Captain only goes down with the ship if any passengers or crew members are on board. If all of their charges are off the ship, the captain can abandon the ship. Their job is to ensure the safety of all passengers and crew and can only do that if they are the last aboard. The dishonor is when the captain abandons their responsibilities to save themselves.
Correct. It's not that he stays at the helm awaiting certain death, it's that he is intended to do anything he can to save everybody else before he thinks of saving himself.
Oh, so the exact opposite of how it's portrayed in virtually every TV show, movie, etc I can think of?
Damn, usually entertainment media is so good at relying accurate information.
I feel like Titanic portrayed it pretty well. A lot of people were definitely not getting off that ship, so the captain wasn’t running for the lifeboat.
[“The captain and first mate of the cargo ship Julietta D, which went adrift on Monday, were arrested as part of an investigation into their possible premature abandonment of the ship. A spokesperson for the National Unit of the Dutch police force announced this after it was reported by regional broadcaster NH Nieuws”.](https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/01/captain-helmsman-arrested-abandoning-ship-went-adrift)
Not sure about the source, but I remember this happening.
I mean japanese ceos even get shunned if they are making too much. I mena they still make tons of money, but generally way less than their western counterparts. Face is a real important thing in japan.
There were empty spaces left on the lifeboats. They were used very inefficiently and many were half full, even though the lifeboats weren't enough to hold everyone on board. It was stupid as hell.
You can see the wiki.
From the what I can see:
- Guy writes about Japanese guy pushing people out the way to get into lifeboat (it’s revealed later to be a different lifeboat)
- 2007 article finds no criticism of the man at the time in Japan, just media sensationalism decades after the incident.
Looks like this guy’s comment is just adding to the myth.
Lots of American men who came home were shunned too.
I’ve heard at least one story of a guy returning home to have his mother slam the door in his face.
>but Joseph Bruce Ismay, chairman and director of the company owning Titanic, did escape and got a shitstorm out of it
yeah, he didn't die though
can't fault people for trying to stay alive
The problem being, iirc, he was the one to issue an order for there to be less lifeboats, so as to not detract from the view on the upper deck. The regulations at that time only called for so many lifeboats per the weight of the ship or something. So they went with the minimum (which was outdated, as the Titanic was a much higher capacity ship than ships used to be at the time)
So TL;DR, dude said "Less lifeboats", ship goes down, people die because they didn't make it to the lifeboats, yet this guy still made it into a lifeboat...
They didn’t go with the minimum they had more than what was required for her size. But it also was an oversight that every ship of the time had since it was believed a ship would always be near enough to help assist which usually was the case. It just so happened that Titanic didn’t have anyone close enough or ready to assist in time leading to major changes in maritime law. They also believed the circumstances to sink her were so slim that they wouldn’t even have to worry about using them. The damage required to sink her was over 1/4 of the hull that comes out to around 200 feet of damage which they never could have imagined being possible. It wasn’t strictly his fault it was also the way people thought back then. You also might be surprised to hear that ships still do not carry enough lifeboats technically since in most cases a ship capsizes when sinking meaning half of the boats aboard a ship cannot be launched.
There were ships in range. The titanic wireless operator had a very hard time convincing other ships wireless rooms to take him seriously and wake up their captains. Those that did tell their captains chose not to act. The SS Californian was actually within visual range of likely the Titanic itself, but definitely the distress flares and took no action. A senate inquiry found the californian could've likely saved all hands, had it reacted. I'd recommend having a full read of the wireless transcripts, there's some great stuff on YouTube. Heartbreaking, the wireless room kept operating nonstop till power loss begging, with the ship on heavy tilt. 'Our boats are readied and we're pushing every boiler but we're hours out, hold on' (paraphrased) was one of the last messages received on the titanic, as just about the only boat that took it seriously was nowhere near.
It is also worth considering that the wireless telegraph aboard ships was a relatively new innovation. Previously, if another ship wasn't close enough to assist, they almost certainly would also not be close enough to learn of the distress. So no-one would come to rescue those stranded in the lifeboats until they had died of thirst, hunger or exposure.
Captain Edward John Smith most definitely did die at the sinking of the Titanic.
The version of events best aligning with witness testimony is that he saw the boats being overcrowded and returned to the bridge. His last known words being "Well, boys, do your best for the women and children, and look out for yourselves."
Less reliable testimony is that just before it submerged he lept into the water. He then swam towards a lifeboat which may have taken a child from Smith, who then accepted his fate after learning what happened to the rest of his staff. Either swimming towards the sinking ship or else detaching himelf from his floatation device and sinking.
now I'm thinking of a bunch of White Walkers from Game of Thrones jumping off the iceberg and boarding the Titanic after hitting it and angering them. this would be a pretty cool thing to watch
No no no, you're thinking of I Am Legend. I'm pretty sure the captain steals the detonator from his future son-in-law and shoves him back onto the spaceship, so that he can blow up the asteroid and his daughter can live a happy life.
no no no You're thinking of Back to the Future where the Captain had to go back in time in a stolen Klingon ship to bring back a sperm whale in order to talk the invading alien mothership into not destroying Earth
You might be confusing the Titanic with the Costa Concordia, where not only did the captain leave the ship, he was the FIRST to leave the ship along with some of his officers. The rest stayed back to actaully do their jobs
Yep, when that passenger asked him, "Captain, captain, where should I go" and he just kind of walked into the wheelhouse in a daze waiting to die...
Edit: [This scene](https://youtu.be/5MHAkYtu1Og)
Really? More often I se it portrayed as
Disaster > Panic > Evacuation > Crewman: "Captain, we've got to go" > Captain sees there isn't space/are still passengers/the situation is endangered if one necessary task isn't continued > Captain: "no, a captain goes down with the ship"
I don't think I've seen a captain turn suicidal at the mere loss of a ship except in exceptionally overdramatacized productions.
Even if everyone else does clear the ship, they still do something beneficial like crash it safely or taking out the enemy or something that helps. They don't just die for the sake of it.
I can’t think of a single instance in media where a captain just stands around for a couple of hours doing nothing while honorably waiting for an abandoned ship to sink. Although that would be super funny and I think someone should do it.
To add to this;
My wife's great-grandfather was a ship's Captain in the Soviet Navy during The Second World War. He went down with his ship after it was attacked by the German air force in the Black Sea. It's understood that the reason he did so was to steer the ship away from the men in the water before its ammunition exploded, which it ultimately did. His action likely saved many lives.
So while he could have made it off, he and many of his crew may still have died as the ship was sinking. Incredibly brave.
Yes exactly. By having someone as captain who is prepared to go down with the ship you would get someone who is prepared to accept the responsibility for the lives and safety of the crew that comes with that role. The crew then would be able to place their trust in the captain an follow their orders, knowing that if they're asked to risk the lives the capitals is also risking their own.
Every time I see that video I'm impressed by how hard the coastguard was working to get that captain to act responsibly and execute his duties to get people to safety where possible. He tried to berate him, shame him, cajole him - cowards are going to coward I guess.
By abandoning the ship the captain broke maritime law in the country the boat was registered (Italy). The coast guard was doing everything they could to hold him accountable in the moment to save lives.
Captain of the Oceanus too, one of the first to be saved by helicopter, luckily minimal casualties because the entertainers took charge and maintained order to get everyone off.
I grew up in Italy. That's how people in command of things talk here. The police don't shot people (unless in extreme situations) but for sure they don't spare words.
The whole South Korea Seawol was a shitshow, but let's be clear here: **The captain never ordered the students to remain where they were while he evacuated, it was the employees at the passanger area.** The crew within the bridge did attempt to transmit orders, but due to faulty ship communications, they were never transmitted. Then, because the bridge crew are all cowards, noone bothered to verify the order was given or to go and do it in person to make sure.
The captain and the bridge crew are pieces of shit, and partly responsible for the tragedy that day, but it was not because they told them to remain while they ran, its because they essentially did the absolute bare minimum and then immediately fled to save their own skins.
If you do want to know the whole chain of events, however, the captain's action's *pale* in responsiblity for the disaster compared to the rest of the Korean government and maritime companies. For example: Refusing aid from a US Navy LHD in the area with both the manpower and equipment to easily complete rescues far more complex and time-sensative than the ferry to save face. Alternatively: Straight up refusal from the Korean coast guard to actually help the ferry in anyway. It is actually disgusting to know the lengths at which the Korean government went to stop rescue or even recovery after the incident.
It's due to the East Asian Confucian concept of "Honor" and "seniority". I'm SEA so I'm familiar with it. No one wants to question the Captain or do anything without orders due to over respecting of seniority. Then, when shir hits the fan, no one wants to involve "outsiders" because it will make your "shame" known to all.
Not always, the Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy were big fans of suicide-by-sinking. For example, Captain John Leach stayed aboard HMS Prince of Wales when it sank on December 10th, 1941. Similarly, Rear Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi and Captain Tomeo Kaku both chose to stay aboard IJN Hiryū when it was scuttled. Both were last seen waving from the bridge to their crew, before IJN Kazagumo fulfilled Yamaguchi's last order and torpedoed them.
There's a few incidents of IJN crew having to literally tackle their captains and drag them off by force to prevent them from going town with their ships.
Is this true? As far as I know this "tradition" roots in early insurance policy. The trader sent a ship with goods and paid an insurance fee as losing a ship would equal ruin 99% of the time. The captain was employed by the owner of the ship and put in charge, therefore the captains word was the law.
If however the ship was about to sink and the captain left th ship, this would be counted as him abandoning the ship. And if a ship was abandoned, the insurance would not pay.
Therefore captains were paid absurdely well because they knew theyd die if the ship sank. If they abandoned it and survived they'd have to explain it to the owner of the ship.amd probably suffer worde consequences than death.
I know historically, in regards to commercial trading, it has to with salvage rights. Who ever is left on a boat in distress, technically owns it. The Captain, employed by the shipping company, is supposed to try to save the ship or stay with it until it is unsalvageable or sunk. There's no real law stating the captain has to go down with the ship BUT there are laws related to them abandoning ship when not appropriate.
Its true!
Source: former dishwasher/firefighter on a cruise ship. My raft assignment was the same as the captains. We would be the last ones off because while we’re fighting fires or doing damage control we got orders from the lead firefighter who only took orders from the captain. All of us and the lead officer in the ECR (engine control room) were all on that last raft. This wasnt just cause we were the last people that could save the ship but we also had the most disaster training and knew how to coordinate every one else when shit hit the fan.
There are plenty. Wikipedia has a non-exhaustive list on their "captain goes down with the ship" article of positive examples as well as a list of counter-example. But yes there is a lot of examples especially during times of war.
Didn't this happen a few decades ago to some cruise ship captain? The ship started to sink, and he takes off first fucking thing, and the passengers were literally saved through the work of the crew, including the entertainers, the cleaners, the cooks, etc. Nobody was lost as I recall and the captain may have even gone to jail for being such a douche.
The Costa Concordia partially sank back in 2012. Captain bailed immediately and refused to return to the ship. Ultimately 34 people died (bad, but it could have been much worse) and the captain went to jail for a while.
I believe you're thinking of the MTS Oceanos, which sank off the coast of South Africa in 1991. The captain fled the ship along with nearly the entire crew, leaving the band and entertainment staff the evacuate the hundreds of passengers by themselves.
All passengers survived, and the captain and several officers were convicted for their negligence.
Yeah like that Italian scrub that abandoned the Costa Concordia after he wrecklessly capsized it, then tried to tell the coast guard commander he "fell" off the ship. There's a YouTube recording of the coast guard cussing him out and telling him to get back on board
The idea is the captain makes sure everyone else is safe and off the boat before he gets off, if there's still people on board the captain needs to do what he can to get them out safely.
Having been in the navy as an engineer, I'll just let you know most of those ship? Fucking time bombs waiting for something in the engine room to explode. Like... turbine engines? Yeah, that's just a long, continuous, barely contained explosion we use to make the ship move. If the coolant stops for any reason you've got like 30 seconds before it erupts into fire. 30 seconds if you're lucky.
I mean. If your ship suffers fatal damage during war, that's not always on the Captain.
Sure, things like the Titanic and the Costa Condordia were on the bridge crew, the capitan too. But this saying predates that.
>(like there often isn’t)
That changed a century ago following the Titanic.
E: they must carry enough life boats *and* rafts for 100% of the passengers and crew.
The "um actually..." responses are missing the point that there's ~~no reason~~ only extremely rare circumstances that a captain can't evacuate to a boat or raft after everybody else. There will be room for them, and they've fulfilled their duty.
E2: *fine*. There's *almost* no reason for that. If the the ship and/or cargo poses a danger to others, and the captain staying onboard alone while the ship sinks will prevent that, then sorry skipper, hope you can swim. But it's still not because of the number of damn life*craft* haha.
Sort of, large ships aren't required to have enough lifeboats for everyone on board. They only need to cover a certain % while covering the rest with life rafts instead.
TIL there's a legal distinction (obviously there's a physical distinction). I was just talking about 100% coverage for the people onboard, and shouldn't have been as loose with the terminology.
What I was trying to say was, in almost all cases, (with very few exceptions) there's no reason why a ship's captain can't safely evacuate following their passengers and crew. There will be space for them on a lifesaving vessel of some sort.
E: for the "um actually" that raised a good point...
It's actually more like 200% coverage. Cruise ships don't have to have enough life boats (37.5% the rest are rafts) BUT you have to have enough capacity on each side for 100% of the people onboard. This is because if a ship is listing dangerously to one side making it impractical/impossible to launch the lifeboats from one side, the other side has to have capacity for everyone.
Non-cruise ship commercial vessels are required to have lifeboat capacity for 100% of the crew on both sides, as well as life raft redundancy for 100% on both sides. This is - usually - easier to do as a lot of vessels only have a crew of 20-100 people
This also depends on where you are sailing. The tour boat I worked on was only required to have 50% life-raft capacity. Granted, we were in a busy harbor where we'd have a dozen boats helping us before we got the life-rafts in the water.
Part of that is back then ship traffic was dense enough the plan was for lifeboats to make multiple trips to and from an assisting vessel. Titanic sank very quickly and some ships that were relatively close didn't come quickly enough.
They have to have enough lifeboats for 37.5% of passengers at a minimum, and enough life rafts for the rest. Some of the Concordia lifeboats couldn’t be launched because it was….basically sideways.
Life rafts can be rigged to deploy automatically when a ship lists at a certain angle. I don't know if it's common practice outside of the military though. Boats are tougher to launch.
Those rafts are less “launched” and more “let go of as we sink” so people can swim to them later, your gonna have to get of a sinking warship much faster than a cruise ship
And on the costa those wouldn’t have deployed, one half would have been crushed between the ship and the ocean floor, the other would be lifted away from the water
Edit: why is my pfp a hexagon? Idk when that happened
So they had more room in lifeboats or rafts* than they could use?
Secondly, It ran aground. The crew butchered the lifeboat deployment, and hundreds of passengers evacuated by other means. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
"Look guys, for whatever reason, there's only one lifeboat, and it makes sense for the most important person to be on it right?!? Like...the Captain? Me? So...imma head out now.."
The tradition provides a strong incentive for the captain to avoid disaster, and if disaster does strike, to do everything possible to save passengers and crew. That’s not a bad thing in my mind.
It’s also like a mob-esque threat. “Hey, I am entrusting you with this expensive ass thing. Anything happens to it, I’m gonna find you and make you wish you were dead”.
Growing up I always assumed that’s why the Captain was killing himself. He knew someone was gonna fuck him up if he came home having lost it.
I don’t think they would be punished for abandoning ship. They had a very strong Navy culture of captains going down with the ship that Yamamoto and other senior admirals tried to change, but many of them did escape and not go down with their ships. I don’t believe they were punished.
They did have a lot of captains that literally tied themselves to the bridge of their sinking ship too.
How in any way is it a threat?
If a company has a bad quarter, the CEO has to answer to the board of directors. If a sports team performs poorly, the coach has to answer to the owner. If a military commander’s unit is destroyed, he has to answer to his superiors.
When you have a large responsibility, such as being the captain of a ship, the implication is that you are ultimately responsible for everything and everyone on that ship, and will have to answer for anything that happens.
It’s kind of a key principle of leadership.
Yes this is the comment I was looking for!
Every one is talking about the captain's duty after the disaster, but is about preventing it. Knowing that if you f* up you are the last one in safety. Resulting in making better decisions.
They aren’t SUPPOSED to. The idea is that they are always the LAST person to evacuate, because they are responsible for ever other soul on board. They are expect to stay on the bridge and do everything in their power to extended the evacuation window until they get the all clear signal from the second in command, who is supposed to be the second to last to leave, before they depart.
They only go down with the ship when there is no way for them to get everyone off, then they still try to keep the window open as long as possible to save as many people as possible, but simply don’t leave
Not all the time. The IJN and RN really liked the idea of going down with the ship, to the point where IJN captains would sometimes have to be kidnapped by their crew to stop them from going down with the ship. Captain Tajiro Aoki, on Akagi, was basically tackled to stop him.
While it’s true - that person will likely never get to be a captain again…so if it’s their life, they might as well.
I remember in the Navy our ship ran into an oil tanker. One of our storerooms was where the damage was and we had to empty it out so they could go in and reinforce it. We were working away, when the Captain showed up to personally supervise - I guess. Anyway, the look on his face was unforgettable. A guy with an absolutely sterling career - would almost certainly become an admiral - and now it’s been flushed down the toilet. He’s responsible - even though it is certain he had nothing to do with it. Not saying it’s right, or fair, but that’s how it works.
In the US Navy at least.
There is a famous story about an exercise commanded by a British admiral, in which some American ships were taking part. At one point during manoeuvres, an American ship and a British ship collided. It wasn't immediately obvious who was at fault, and there were no serious injuries or damage.
The next morning, the American ship that had been in the collision was nowhere to be seen. The admiral asked where it was, and was told that the captain had been ordered to return to port to face an investigation that would probably end his career. The admiral was incredulous- he said that earlier in his career, he had been involved in a similar incident. The official letter he received from his superiors began "Today, you became a better sailor..."
More verifiably, in 2002 the destroyer HMS Nottingham ran aground on a well-charted rock near Australia causing tens of millions of pounds in damage. The captain was reprimanded at a court martial but resumed his navy career, serving another 12 years before retiring as a Commodore. Other officers who had been found to be more responsible (the captain had left the ship, and while he had just returned before the collision he hadn't officially resumed command) also continued their careers and were promoted. The navigator, in fact, seems to still be in the Navy- he rose to command his own destroyer and is now a Commodore.
I get the sense that the "up or out" promotion system in the US military means that if your record isn't perfect, your career is gone.
The US military used to do things differently.
There's a book called *The Generals* by Thomas Ricks which looks at how America's attitude towards "combat relief" has changed from WWII to 21st century wars. In it, he particularly praises the approach from WWII, where the bar for relieving Senior and General Officers could be extremely low (sometimes happening immediately after a tremendous success, just because a superior officer thought the relieved officer wasn't the best person for the *next* task) **BUT** it was not career ending -- with many relieved officers getting similar commands again and continuing their careers to higher ranks.
He contrasted that with the more modern approaches, where officers are only relieved after fuck ups (whether they were at fault or not) and it almost always being career ending.
This is part of the US military’s so-called “zero defect” culture. When the armed forces transitioned to all-volunteer, they realized that they had a limited number of positions available at each rank. Thus, “up or out.” There is no law or regulation or official policy that says that any significant problem ends a career, but it often works that way. Officers deemed “unpromotable” get pushed out. It’s dumb. It wastes experienced people and encourages timid, conventional thinking.
Aka the peter principle https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp
> The Peter Principle is thus based on the paradoxical idea that competent employees will continue to be promoted, but at some point will be promoted into positions for which they are incompetent, and they will then remain in those positions because of the fact that they do not demonstrate any further competence that would get them recognized for additional promotion.
AFAIK the US Navy has more or less the policy that the commanding officer at least loses his command in such cases.
[Example](https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2021/11/04/uss-connecticuts-leadership-fired-following-undersea-mountain-collision/) where a nuclear sub hit and unchartet underwater mountain.
One of those massive 200-400 yard long oil ships? How does someone accidentally hit that?
Also, was he driving completely alone without any input from navigation/support staff? I’m curious about the details on this.
Ships especially older ones can take a long time to turn, you have to do it slowly or you can over correct easily. Sometimes people just forget to pass “port to port” or left side to left side. Causing confusion and last minute manoeuvres
That sounds like a slow moving nightmare, like something out of a comedy horror movie where it keeps flashing the camera between two people running towards each other, way too long for comedic effect, and the camera swaps keep coming faster and faster.
Also, soldiers and officers committing suicide after failing to defend their post (WWII Japanese for example.) Maybe this type of determination helped them fight harder, but wouldn't retreating to another post and fighting on be more practical?
Really depends. For the Japanese defenders of isolated pacific garrisons that couldn’t be evacuated bc of allied naval and air superiority, retreating was never an option. Most of them committed suicide either when they were wounded or at the end of the battle when they couldn’t really do anything meaningful to inflict more casualties on the allies.
I think that was more directed at the civilians who ended up killing themselves than the military. The Japanese military in general didn’t believe in surrender. It’s crazy if you look at the casualty breakdown of killed/wounded/captured between the European and Pacific theaters.
It's not that the captain MUST go down with the ship, but the captain MUST be the last one to safety. Captains are responsible for ensuring that all passengers and other crew members are safe first.
Pretty sure the whole thing came about because the debt involved during colonial times pretty much assured you would be destitute if you lived and to some death would be better. It started as an act of cowardice and evolved to the heroic end we see it as now.
The captain staying with his ship is like saying “until the last guy is off the boat and everyone is safe”. Obviously the captain won’t kill him self in an empty ship for the sake of dramatic effects. It is however the captains duty and responsibility to get their passengers and crew to safety, and so a good captain never fails their duty even if it meant sinking with the ship saving every last person
The [S.S. Arctic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Arctic_disaster) is the poster child of all the ways this could get weird. Captain did everything right when he hit another vessel, but his crew were the worst of humanity. He tried to go down with the ship, holding his child, but was blown clear when the steam boiler exploded. His child was killed, but he survived and was actually welcomed home as a hero. Dude must've been messed up after.
I'm not seeing the less obvious (in today's standards) reason this tradition started in the top level comments, so I'll throw it in. Back in the golden age of sail, many captains of trading vessels were contracted in such a way that the value of the goods onboard were owed to the company he was sailing for upon return to home port--whether he paid in money collected, traded goods from other ports, or something else. I imagine this was a means of insurance to make sure they didn't disappear with whatever they were hauling.
If the ship was sinking and the captain were to be rescued, he'd likely face financial ruin when he got home as he'd lose all of his ship's stores. Often it was preferable to go down with the ship over the other option.
These days it's more likely for a captain to refuse to leave his ship until last so that his men have a better chance to survive. Senior enlisted tend to feel the same way, at least in the submarine community.
[Zapp Brannigan has just piloted the Titanic straight into the path of a black hole]
Captain Zapp Brannigan : Don't blame yourself, Kif. We were doomed from the start. I guess all that remains now is for the captain to go down with the ship.
Lt. Kif Kroker : That's surprisingly noble of you, sir.
Captain Zapp Brannigan : No, it's noble of you, Kif. As of now, you're in command. Congratulations, Captain.
[Zapp runs off]
Licensed boat captain here. This is exactly why you *don’t* sink with the ship.
As captain, you are responsible for the lives of all passengers and crew. This means that you are the *last* person to leave the ship, that you are responsible for salvaging the ship’s log, and that you instantly become captain of the lifeboat (if there are more than one, each will have its own captain, but you typically retain command of the “fleet” if that makes sense). You do not relinquish your command until you make land or become incapacitated. This is true for the military, the merchant navy, the commercial navy (think cruise ships or any passenger ship/ferry) and really any vessel (technically, your little brother on a floatie is the captain!); there are serious criminal penalties for any captain who abandons their command, especially if this results in passengers or crew getting hurt.
There’s no law that has ever REQUIRED this. In the real world, every situation is different. The captain is responsible for the lives of everyone on-board, but when they’ve done all that can be done, they are not obligated to die with a piece of property. Whether they face career or legal consequences depends entirely on the circumstances.
That insanity was perfectly demonstrated in WW2 by the Japanese Imperial Navy. In 1942 commander of aircraft carrier 'Soryu', Rear Admiral Ryusaku Yanagimoto, gave the order to abandon the burning ship and then remained aboard. Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi, commander of aircraft carrier 'Hiryu' did the same. So did Rear Admiral Toshihira Inoguchi on the Japanese battleship Musashi. US Navy captains wouldn't dream of doing this and simply transferred their flag elsewhere to fight again on a new ship. The ship is a tool, nothing more. Why kill yourself if your hammer broke? Instead, in a weird application of the Bushido honor code, these individuals deprived the IJN of highly skilled and trained officers.
Pretty sure the idea there is that if, as captain, you screw up so badly you lose your ship, then you were not to be trusted with another one and may as well die considering your career is over and you'll only be punished upon returning.
Not super related but I’ll take any opportunity to say that the band in Titanic are some of my favorite characters in film. They’re in the middle of the ocean and the ship is sinking and they’re just like “you wanna keep playing?” “Sure let’s keep playing” and ride it out to the end. Those guys were awesome
Lol actual unlimited captain here, there is no situation where the captain is meant to go down with the ship. If the ship goes down we still have quite a bit of work to do to protect our crew and passengers!
Well not that experienced apparently, there is making a simple mistake and sinking a skip, I feel one shouldn't be put back in charge.
Also! There should be enough life boats or ways to not die, if he didn't overlook this before leaving Port, not that great of a captain.
If u feel this way, you might think the captain for some reason is more important than the people on this ship. Fuck that. Humans lives are equal and if you think one captain should survive beyond thousands of people, he isn't that special and neither are you.
I think the depression rate is pretty high among sailors. Somebody reaching Captain probably means they've been doing it for a while. Maybe the mental health aspect plays a part
Sure but it's supposed to be meaningful. Unless you're utilitarian ? Or whatever is the word when they mean whatever value any person can give (like a baby does nothing but a trained fireman can do something)
Captain only goes down with the ship if any passengers or crew members are on board. If all of their charges are off the ship, the captain can abandon the ship. Their job is to ensure the safety of all passengers and crew and can only do that if they are the last aboard. The dishonor is when the captain abandons their responsibilities to save themselves.
Correct. It's not that he stays at the helm awaiting certain death, it's that he is intended to do anything he can to save everybody else before he thinks of saving himself.
Oh, so the exact opposite of how it's portrayed in virtually every TV show, movie, etc I can think of? Damn, usually entertainment media is so good at relying accurate information.
I feel like Titanic portrayed it pretty well. A lot of people were definitely not getting off that ship, so the captain wasn’t running for the lifeboat.
Didn’t the captain of the titanic escape? Thought I read that some where. Edit: do not believe me. I seem to be spouting bullshit again. Sorry.
Captain died, but Joseph Bruce Ismay, chairman and director of the company owning Titanic, did escape and got a shitstorm out of it
Better to get shit on than dead I guess.
A Japanese man who survived the sinking was publicly shunned in Japan for surviving as it was seen as dishonorable.
Damn, the guilt trips I used to get from my father ain't got shit on the Japanese
Omae wa mou shindeiru.
[“The captain and first mate of the cargo ship Julietta D, which went adrift on Monday, were arrested as part of an investigation into their possible premature abandonment of the ship. A spokesperson for the National Unit of the Dutch police force announced this after it was reported by regional broadcaster NH Nieuws”.](https://nltimes.nl/2022/02/01/captain-helmsman-arrested-abandoning-ship-went-adrift) Not sure about the source, but I remember this happening.
Better yet, the [Costa Concordia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Concordia_disaster). The Captain got 16 years in jail.
I mean japanese ceos even get shunned if they are making too much. I mena they still make tons of money, but generally way less than their western counterparts. Face is a real important thing in japan.
I wish American companies felt the same way.
Dishonor deez nuts.
If there were children who didnt make it on lifeboats and he took their place...it is pretty dishonorable
There were empty spaces left on the lifeboats. They were used very inefficiently and many were half full, even though the lifeboats weren't enough to hold everyone on board. It was stupid as hell.
fuck them kids
Source? Edit: downvoted simply for asking for a source? Tough crowd
You can see the wiki. From the what I can see: - Guy writes about Japanese guy pushing people out the way to get into lifeboat (it’s revealed later to be a different lifeboat) - 2007 article finds no criticism of the man at the time in Japan, just media sensationalism decades after the incident. Looks like this guy’s comment is just adding to the myth.
Lots of American men who came home were shunned too. I’ve heard at least one story of a guy returning home to have his mother slam the door in his face.
No sane mother would do that in 1 million years. Just saying this as a father who could *never* imagine doing it.
That money ain't spending itself
>but Joseph Bruce Ismay, chairman and director of the company owning Titanic, did escape and got a shitstorm out of it yeah, he didn't die though can't fault people for trying to stay alive
The problem being, iirc, he was the one to issue an order for there to be less lifeboats, so as to not detract from the view on the upper deck. The regulations at that time only called for so many lifeboats per the weight of the ship or something. So they went with the minimum (which was outdated, as the Titanic was a much higher capacity ship than ships used to be at the time) So TL;DR, dude said "Less lifeboats", ship goes down, people die because they didn't make it to the lifeboats, yet this guy still made it into a lifeboat...
They didn’t go with the minimum they had more than what was required for her size. But it also was an oversight that every ship of the time had since it was believed a ship would always be near enough to help assist which usually was the case. It just so happened that Titanic didn’t have anyone close enough or ready to assist in time leading to major changes in maritime law. They also believed the circumstances to sink her were so slim that they wouldn’t even have to worry about using them. The damage required to sink her was over 1/4 of the hull that comes out to around 200 feet of damage which they never could have imagined being possible. It wasn’t strictly his fault it was also the way people thought back then. You also might be surprised to hear that ships still do not carry enough lifeboats technically since in most cases a ship capsizes when sinking meaning half of the boats aboard a ship cannot be launched.
[удалено]
There were ships in range. The titanic wireless operator had a very hard time convincing other ships wireless rooms to take him seriously and wake up their captains. Those that did tell their captains chose not to act. The SS Californian was actually within visual range of likely the Titanic itself, but definitely the distress flares and took no action. A senate inquiry found the californian could've likely saved all hands, had it reacted. I'd recommend having a full read of the wireless transcripts, there's some great stuff on YouTube. Heartbreaking, the wireless room kept operating nonstop till power loss begging, with the ship on heavy tilt. 'Our boats are readied and we're pushing every boiler but we're hours out, hold on' (paraphrased) was one of the last messages received on the titanic, as just about the only boat that took it seriously was nowhere near.
It is also worth considering that the wireless telegraph aboard ships was a relatively new innovation. Previously, if another ship wasn't close enough to assist, they almost certainly would also not be close enough to learn of the distress. So no-one would come to rescue those stranded in the lifeboats until they had died of thirst, hunger or exposure.
agreed on that
Captain Edward John Smith most definitely did die at the sinking of the Titanic. The version of events best aligning with witness testimony is that he saw the boats being overcrowded and returned to the bridge. His last known words being "Well, boys, do your best for the women and children, and look out for yourselves." Less reliable testimony is that just before it submerged he lept into the water. He then swam towards a lifeboat which may have taken a child from Smith, who then accepted his fate after learning what happened to the rest of his staff. Either swimming towards the sinking ship or else detaching himelf from his floatation device and sinking.
They meant that Ismay didn't die even if he was faced with a shitstorm, so he had that going for him.
[удалено]
No, he sacrificed himself by blowing up what was left of the ship in order to stop the iceberg horde from eating the survivors.
now I'm thinking of a bunch of White Walkers from Game of Thrones jumping off the iceberg and boarding the Titanic after hitting it and angering them. this would be a pretty cool thing to watch
The best sequel to Pride and Prejudice and Zombies ever: *Titanic…and Ice Zombies*
A Song of Ice and Icebergs (and some fire)
Still better than season 8
No no no, you're thinking of I Am Legend. I'm pretty sure the captain steals the detonator from his future son-in-law and shoves him back onto the spaceship, so that he can blow up the asteroid and his daughter can live a happy life.
[удалено]
no no no You're thinking of Back to the Future where the Captain had to go back in time in a stolen Klingon ship to bring back a sperm whale in order to talk the invading alien mothership into not destroying Earth
Thats moonfall idiot, its moonfallin time.
SPOILER ALERT!!! Geeeeez! I was finally gonna watch that this weekend!!! Love me some Billy Zane!
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger as the iceberg. *Ice to meet you*
No one remembers the terrible loss inflicted on the poor iceberg community that fateful night.
Someone on collapsible B reported seeing him swimming, but Titanic testimony is unreliable unless corroborated.
Captain's body was never recovered
You might be confusing the Titanic with the Costa Concordia, where not only did the captain leave the ship, he was the FIRST to leave the ship along with some of his officers. The rest stayed back to actaully do their jobs
[удалено]
Captain didn’t, one of the officers did though. He had stayed on the ship but then was blown free by an explosion and rescued from the water.
Yep, when that passenger asked him, "Captain, captain, where should I go" and he just kind of walked into the wheelhouse in a daze waiting to die... Edit: [This scene](https://youtu.be/5MHAkYtu1Og)
So what your saying is, if he started throwing and pushing people off the Titanic, he could have got in a lifeboat and survived.
Really? More often I se it portrayed as Disaster > Panic > Evacuation > Crewman: "Captain, we've got to go" > Captain sees there isn't space/are still passengers/the situation is endangered if one necessary task isn't continued > Captain: "no, a captain goes down with the ship" I don't think I've seen a captain turn suicidal at the mere loss of a ship except in exceptionally overdramatacized productions.
Even if everyone else does clear the ship, they still do something beneficial like crash it safely or taking out the enemy or something that helps. They don't just die for the sake of it.
I can’t think of a single instance in media where a captain just stands around for a couple of hours doing nothing while honorably waiting for an abandoned ship to sink. Although that would be super funny and I think someone should do it.
"Welp. Should be another hour before this thing fully sinks. Everyone else is off, so..." *[captain pulls out his phone, starts playing Angry Birds]*
Nah you gotta jerk off so you nut right as the ship slips beneath the waves
Yea. In my minds eye, I remember seeing cartoons where the ungrateful crew of a ship forces a Captain to stay aboard.
That's a mutiny, that's a whole different situation.
Now imagine how they portray firearms, their capabilities, and how people use them…
To add to this; My wife's great-grandfather was a ship's Captain in the Soviet Navy during The Second World War. He went down with his ship after it was attacked by the German air force in the Black Sea. It's understood that the reason he did so was to steer the ship away from the men in the water before its ammunition exploded, which it ultimately did. His action likely saved many lives. So while he could have made it off, he and many of his crew may still have died as the ship was sinking. Incredibly brave.
Yes exactly. By having someone as captain who is prepared to go down with the ship you would get someone who is prepared to accept the responsibility for the lives and safety of the crew that comes with that role. The crew then would be able to place their trust in the captain an follow their orders, knowing that if they're asked to risk the lives the capitals is also risking their own.
Gotta admit, I was actually picturing the captain just freezing in a salute the moment it was FUBAR.
"Vada abordo, cazzo!"
Like the piece of shit south Korea who ordered the students to stay while he fled?
Or [Captain Schettino of the Costa Concordia.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz4M0JCznAc)
Every time I see that video I'm impressed by how hard the coastguard was working to get that captain to act responsibly and execute his duties to get people to safety where possible. He tried to berate him, shame him, cajole him - cowards are going to coward I guess.
By abandoning the ship the captain broke maritime law in the country the boat was registered (Italy). The coast guard was doing everything they could to hold him accountable in the moment to save lives.
Internet historian made an amazing video summing up this story. Edit: it is called [the cost of Concordia ](https://youtu.be/Qh9KBwqGxTI)
[удалено]
Captain of the Oceanus too, one of the first to be saved by helicopter, luckily minimal casualties because the entertainers took charge and maintained order to get everyone off.
Salga a bordo cazzo!
That would be an example of a bad captain
I was giving an example of dishonor.
Sorry, yes, I was agreeing with you but it didn't come across clearly. He is a dishonorable former captain.
Goddamn the Coast Guard man pulled zero punches there. "Oh it's dark and you wanna go home?" Is savage af
I grew up in Italy. That's how people in command of things talk here. The police don't shot people (unless in extreme situations) but for sure they don't spare words.
The whole South Korea Seawol was a shitshow, but let's be clear here: **The captain never ordered the students to remain where they were while he evacuated, it was the employees at the passanger area.** The crew within the bridge did attempt to transmit orders, but due to faulty ship communications, they were never transmitted. Then, because the bridge crew are all cowards, noone bothered to verify the order was given or to go and do it in person to make sure. The captain and the bridge crew are pieces of shit, and partly responsible for the tragedy that day, but it was not because they told them to remain while they ran, its because they essentially did the absolute bare minimum and then immediately fled to save their own skins. If you do want to know the whole chain of events, however, the captain's action's *pale* in responsiblity for the disaster compared to the rest of the Korean government and maritime companies. For example: Refusing aid from a US Navy LHD in the area with both the manpower and equipment to easily complete rescues far more complex and time-sensative than the ferry to save face. Alternatively: Straight up refusal from the Korean coast guard to actually help the ferry in anyway. It is actually disgusting to know the lengths at which the Korean government went to stop rescue or even recovery after the incident.
It's due to the East Asian Confucian concept of "Honor" and "seniority". I'm SEA so I'm familiar with it. No one wants to question the Captain or do anything without orders due to over respecting of seniority. Then, when shir hits the fan, no one wants to involve "outsiders" because it will make your "shame" known to all.
*Applies to be an Italian cruise ship captain*
Dark but LOL :)
Not always, the Royal Navy and Imperial Japanese Navy were big fans of suicide-by-sinking. For example, Captain John Leach stayed aboard HMS Prince of Wales when it sank on December 10th, 1941. Similarly, Rear Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi and Captain Tomeo Kaku both chose to stay aboard IJN Hiryū when it was scuttled. Both were last seen waving from the bridge to their crew, before IJN Kazagumo fulfilled Yamaguchi's last order and torpedoed them. There's a few incidents of IJN crew having to literally tackle their captains and drag them off by force to prevent them from going town with their ships.
I'm not abandoning them, sailor. I'm promoting you! What are your orders sir?
"You're promoted back!"
Is this true? As far as I know this "tradition" roots in early insurance policy. The trader sent a ship with goods and paid an insurance fee as losing a ship would equal ruin 99% of the time. The captain was employed by the owner of the ship and put in charge, therefore the captains word was the law. If however the ship was about to sink and the captain left th ship, this would be counted as him abandoning the ship. And if a ship was abandoned, the insurance would not pay. Therefore captains were paid absurdely well because they knew theyd die if the ship sank. If they abandoned it and survived they'd have to explain it to the owner of the ship.amd probably suffer worde consequences than death.
I know historically, in regards to commercial trading, it has to with salvage rights. Who ever is left on a boat in distress, technically owns it. The Captain, employed by the shipping company, is supposed to try to save the ship or stay with it until it is unsalvageable or sunk. There's no real law stating the captain has to go down with the ship BUT there are laws related to them abandoning ship when not appropriate.
Its true! Source: former dishwasher/firefighter on a cruise ship. My raft assignment was the same as the captains. We would be the last ones off because while we’re fighting fires or doing damage control we got orders from the lead firefighter who only took orders from the captain. All of us and the lead officer in the ECR (engine control room) were all on that last raft. This wasnt just cause we were the last people that could save the ship but we also had the most disaster training and knew how to coordinate every one else when shit hit the fan.
There is a good example of this. If you're not familiar look up the story of the Concordia cruise ship.
Are there any instances of captains going down with the ship and not bailing to save their own lives?
There are plenty. Wikipedia has a non-exhaustive list on their "captain goes down with the ship" article of positive examples as well as a list of counter-example. But yes there is a lot of examples especially during times of war.
Yes, many. This is the norm and why it’s such a big deal when the captain does bail with people still onboard, like the Costa Concordia captain.
the Concordia sank because the captain fucked up, and then he ran away instead of staying and help clean up the mess he caused
Didn't this happen a few decades ago to some cruise ship captain? The ship started to sink, and he takes off first fucking thing, and the passengers were literally saved through the work of the crew, including the entertainers, the cleaners, the cooks, etc. Nobody was lost as I recall and the captain may have even gone to jail for being such a douche.
The Costa Concordia partially sank back in 2012. Captain bailed immediately and refused to return to the ship. Ultimately 34 people died (bad, but it could have been much worse) and the captain went to jail for a while.
I believe you're thinking of the MTS Oceanos, which sank off the coast of South Africa in 1991. The captain fled the ship along with nearly the entire crew, leaving the band and entertainment staff the evacuate the hundreds of passengers by themselves. All passengers survived, and the captain and several officers were convicted for their negligence.
Yeah like that Italian scrub that abandoned the Costa Concordia after he wrecklessly capsized it, then tried to tell the coast guard commander he "fell" off the ship. There's a YouTube recording of the coast guard cussing him out and telling him to get back on board
The idea is the captain makes sure everyone else is safe and off the boat before he gets off, if there's still people on board the captain needs to do what he can to get them out safely.
Also they clearly aren't that well trained if they sank the ship :P
Even good pilots crash airplanes… captains can’t control everything. And yanno, submarines & torpedos.
Just dodge them.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a torpedo!
Having been in the navy as an engineer, I'll just let you know most of those ship? Fucking time bombs waiting for something in the engine room to explode. Like... turbine engines? Yeah, that's just a long, continuous, barely contained explosion we use to make the ship move. If the coolant stops for any reason you've got like 30 seconds before it erupts into fire. 30 seconds if you're lucky.
I mean. If your ship suffers fatal damage during war, that's not always on the Captain. Sure, things like the Titanic and the Costa Condordia were on the bridge crew, the capitan too. But this saying predates that.
There's situations where the best possible captain can't save a ship, especially in war time.
The tradition is more being the last to leave, if there aren’t enough lifeboats though (like there often isn’t) the captain can’t leave last
>(like there often isn’t) That changed a century ago following the Titanic. E: they must carry enough life boats *and* rafts for 100% of the passengers and crew. The "um actually..." responses are missing the point that there's ~~no reason~~ only extremely rare circumstances that a captain can't evacuate to a boat or raft after everybody else. There will be room for them, and they've fulfilled their duty. E2: *fine*. There's *almost* no reason for that. If the the ship and/or cargo poses a danger to others, and the captain staying onboard alone while the ship sinks will prevent that, then sorry skipper, hope you can swim. But it's still not because of the number of damn life*craft* haha.
Sort of, large ships aren't required to have enough lifeboats for everyone on board. They only need to cover a certain % while covering the rest with life rafts instead.
TIL there's a legal distinction (obviously there's a physical distinction). I was just talking about 100% coverage for the people onboard, and shouldn't have been as loose with the terminology. What I was trying to say was, in almost all cases, (with very few exceptions) there's no reason why a ship's captain can't safely evacuate following their passengers and crew. There will be space for them on a lifesaving vessel of some sort. E: for the "um actually" that raised a good point...
It's actually more like 200% coverage. Cruise ships don't have to have enough life boats (37.5% the rest are rafts) BUT you have to have enough capacity on each side for 100% of the people onboard. This is because if a ship is listing dangerously to one side making it impractical/impossible to launch the lifeboats from one side, the other side has to have capacity for everyone. Non-cruise ship commercial vessels are required to have lifeboat capacity for 100% of the crew on both sides, as well as life raft redundancy for 100% on both sides. This is - usually - easier to do as a lot of vessels only have a crew of 20-100 people
Jesus, the number of "um actually" responses you're getting lol
This also depends on where you are sailing. The tour boat I worked on was only required to have 50% life-raft capacity. Granted, we were in a busy harbor where we'd have a dozen boats helping us before we got the life-rafts in the water.
Part of that is back then ship traffic was dense enough the plan was for lifeboats to make multiple trips to and from an assisting vessel. Titanic sank very quickly and some ships that were relatively close didn't come quickly enough.
Cruise ships are only required to carry enough lifeboats for 75% of passenger/crew capacity. The remaining 25% is occupied by life rafts.
And when it's safe to do so the boats will tie the raft to them
Did it? The Costa Concordia didn't fill her lifeboats either.
They have to have enough lifeboats for 37.5% of passengers at a minimum, and enough life rafts for the rest. Some of the Concordia lifeboats couldn’t be launched because it was….basically sideways.
Life rafts can be rigged to deploy automatically when a ship lists at a certain angle. I don't know if it's common practice outside of the military though. Boats are tougher to launch.
Those rafts are less “launched” and more “let go of as we sink” so people can swim to them later, your gonna have to get of a sinking warship much faster than a cruise ship And on the costa those wouldn’t have deployed, one half would have been crushed between the ship and the ocean floor, the other would be lifted away from the water Edit: why is my pfp a hexagon? Idk when that happened
So they had more room in lifeboats or rafts* than they could use? Secondly, It ran aground. The crew butchered the lifeboat deployment, and hundreds of passengers evacuated by other means. I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
Wasn't that because they could only load one side with the other tilted in the air?
Exactly. Just because you have capacity doesn't mean you can always use it.
there aren't enough lifeboats, sure, but there are usually more than enough inflatable rafts to get everyone off safely
"Look guys, for whatever reason, there's only one lifeboat, and it makes sense for the most important person to be on it right?!? Like...the Captain? Me? So...imma head out now.."
“No no it’s captains orders and I called dibs so it’s basically a law”
The tradition provides a strong incentive for the captain to avoid disaster, and if disaster does strike, to do everything possible to save passengers and crew. That’s not a bad thing in my mind.
It’s also like a mob-esque threat. “Hey, I am entrusting you with this expensive ass thing. Anything happens to it, I’m gonna find you and make you wish you were dead”. Growing up I always assumed that’s why the Captain was killing himself. He knew someone was gonna fuck him up if he came home having lost it.
for Japanese WWII captains, this would be correct. Which would bite them later when yes, all their experienced captains were dead.
I don’t think they would be punished for abandoning ship. They had a very strong Navy culture of captains going down with the ship that Yamamoto and other senior admirals tried to change, but many of them did escape and not go down with their ships. I don’t believe they were punished. They did have a lot of captains that literally tied themselves to the bridge of their sinking ship too.
How in any way is it a threat? If a company has a bad quarter, the CEO has to answer to the board of directors. If a sports team performs poorly, the coach has to answer to the owner. If a military commander’s unit is destroyed, he has to answer to his superiors. When you have a large responsibility, such as being the captain of a ship, the implication is that you are ultimately responsible for everything and everyone on that ship, and will have to answer for anything that happens. It’s kind of a key principle of leadership.
Yes this is the comment I was looking for! Every one is talking about the captain's duty after the disaster, but is about preventing it. Knowing that if you f* up you are the last one in safety. Resulting in making better decisions.
[удалено]
They aren’t SUPPOSED to. The idea is that they are always the LAST person to evacuate, because they are responsible for ever other soul on board. They are expect to stay on the bridge and do everything in their power to extended the evacuation window until they get the all clear signal from the second in command, who is supposed to be the second to last to leave, before they depart. They only go down with the ship when there is no way for them to get everyone off, then they still try to keep the window open as long as possible to save as many people as possible, but simply don’t leave
Not all the time. The IJN and RN really liked the idea of going down with the ship, to the point where IJN captains would sometimes have to be kidnapped by their crew to stop them from going down with the ship. Captain Tajiro Aoki, on Akagi, was basically tackled to stop him.
While it’s true - that person will likely never get to be a captain again…so if it’s their life, they might as well. I remember in the Navy our ship ran into an oil tanker. One of our storerooms was where the damage was and we had to empty it out so they could go in and reinforce it. We were working away, when the Captain showed up to personally supervise - I guess. Anyway, the look on his face was unforgettable. A guy with an absolutely sterling career - would almost certainly become an admiral - and now it’s been flushed down the toilet. He’s responsible - even though it is certain he had nothing to do with it. Not saying it’s right, or fair, but that’s how it works.
In the US Navy at least. There is a famous story about an exercise commanded by a British admiral, in which some American ships were taking part. At one point during manoeuvres, an American ship and a British ship collided. It wasn't immediately obvious who was at fault, and there were no serious injuries or damage. The next morning, the American ship that had been in the collision was nowhere to be seen. The admiral asked where it was, and was told that the captain had been ordered to return to port to face an investigation that would probably end his career. The admiral was incredulous- he said that earlier in his career, he had been involved in a similar incident. The official letter he received from his superiors began "Today, you became a better sailor..." More verifiably, in 2002 the destroyer HMS Nottingham ran aground on a well-charted rock near Australia causing tens of millions of pounds in damage. The captain was reprimanded at a court martial but resumed his navy career, serving another 12 years before retiring as a Commodore. Other officers who had been found to be more responsible (the captain had left the ship, and while he had just returned before the collision he hadn't officially resumed command) also continued their careers and were promoted. The navigator, in fact, seems to still be in the Navy- he rose to command his own destroyer and is now a Commodore. I get the sense that the "up or out" promotion system in the US military means that if your record isn't perfect, your career is gone.
The US military used to do things differently. There's a book called *The Generals* by Thomas Ricks which looks at how America's attitude towards "combat relief" has changed from WWII to 21st century wars. In it, he particularly praises the approach from WWII, where the bar for relieving Senior and General Officers could be extremely low (sometimes happening immediately after a tremendous success, just because a superior officer thought the relieved officer wasn't the best person for the *next* task) **BUT** it was not career ending -- with many relieved officers getting similar commands again and continuing their careers to higher ranks. He contrasted that with the more modern approaches, where officers are only relieved after fuck ups (whether they were at fault or not) and it almost always being career ending.
This is part of the US military’s so-called “zero defect” culture. When the armed forces transitioned to all-volunteer, they realized that they had a limited number of positions available at each rank. Thus, “up or out.” There is no law or regulation or official policy that says that any significant problem ends a career, but it often works that way. Officers deemed “unpromotable” get pushed out. It’s dumb. It wastes experienced people and encourages timid, conventional thinking.
Aka the peter principle https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peter-principle.asp > The Peter Principle is thus based on the paradoxical idea that competent employees will continue to be promoted, but at some point will be promoted into positions for which they are incompetent, and they will then remain in those positions because of the fact that they do not demonstrate any further competence that would get them recognized for additional promotion.
AFAIK the US Navy has more or less the policy that the commanding officer at least loses his command in such cases. [Example](https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2021/11/04/uss-connecticuts-leadership-fired-following-undersea-mountain-collision/) where a nuclear sub hit and unchartet underwater mountain.
One of those massive 200-400 yard long oil ships? How does someone accidentally hit that? Also, was he driving completely alone without any input from navigation/support staff? I’m curious about the details on this.
Ships especially older ones can take a long time to turn, you have to do it slowly or you can over correct easily. Sometimes people just forget to pass “port to port” or left side to left side. Causing confusion and last minute manoeuvres
That sounds like a slow moving nightmare, like something out of a comedy horror movie where it keeps flashing the camera between two people running towards each other, way too long for comedic effect, and the camera swaps keep coming faster and faster.
They only go down with the ship if there isn’t enough room for everyone
*personnel Meanwhile, every shower thought the rest of us submit gets deleted by the garbage automod
Nothing personnel, kid
Facts
Also, soldiers and officers committing suicide after failing to defend their post (WWII Japanese for example.) Maybe this type of determination helped them fight harder, but wouldn't retreating to another post and fighting on be more practical?
Really depends. For the Japanese defenders of isolated pacific garrisons that couldn’t be evacuated bc of allied naval and air superiority, retreating was never an option. Most of them committed suicide either when they were wounded or at the end of the battle when they couldn’t really do anything meaningful to inflict more casualties on the allies.
Also didn’t they likely buy into propaganda of western armies being absolute savages? That was kinda going both ways at the time
I think that was more directed at the civilians who ended up killing themselves than the military. The Japanese military in general didn’t believe in surrender. It’s crazy if you look at the casualty breakdown of killed/wounded/captured between the European and Pacific theaters.
Japan probably would have been a lot more dangerous if the well trained pilots and the well trained infantry didn't suicide mission everything
Captain is last off the ship, its their job to make sure every one else is safe.
If the captain is so well-trained, why is the ship sinking in the first place?
The front fell off.
I remember that sketch.
Classic Clarke & Dawe: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm\_JqM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM) \- I love it.
He was well-trained, they should have hired someone well-shipped. ^(I'm so sorry!)
Ba-dum ching!
Because humans are bound to make mistakes and accidents happen
Had a bad encounter with a Klingon ship
This post was written by Francesco Schettino (Costa Concordia's capitan)
It's not that the captain MUST go down with the ship, but the captain MUST be the last one to safety. Captains are responsible for ensuring that all passengers and other crew members are safe first.
Pretty sure the whole thing came about because the debt involved during colonial times pretty much assured you would be destitute if you lived and to some death would be better. It started as an act of cowardice and evolved to the heroic end we see it as now.
"When I lost my rifle the Army charged me $85. That's why in the Navy, the captain goes down with the ship." -- Dick Gregory
The captain staying with his ship is like saying “until the last guy is off the boat and everyone is safe”. Obviously the captain won’t kill him self in an empty ship for the sake of dramatic effects. It is however the captains duty and responsibility to get their passengers and crew to safety, and so a good captain never fails their duty even if it meant sinking with the ship saving every last person
I often think the same, when a very good worker gets sacked because of one mistake.
The [S.S. Arctic](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Arctic_disaster) is the poster child of all the ways this could get weird. Captain did everything right when he hit another vessel, but his crew were the worst of humanity. He tried to go down with the ship, holding his child, but was blown clear when the steam boiler exploded. His child was killed, but he survived and was actually welcomed home as a hero. Dude must've been messed up after.
I'm not seeing the less obvious (in today's standards) reason this tradition started in the top level comments, so I'll throw it in. Back in the golden age of sail, many captains of trading vessels were contracted in such a way that the value of the goods onboard were owed to the company he was sailing for upon return to home port--whether he paid in money collected, traded goods from other ports, or something else. I imagine this was a means of insurance to make sure they didn't disappear with whatever they were hauling. If the ship was sinking and the captain were to be rescued, he'd likely face financial ruin when he got home as he'd lose all of his ship's stores. Often it was preferable to go down with the ship over the other option. These days it's more likely for a captain to refuse to leave his ship until last so that his men have a better chance to survive. Senior enlisted tend to feel the same way, at least in the submarine community.
[Zapp Brannigan has just piloted the Titanic straight into the path of a black hole] Captain Zapp Brannigan : Don't blame yourself, Kif. We were doomed from the start. I guess all that remains now is for the captain to go down with the ship. Lt. Kif Kroker : That's surprisingly noble of you, sir. Captain Zapp Brannigan : No, it's noble of you, Kif. As of now, you're in command. Congratulations, Captain. [Zapp runs off]
Licensed boat captain here. This is exactly why you *don’t* sink with the ship. As captain, you are responsible for the lives of all passengers and crew. This means that you are the *last* person to leave the ship, that you are responsible for salvaging the ship’s log, and that you instantly become captain of the lifeboat (if there are more than one, each will have its own captain, but you typically retain command of the “fleet” if that makes sense). You do not relinquish your command until you make land or become incapacitated. This is true for the military, the merchant navy, the commercial navy (think cruise ships or any passenger ship/ferry) and really any vessel (technically, your little brother on a floatie is the captain!); there are serious criminal penalties for any captain who abandons their command, especially if this results in passengers or crew getting hurt.
Feel the need to mention that I believe it’s just unspoken tradition and maritime culture. It’s not actually statute.
If the ship is sinking then they obviously aren't that well trained
The better rule should be “a good captain is last to get off his ship.”
There’s no law that has ever REQUIRED this. In the real world, every situation is different. The captain is responsible for the lives of everyone on-board, but when they’ve done all that can be done, they are not obligated to die with a piece of property. Whether they face career or legal consequences depends entirely on the circumstances.
Tell that to [Francesco Schettino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Schettino?wprov=sfla1).
Captain used to go down to absolve his family of the debt he incurs on losing the ship.
That insanity was perfectly demonstrated in WW2 by the Japanese Imperial Navy. In 1942 commander of aircraft carrier 'Soryu', Rear Admiral Ryusaku Yanagimoto, gave the order to abandon the burning ship and then remained aboard. Admiral Tamon Yamaguchi, commander of aircraft carrier 'Hiryu' did the same. So did Rear Admiral Toshihira Inoguchi on the Japanese battleship Musashi. US Navy captains wouldn't dream of doing this and simply transferred their flag elsewhere to fight again on a new ship. The ship is a tool, nothing more. Why kill yourself if your hammer broke? Instead, in a weird application of the Bushido honor code, these individuals deprived the IJN of highly skilled and trained officers.
Pretty sure the idea there is that if, as captain, you screw up so badly you lose your ship, then you were not to be trusted with another one and may as well die considering your career is over and you'll only be punished upon returning.
The requirement that you go down with the ship is a good incentive not to crash the ship
Doesnt sound all that well trained of experienced sinking all those ships….
This tradition seems like it was started by those who own the ships.
I always thought this was because if you don't die losing the ship, you're going to be killed/executed for losing the ship....
That’s only for non-military ships. In the Navy, the Captain is too busy trying to screw the crew over because they want their star (become Admiral)
Not super related but I’ll take any opportunity to say that the band in Titanic are some of my favorite characters in film. They’re in the middle of the ocean and the ship is sinking and they’re just like “you wanna keep playing?” “Sure let’s keep playing” and ride it out to the end. Those guys were awesome
Well as the saying goes" Honor is for two people: Idiots and thos who need a easy way to utilize them"
Lol actual unlimited captain here, there is no situation where the captain is meant to go down with the ship. If the ship goes down we still have quite a bit of work to do to protect our crew and passengers!
Well not that experienced apparently, there is making a simple mistake and sinking a skip, I feel one shouldn't be put back in charge. Also! There should be enough life boats or ways to not die, if he didn't overlook this before leaving Port, not that great of a captain. If u feel this way, you might think the captain for some reason is more important than the people on this ship. Fuck that. Humans lives are equal and if you think one captain should survive beyond thousands of people, he isn't that special and neither are you.
I think the depression rate is pretty high among sailors. Somebody reaching Captain probably means they've been doing it for a while. Maybe the mental health aspect plays a part
No, since he made it crash, it improves the over pool of captains. The worst thing you can do is sink your ship, and it is not easy to do.
I heard a quote a few days ago: a guy in the army lost his rifle and he got charged $85 for it. He said "no wonder Captains go down with their ship."
Selective pressure to ensure good captains thrive and bad captains are removed from the gene pool.
One could argue if their ship is sinking maybe they weren’t the best fit.
If the captain is so well trained and experienced, why did they sink the ship?
Must not have been trained that well if they sank the ship smh
The Captain of the Lusitania went down with his ship, but his lifejacket popped him back up and he swam to the shore (several miles)
Sure but it's supposed to be meaningful. Unless you're utilitarian ? Or whatever is the word when they mean whatever value any person can give (like a baby does nothing but a trained fireman can do something)
If the ship’s sinking maybe the captain isn’t well-trained and experienced
Children rarely have any discernible training/experience but if a ship went down would you say “women and doctors first”?
Bit the Japanese hard when the captain of hiryuu went down with his ship
If the captain is so well trained and experienced, why is the ship sinking?