To wonder if women and children should be evacuated first?

[lesley33]

I have been reading about the recent sinking of the Italian cruise ship and one thing that struck me was the passengers complaining that womena nd children weren't evacuated first. Now many would agree that children should be evacuated first. But should women be evacuated before men?

If I was on a sinking ship I would want to be evacuated early on. But really AIBU to think there is no real reason why I should be evacuated ahead of a male passenger?

ffs

In an emergency you would like to think that you could put your faith in the crew. However I dare say that they were acting in good faith, believing messages from the top. Hopefully every organisation will now review their safety/emergency procedures.

While there is no excuse for poor training of the crew or not carrying out proper evacuation procedures initially (though I query whether anyone expected the ship to tip over as it did except with hindsight and abandoning ship really must be a last resort) there must be occasions when, even with all the training, blind panic takes over. When the ship pitched over it must have been truly desperate, and I really wouldn't blame someone for trying to save themselves over others. I think putting others - strangers - before yourself or your nearest and dearest in such a situation is the exception, not the norm in human behaviour. Primarily we have a strong survival instinct. I can't honestly say what I would do in real fear for my own or my childrens' lives.

Aside from all the questions as to the behaviour of the captain and crew, I hope the investigation addresses questions as to whether the design of the boat was sturdy enough and whether the navigation systems were accurate.

Men have willies which help keep them afloat in water. Sounds stupid but it's a proven fact that they help the body float. That's why they float in the bath.

However I dare say that they were acting in good faith, believing messages from the top. Hopefully every organisation will now review their safety/emergency procedures.

I think its always clearer in hindsight, I suspect they thought they could handle it one way (pumping out the water while beaching straight up or getting into harbour) ...and then the ship turned over and it was all change.

I also don't think it is useful to draw comparisons with the crew of a warship who are always in potential severe danger, or even of an aircraft where any emergency can easily become catastrophic, purely from the fact that you are airborne.

I would expect the crew to make all reasonable efforts to get people off the boat but then to get the hell out of there themselves and not to go in for out and out heroism, be there until every last passenger was off and go down with the ship. I don't think you ever imagine you will be in fear of your life when you sign up to work on a cruise ship.

I don't think you ever imagine you will be in fear of your life when you sign up to work on a cruise ship.
Why not? Don't they conduct safety drills?
The same as with aircraft.

Same thing as when you travel. That's why there are safety procedures and equipment.

Whatmeworry, regardless of what they thought they could do, it was a dangerous situation and they should have instructed passengers to go to meeting points at the very least. NOT back to the cabins!

I think that you could at least leave them in life jackets while you find out what was happening.

Lueji

"Why not? Don't they conduct safety drills?
The same as with aircraft."

Yes, they should. Wasn't what I was saying. Read my post again.

What were you saying then?

Please explain to me as if I was very stupid.

Aircraft can also land on water and have reasonable time to evacuate.
As ships can very quickly sink if they are in a storm for example.
It's not the same thing, but it is still true that anyone would be very stupid not to imagine ever that they might be in fear of their lives when signing up to work on a cruise ship.

Although you are right, actually, when signing up I don't imagine that people are ever in danger of their lives, only when actually working on the cruise ship. ;-)

From what I read there is some puzzlement over why it tipped in the direction it did, with the hole exposed. There is a suggestion they might have been pumping water into the watertight compartment on the other side, to restabilise it (which is apparently the way it is supposed to work) but then they pumped too much in so it suddenly went over.

I also read in the Guardian today that investigators want to know whether the delay was due to the cruise ship company not giving him permission to evacuate because of the potential compensation claims!

However that still doesn't leave me with much sympathy with the decision not to get the passengers at least mustered sooner. I understand the argument that abandoning ship has to be a last resort - because it is risky in itself - but there's a big difference between that and not doing anything for an hour. It's not like we don't know from experience how quickly a situation can turn bad on a boat. And these big shallow drafted tall cruiseliners have been criticised in the past for their potential instability.

I was on a cruise 20 years ago where the ship ran aground, very gently onto a sandbank while manoeuvring at low speed in a harbour. (IIRC we were all on shore at that point.) It was the first voyage of the season and the sandbank had actually shifted, don't know why the charts hadn't been updated though. We were delayed until they'd got divers out to check for damage to the underside of the boat... presumably because even if you THINK there's no damage done the consequences could be too serious if it turns out there is. I honestly don't know how anyone can prang their ship really badly and then not think it a good idea to put into action immediately the plan which will cover you if the worst-case-scenario comes true.

going back to the women and children first thing, I really do not see why women shoudl get first dibs on the life boats. Maybe back in the birkenhead days when women where wearing layers of heavy clothing that woudl weigh a tonne when wet and not allow them to swim, and when women did not do physical fitness swimming lessons etc and wer ebasicly told to be incapable, but not today. todya it should be children and those who need assistance/are less able to move.
I also notice that the more liekly someoen is to go on about how men should of course let women on the life boats first, are also the ones most likely to be sexist, and tell women that if they go out at night alone they share some of the responsibility if they get attacked, that all parental leave should be taken by the mother, that sexually harressing a woman by yelling at her or worlf whistling is just a bit of fun etc.

My parents went on a cruise and they all had to meet at the muster station with their life jackets on. Only by the ship on shore were a load of school children who started singing the Titanic theme very loudly. Concentrates your mind, that.

Something I think everyone needs to bear in mind is that we are all looking at this awful event with hindsight - if you were on the ship, would you have known that it was going to actually sink and drowning was a real possibility?

Part of the reason for the loss of life in the Titanic disaster was that passengers were reluctant to leave what they thought of as the relative safety of the big liner to get into a small rowing boat in the middle of the ocean at night. Those left on the ship may well have thought another liner would come and pick them up in time (at least for a while). So who would you put on the lifeboats if this is in the back of your mind? I'd hate to be in the position of having to choose which is the safest place for my children.

Incidentally, I believe more British went down with the Titanic than American, one theory being that the Brits were polite and queued!