Ships Nostalgia banner

Concordia disaster: Should a captain go down with his ship?

23K views 122 replies 57 participants last post by  Supergoods 
#1 ·
Captain Schettino abandoned his ship, but who’s to say how we would behave in a similar situation.

Thought provoking piece here by Theodore Dalrymple in the DT.
 
#67 ·
Reports in the papers here in Aus. say the Captain "fell into a lifeboat", clutching a laptop and mobile phone, where he found the Second officer and one other officer already in the boat.
The actual launching of lifeboats on these passenger ships has always fascinated me given the very few numbers of actual Seamen onboard these ships. I'm sorry, but to entrust a barman or cabin steward to lower a lifeboat safely, fully loaded seems rather a dangerous practise.
 
#68 ·
The launching of modern boats is not so difficult. We have the boats prepared by the preparation party in advance of the abandon ship, so they are at embarkation level and bowsed in in advance. The boat preparation party is a mixture of seamen, engineers, but mainly hotel crew under the direction of the bosun.

Each of the boats is under the command of a seaman (officer or rating) but the crew again may be hotel. When fully loaded, the boat is lowered remotely by the boat commander from inside the boat. the boat has both "on load" release and remote "off load" release and the painter can be released remotely. The part which concerns me most is their getting away from the ship's side, as invariably the crew forget about the boat hooks.

The bulk of the crew are evacuated using life rafts. This allows the passengers to be evacuated in good time (in theory) while the crew can still carry out their tasks to the end, be it evacuation, fire fighting, containment or whatever.

Whether everything goes to plan in a real emergency remains to be seen, but with lots of training and regular certification by US Coastguard etc, I hope that they will be able to do their jobs when the lights go out!! If not, I have not done my job properly!
 
#70 · (Edited)
There has been some discussion on the adjacent thread which concludes that, as you so rightly say, the initial grounding in this case is essentially an MCRM issue

CRM, in its seagoing form as Bridge Resource Management, has been around in shipping for twenty five years or so and, as Maritime Crew Resource Management, is about to become mandatory.

Interestingly, a correspondent in that thread points out that Carnival do all their simulator work at their Dutch facility, and training is all "in house".

That seems to me to be not the best idea; I believe very firmly in using third party training. In house training can reinforce corporate bad practice. There have been other cases of Carnival's Italian officers choosing to "do it by eye" rather than using all available means of fixing position and becoming aware of other vessels.
 
#73 ·
Further to that - I did point out, on the said adjacent thread, my observations of the command hierarchy on the two Costa ships on which I have travelled.
It seemed to be a rigid top down, almost military, set up - Not at all conducive to Crew Resource Management principles.
Questioning one's line manager would probably be considered a bad career move, but I might be wrong.
 
#88 ·
I asked this question a bit tongue in cheek but since I never stayed at sea long enough to rise to a position of authority on the bridge I have oft wondered what sort of OLD MAN I would have made. With perfect hindsight looking at the way I developed as an IT manager I would say most definitely AUTOCRATIC. So maybe it just as well I reverted to being a landlubber at the earliest opportunity !
 
#75 ·
Not democracy....but listening skills coupled with a touch of humility!

I think what we are looking at is "situational leadership" in management development jargon.

In an emergency situation it will be appropriate for a leader to be directive/autocratic; a consultative style would be inappropriate as the situation calls for quick, firm action. Similarly, where a subordinate is inexperienced, this style will be appropriate where errors are likely to be made or the subordinate simply hasn't got the requisite skills.

In all other situations, the leader should recognise that s/he may not have all the answers or may even be 'in error' in their judgement if they are not aware of all the relevant facts that have a bearing on the situation.

Their decision/interpretation of the situation needs to be challenged so that a review of all the facts is taken into account.

That, in my book, isn't about democracy on the bridge, in an aircraft cockpit, in the boardroom, or in any other leadership situation. It is about making the best use of the talents and experience of all involved.....but ultimately it is the leader (in this particular instance, the Captain) who decides and carries the can for the consequences.

Hence my comment about listening, and having a touch of humility to recognise that we are all fallible.
 
#76 · (Edited)
A lot of it is -

1. Have you, as a junior officer, conveyed the situation clearly and correctly to your superior and have you been understood?

2. If you see your superior officer making what you think is a mistake, what do you do about it?

Clearly, mutually understood procedures help in retaining good discipline whilst avoiding mistakes.

There is a legendary case in aviation CRM concerning an East Asian airliner, on a domestic flight, approaching an airport. As the plane makes its approach, the ground proximity alarm sounds. Since this alarm is cancelled when the undercarriage is down, this means the wheels are still up. The Captain cancells the alarm and continues. The control tower call the plane and advise that the undercarriage does not seem to be deployed. The Captain replies "Don't tell me how to fly an aircraft!" and lands with the wheels up.

So - what was the Co-Pilot doing?[/I]

An historic example from the annals of the Royal Navy would be the loss of the VICTORIA due to collision with the CAMPERDOWN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Victoria_(1887)

The idea of MCRM is to prevent that sort of thing happening in the wheelhouse, and indeed the engine room and elsewhere.
 
#77 ·
Similar to the 1972 BEA Trident crash. The Captain forgot to raise the flaps and a junior officer is supposed to have tried to advise him of this.

When I was a Cadet with P & O in the seventies we were actually encouraged to raise any concerns with the watch Officer!
 
#81 ·
There's a saying that "If you can't change the person then change the person", and this might be apposite.

There are undoubtedly some lessons to be learned from the UK National Health Service. If you've watched the 1950s film Doctor in the House, there is a memorable scene about a Consultant Surgeon, Sir Lancelot Spratt, and his leadership style (take a look at this vignette at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWjAeAa52o ).

We can laugh at it, but many of the older generation of doctors whom I've worked with say that in many respects it represents the hospital culture at that time.

Things have, and are still, moving on in getting the question of medical competence sorted out and taking action on the (fortunately) very small percentage of doctors who are not up to the mark. The latest moves by the General Medical Council, pressured originally by the Blair government and then given an even bigger kick by the Shipman enquiry, is around regular re-licencing as "Fit to practice medicine" for all doctors working in the UK on a five-yearly cycle.

Doctors have to maintain a portfolio of evidence which must include:
- five annual appraisals
- evidence pf professional development and continuous medical education (keeping skills up to date)
- medical performance statistics (including fatalities)
- at least one multi-source feedback (360-degree) survey which includes feedback from peer doctors, junior doctors, health professionals (nurses and the like), management, administration and Patients. The surveys are seen by other doctors trained in feedback-facilitation, and they are (in most hospitals) tasked with taking appropriate action where the feedback is indication that patients may be at risk. Actions can include remedial re-training as well as referral to the GMC and their Royal College, with serious implications for their career. Incompetent doctors will be struck off the medical register.

My company runs the feedback surveys for various NHS Trusts around the UK, and the confidential survey process does provide candid feedback about doctors....and reassuringly for readers, 99% is extremely positive. I've also been treated by Consultants and Specialist Registrars whose surveys I have run beforehand. The experience I've had as a patient has reflected the comments in their reports, again reassuring about survey validity.

So the question is "Are the performance management systems currently in place in the mercantile marine robust and fit for purpose?"

I was looking at my discharge book this morning with its Copy of Report of Character: For Ability and For General Conduct. I seem to remember the options being:
VNC - voyage not completed (jumped ship)
DR - decline to report (naughty boy/girl!)
Good - which really meant bad, but couldn't be pinned down
Very Good - which could range from acceptable to absolutely brilliant

Is this still the case?
 
#82 ·
I have a friend, a Master, who has a friend who does the same job on a 747. The pilot says that so far as all pilots are concerned their job lasts six months at the longest that being the period between check outs (simulator, flying with the check pilot, etc) and he is simply staggered that we don't work that way.
 
#83 ·
I've got quite a few friends who fly big jets for a living, and it's not unusual during a sim check for the Captain to do something rather stupid (having been briefed to do so!) - and it's the job of the First Officer to follow the correct procedure to resolve the situation, It might go something along the lines of the following scenario.

The Captain is flying the approach, the aircraft is slightly below glideslop and the airspeed is a few knots too low, and still reducing. FO: "Captain, check glideslope, check airspeed." No response from Captain. FO:"Captain, airspeed low, below glideslope, increase power." No response, aircraft descending through 500' and is still not stabilized. FO: "Captain, GO AROUND. GO AROUND", i.e. don't land, apply go around power and get away from ***ulo granitus.

SP
 
#84 ·
That leads us nicely onto a subject discussed at a London NI meeting recently - "the role of simulation in assessment". No doubt quite a few of the people "here" were "there", so to speak, but I remember one speaker, a BA check pilot, was amazed that we don't do it already. The Chief Examiner for the MCA was against it on the grounds of the time required to do it. Several Pilots thought that simulation is not yet realistic enough for ship handling.. etc, etc...

Personally I think that simulation in strictly controlled conditions (using a bank of pre-approved scenarios) would be useful for assessing say, Colregs response in heavy traffic... But that's for another thread, maybe.

Personally I think we are different to aircraft
 
#85 ·
The latest slew of STCW amendments talk about another raft of mandatory training courses, including refreshers, assertiveness training, security training, leadership courses for those with senior tickets (a 10 day course is quoted) and a few others - the colleges must be rubbing their hands in glee.
Not to mention e-learning, or as most of us will know it - unwelcome intrusion into our ever diminishing and ever more sacred 'time off'.

As the years go on, and with an eye on the MAIB, the colleges (and what they produce) I'm more and more convinced that many of the aforementioned amendments and courses serve no purpose but to reinforce the tick box culture now prevalent in the industry.
I think we'd be far better served if we got to the root of the problem - STCW in its basic form is not fit for purpose, and I would describe the solution of "more courses" as being akin to fighting only very small parts of a large forest fire - we'll hold back disaster for a while, but eventually it'll overwhelm us.
With my present company I'm now seeing so called British 'Foundation Degree' cadets onboard in a regular basis - these are lads who during their 3 year cadetship gain all their exemptions upto Masters level - i.e. all they have to do is gain the seatime and sit the oral. These are chaps who during their college phases (2 years of - they only spend 12 months at sea) cover management, leadership and team building in great depth.
However when I ask them to name the constiuent parts of a magnetic compass and tell me about the various co-efficients I'm met with a blank look - remember these are lads who have already completed the competencies for Masters.

It's not surprise that bearing in mind the above, and what awaits us in the future that more and more of my contemporaries are seeking to get out of the maritime industry, at least in the seagoing sense, as soon as possible.
 
#90 · (Edited)
It certainly applies in the marine industries.

Incidentally, that is one reason why none of the Filipino officers I know wants to sail with a Filipino Master or Chief - they say their fellow citizens turn into monsters of egotism as soon as their bags are carried into the big day cabin.

But the Koreans and the Chinese are ten times worse. Curiously, I have noticed that Chinese junior officers are quite happy to question senior officers, and indeed Pilots, of other nationalities - to the extent that I have knownBritish and Australian senior officers to accuse them of being arrogant.

I used to think this was a good sign, but have come to realise that it is just Chinese racism at work - they will question a foreign senior because the foreigner is inferior, but they will never question a Chinese senior, even if his course of action is downright suicidal, because he is Chinese, and therefore to be respected.
 
#96 ·
Hello mariner 44 #81
A bit off course I know but I worked in Edinburgh university staff club when James Robertson Justice was rector of the university. I refer to the actor who was called Lancelot Spratt that you mention in your post. He was not acting as the arrogant bully he portrayed , that was just the way he was. Had a nice gull wing mercedes but. Regards to you all Ronnie
 
#113 ·
So why would the institute register as a trademark a procedure if they did not intend to protect that trademark in some way? Surely it was not to restrict the use of an effective way of saving a choking person! The only other reason would be to generate income.
No, there are other reasons to register a trademark, such as to prevent it's misuse or misappropriation. Again, that subject is covered in the provided link.

What has not been provided is a source for the claim that Heimlich is actively seeking payment for the use of their word. So far it is all speculation and hearsay.
 
#114 ·
Well I can only tell what I have been told by the Red Cross. They still teach the same procedure for choking but have removed any reference to Heimlich. I can not see any way in which the Red Cross was misusing the name!

Just because we cannot find proof does not mean the claim is incorrect, or, for that matter, correct - it only means we cannot find proof!
 
#115 ·
As a former St John's first aid trainer my recollection of the use of the term 'Heimlich manoeuvre' was that it might have been in one reprint of the manual, but I cannot be certain - For as long as I can recall the procedure was officially termed abdominal thrusts.
We were told not to use the term Heimlich manoeuvre, but it was never satisfactorily explained why we should not do so.

In my copy of the 16th edition of Taber's (I must buy a new one!) the Heimlich maneuver is shown in full with credit to H.J.Heimlich, and no hint that it was any way a registered procedure.
Also mentioned is the so called Heimlich sign, which is where a person who is choking tends to hold their throat with the thumb and forefinger.

On a medical website that I use the only use of Heimlich is the Heimlich valve, aka flutter valve, which is used to treat a Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (collapsed lung).

Many Physicians and Surgeons give their names to some apparatus or procedure and medicine could be more complicated if the practitioner were prevented from using commonly accepted terms upon threat of legal writ.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top