
Well put.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
In Nicholas Monsarrat's novel The Cruel Sea, the captain of a WWII antisubmarine vessel is confronted with a decision: should he rescue men from a tanker which has been hit and is on fire, even though this would place his own ship and crew in deadly peril?
What a great novel! His "the captain carried them all" passage is also worthy of note.
Highly recommend, and thanks for citing in this context, david.
Mar '11
Re: Why Not Abandon Ship?
I am not sure but I think the point of Mollie's question is being missed. Mollie, correct me if I am worng. To answer "Why not abandon ship? Why not "every man for himself"?" with "because he's the captain and it's the moral thing to do" begs the question. Why is it moral? I belive that the larger rhetorical point may be that in a naturalistic worldview, there is no basic logical ground in thinking any act is other than amoral. Boat sinking, pop fizzing. It's all just random chance acting on matter over time. Only in a theistic, and specifically Christian worldview, as Mollie's own confessional Lutheranism, does "why not every man for himself" have a logically consistent answer.
Edited on January 17, 2012 at 6:36pm