When is it ok for a cruise captain to abandon ship?

[sparks1093]

5 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

the Master will be in the last raft with the logbook and other key documents.

This has always been my understanding of the expression- that the Captain be the last person off after making sure everyone else has been evacuated and after doing everything he or she could to save the vessel.

[K32682]

As long I get off the boat safely I could not care less when or if the captain does. 

[MBP&O2/O]

Our 'abandonment' clearly shows all (remaining) staff left the ship, only to return the following morning to further assess the situation. The Master was, I am told, the last off.

 

Edited May 3 by MBP&O2/O

[ontheweb]

My question for @Heidi13 and @chengkp75 ---if there is an obvious dereliction of duty by the captain such as happened with the Costa Concordia is there any other officer who at that point can take charge and order a muster and eventually an abandon ship order?

[wcook]

7 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

In the Concordia incident, I would have done this immediately after the grounding.

Im guessing you (or bridge officer) would have also called the coast guard. One of the craziest parts of the story is that the coast guard only became involved when one of the passengers was on the phone with her mom, told her mom what was happening, and the mom called the coast guard. The coast guard contacts the ship and the officers lie to the coast guard and say everything is under control. The coast guard didn’t quite believe them so sent a nearby ship to take a look. 

[Mum2Mercury]

On 4/28/2024 at 11:32 PM, thermal said:

My understanding is that he fell into a lifeboat and subsequently abandoned ship.  

I don't think any reasonable person actually believes that.  

On 4/29/2024 at 5:33 AM, chengkp75 said:

Let's get some facts straight about the Concordia ... did signal "abandon ship" ... mistakenly believe ... was not made ... should have happened ... should have been made ... should have announced ... 

Sounds like no one on this ship was properly trained /adequate safety drills were not held on a regular basis.  I can see one mistake being made, but this many?  

On 5/2/2024 at 8:18 AM, TwinMamainMN said:

He did not act like a captain and does not deserve the title.

Disagree.  He was a captain, a position of trust. 

To take away that title is to put him on the same level as the cabin stewards and dishwashers -- no, if you want to sit in a big chair, you've gotta be ready to take what comes with that chair:  money, accolades for sure -- but also responsibility and consequences.  

No, call him a captain.  It shows what he should have /could have done. 

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, Mum2Mercury said:

Sounds like no one on this ship was properly trained /adequate safety drills were not held on a regular basis.  I can see one mistake being made, but this many?

No, if you read the report, you find that the investigators found that the crew in general, did very well, with the information and direction they were given.  You will note that all of the "should haves" you quote are attributable to one person, the Captain.  Crew cannot go willy nilly making decisions about sending passengers to muster, getting boats ready to launch, loading boats, etc.  That is chaos.  Like it or not, a ship is a hierarchical operation, and things have to come from the top down, but this didn't happen on the Concordia that night.

[chengkp75]

19 minutes ago, Mum2Mercury said:

He was a captain

The operative word is was.  But because of his actions that night, he has had his license revoked, and because of those actions, I have no professional respect for him, and will not refer to him as a Captain in any reference from the time of the accident onwards.

[mammajamma2013]

1 hour ago, Mum2Mercury said:

Sounds like no one on this ship was properly trained /adequate safety drills were not held on a regular basis.  I can see one mistake being made, but this many?  

And, in my opinion, this is why we need in-person muster drills. 

[chengkp75]

14 minutes ago, mammajamma2013 said:

And, in my opinion, this is why we need in-person muster drills. 

From your lips to the IMO's ear.  🤞

[Elaine5715]

Fascinating discussion..thank you to our CC experts.

The Captain going down with the ship concept probably came from the same myth of "Women and Children First.  

[MBP&O2/O]

11 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

From your lips to the IMO's ear.  🤞

No complaints from me on that score !

[sparks1093]

17 hours ago, Mum2Mercury said:

I don't think any reasonable person actually believes that.  

Sounds like no one on this ship was properly trained /adequate safety drills were not held on a regular basis.  I can see one mistake being made, but this many?  

Disagree.  He was a captain, a position of trust. 

To take away that title is to put him on the same level as the cabin stewards and dishwashers -- no, if you want to sit in a big chair, you've gotta be ready to take what comes with that chair:  money, accolades for sure -- but also responsibility and consequences.  

No, call him a captain.  It shows what he should have /could have done. 

If you spend any time looking at most disasters they stem from a series of miscues that lead to the disaster happening or making it worse than it should have been. Usually the miscues are done by different people at different stages leading up to the disaster, but as pointed out the miscues in the case of the Concordia came from one individual- the Captain. This is the human element that most planners try to take into account but at the end of the day cannot be totally eliminated. With all of the redundancies built into modern aircraft it still took Captain Sullenberger to safely land a disabled jet on the water. Had he not been so skilled and competent all onboard would have been lost. As for calling the individual captain (I can't spell his name and don't want to take time looking it up), no- he was stripped of his ability to command a rowboat. In my view that puts him lower than a cabin steward or dishwasher (and putting him on the same level as them is an insult to them, since they still have their maritime credentials).

[sparks1093]

6 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Fascinating discussion..thank you to our CC experts.

The Captain going down with the ship concept probably came from the same myth of "Women and Children First.  

I would call it more of a mindset than a myth. Certainly not a mindset shared by all back in the day, but it was a prevailing one whenever disaster struck. 

[chengkp75]

3 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

If you spend any time looking at most disasters they stem from a series of miscues that lead to the disaster happening or making it worse than it should have been.

This is known as the "swiss cheese" model of accident causation.  While there may be a lot of "holes" (wrong decisions or actions) in the "cheese" (the ship's operations), only if all the holes line up (contribute to one another) do you have a straight path to the disastrous result. 

[ontheweb]

36 minutes ago, sparks1093 said:

If you spend any time looking at most disasters they stem from a series of miscues that lead to the disaster happening or making it worse than it should have been. Usually the miscues are done by different people at different stages leading up to the disaster, but as pointed out the miscues in the case of the Concordia came from one individual- the Captain. This is the human element that most planners try to take into account but at the end of the day cannot be totally eliminated. With all of the redundancies built into modern aircraft it still took Captain Sullenberger to safely land a disabled jet on the water. Had he not been so skilled and competent all onboard would have been lost. As for calling the individual captain (I can't spell his name and don't want to take time looking it up), no- he was stripped of his ability to command a rowboat. In my view that puts him lower than a cabin steward or dishwasher (and putting him on the same level as them is an insult to them, since they still have their maritime credentials).

And Captain Sullenberger was investigated for his actions when it was shown that computer models did a better job then he did. It was only when he pointed out that no human could possibly have as quick a reflex as a computer that the authorities conceded that he was really a hero. (Non-experts realized that much sooner.)

 

[sparks1093]

24 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

And Captain Sullenberger was investigated for his actions when it was shown that computer models did a better job then he did. It was only when he pointed out that no human could possibly have as quick a reflex as a computer that the authorities conceded that he was really a hero. (Non-experts realized that much sooner.)

 

Actually he was investigated for his actions because every pilot is investigated for their actions when something goes wrong. And the computer models (and simulations) were correct- an immediate turn back toward the airport would have resulted in a landing on the ground (and even still the pilots in the simulators needed to practice the maneuver before they were successful). But as was pointed out (by Sully and others) no one had ever trained for dual engine loss at such a low altitude. I would think that since that fateful day this scenario is carried out in simulators regularly so pilots can be trained in this unlikely occurrence. 

[Heidi13]

On 5/3/2024 at 4:44 AM, ontheweb said:

My question for @Heidi13 and @chengkp75 ---if there is an obvious dereliction of duty by the captain such as happened with the Costa Concordia is there any other officer who at that point can take charge and order a muster and eventually an abandon ship order?

 

In the event the Master is unable to command, the Staff Captain assumes Command. Another consideration is that although ships retain a hierarchical structure, modern Bridge Team Command & Control procedures encourage all officers to question any decision, if they are unsure.

 

Unfortunately, at the time of the Concordia incident, I do not believe the Costa Bridge Teams had bought into the Bridge Resource Management procedures developed by, and in use on the P&O/Princess/Cunard ships.

 

Even if junior officers were not comfortable questioning the Master, the Staff Captain most certainly should have. When aware the hull was compromised and the Master did not sound the GES, I would have expected the Staff Captain and Senior Bridge Watchkeepers to at least provide suggestions on mustering pax at the Assembly Stations. When advised 3 compartments were compromised, the Staff Captain and Senior Bridge Watchkeepers should have been increasingly insistent on both mustering pax and transmitting a "Mayday".

 

If no safe beaching location was identified and 3 compartments were holed, the Staff Captain would be well within his professional responsibilities to assume Command, if the Master was clearly not providing the required leadership.

[Heidi13]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:10 AM, wcook said:

Im guessing you (or bridge officer) would have also called the coast guard. One of the craziest parts of the story is that the coast guard only became involved when one of the passengers was on the phone with her mom, told her mom what was happening, and the mom called the coast guard. The coast guard contacts the ship and the officers lie to the coast guard and say everything is under control. The coast guard didn’t quite believe them so sent a nearby ship to take a look. 

 

Once it was confirmed more than 2 compartments were compromised, the Master should have issued a "Mayday", at which time a Coast Radio Station would have responded to determine the assistance required.

[chengkp75]

Andy, help me out here.  I can't remember enough about the DPA communication tree as to whether or not it is the Master's responsibility or the DPA's to notify local national maritime authorities of an incident (short of a Mayday, as you say).  I seem to think that it falls to the DPA to notify coast guard, as the Master is busy dealing with the emergency.

[ontheweb]

33 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

In the event the Master is unable to command, the Staff Captain assumes Command. Another consideration is that although ships retain a hierarchical structure, modern Bridge Team Command & Control procedures encourage all officers to question any decision, if they are unsure.

 

Unfortunately, at the time of the Concordia incident, I do not believe the Costa Bridge Teams had bought into the Bridge Resource Management procedures developed by, and in use on the P&O/Princess/Cunard ships.

 

Even if junior officers were not comfortable questioning the Master, the Staff Captain most certainly should have. When aware the hull was compromised and the Master did not sound the GES, I would have expected the Staff Captain and Senior Bridge Watchkeepers to at least provide suggestions on mustering pax at the Assembly Stations. When advised 3 compartments were compromised, the Staff Captain and Senior Bridge Watchkeepers should have been increasingly insistent on both mustering pax and transmitting a "Mayday".

 

If no safe beaching location was identified and 3 compartments were holed, the Staff Captain would be well within his professional responsibilities to assume Command, if the Master was clearly not providing the required leadership.

Thank you. I would assume taking command away from the master would first be considered a mutiny, but at some point when it became obvious that the necessary procedures were not being done to ensure the safety of the passengers, the crew, and the ship, it would be seen as something that had to be done.

[Elaine5715]

6 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

I would call it more of a mindset than a myth. Certainly not a mindset shared by all back in the day, but it was a prevailing one whenever disaster struck. 

Creating its own disaster 

The phrase was popularised by its usage on RMS Titanic.^[14] Second Officer Charles Lightoller suggested to Captain Smith, "Hadn't we better get the women and children into the boats, sir?", to which the captain responded: "Put the women and children in and lower away."^[15] The first and second officers (William McMaster Murdoch and Lightoller) interpreted the evacuation order differently; Murdoch took it to mean women and children first, while Lightoller took it to mean women and children only. Second Officer Lightoller lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board, while First Officer Murdoch allowed a limited number of men to board if all the nearby women and children had embarked.^[16] As a consequence, 74% of the women and 52% of the children on board were saved, but only 20% of the men.^[17] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.^[18][19] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because not all women and children were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like White Star official J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded as cowards.^[20]  

[MBP&O2/O]

4 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

In the event the Master is unable to command, the Staff Captain assumes Command. Another consideration is that although ships retain a hierarchical structure, modern Bridge Team Command & Control procedures encourage all officers to question any decision, if they are unsure.

I wish we had that process when I was OOW.  I did it once, as 2/O and it was not appreciated! It sort of puts you off being a responsible officer. In the latter stages however, as Masters became younger and more forward looking things started to change, especially with regard to lifeboat drills.

[Host Kat]

On 4/29/2024 at 8:38 PM, navybankerteacher said:

... Since the “Birkenhead drill” is obsolete...

 

This is just a FYI for anyone interested... from our friend Google: Women and children first | National Army Museum (nam.ac.uk)

 

To me it is a very interesting read about the incident, but for those short on time, just scroll down to the Birkinhead Drill section.

 

[sparks1093]

6 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Creating its own disaster 

The phrase was popularised by its usage on RMS Titanic.^[14] Second Officer Charles Lightoller suggested to Captain Smith, "Hadn't we better get the women and children into the boats, sir?", to which the captain responded: "Put the women and children in and lower away."^[15] The first and second officers (William McMaster Murdoch and Lightoller) interpreted the evacuation order differently; Murdoch took it to mean women and children first, while Lightoller took it to mean women and children only. Second Officer Lightoller lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board, while First Officer Murdoch allowed a limited number of men to board if all the nearby women and children had embarked.^[16] As a consequence, 74% of the women and 52% of the children on board were saved, but only 20% of the men.^[17] Some officers on the Titanic misinterpreted the order from Captain Smith, and tried to prevent men from boarding the lifeboats.^[18][19] It was intended that women and children would board first, with any remaining free spaces for men. Because not all women and children were saved on the Titanic, the few men who survived, like White Star official J. Bruce Ismay, were initially branded as cowards.^[20]  

So, not a myth but poorly understood and executed.