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?

Hear, hear, Harecare.

I don't know, I may not get a choice and be herded with the other women. Or I may be being helpful and getting people organised and calm and getting onto boats and if that meant sending a father in front of me as he was of no help to others or his family were too distraught without him then I hope that I would.

I like to think of myself as being very calm in a crisis so if I was being useful then in my arrogance I'd like to think that I would be able to help more people survive by staying 'til a bit later.

Well, there isn't and never has been a maritime law stating women and children first. As someone pointed out it arose from an earlier incident where the captain decided to send the women and children first. On a cruise ship, everyone is allocated a lifeboat at a particular muster point and thats where you go. However, when we were on our cruise last year when we had the muster drill prior to sailing, our two children were placed at the head of the queue for our particular boat. I placed myself behind them (being with them wasn't automatic, I just said to the women behind them "I'm going here and sticking with my children" and she was more than understanding). My hubby was sent to the back of the queue!. On the costa it seems that because the evacuation was delayed and the ship listed severely, a lot of lifeboats couldn't be launched so then where do you go. It's up to the captain to organise the evacuation but in this case the captain had 'fallen' off the ship and into a lifeboat so the crew had no direction at all. It makes me sad and angry all at the same time.

I think it is one of those things that brings out the best in some people and the worst in others.
There are always stories of great bravery and of great selfishness. I hope that I would be the former- but I don't think you can find out until you are there-and hopefully we won't be.

It's amazing that the 1st officer managed to fall into the lifeboat with him as well

Anyway, yeah, we won't really know til we are ourselves in this sort of situation. But still, I can't imagine pushing some kid away in order to get to lifeboat.

well while you have all been arguing, Dc, dh and I have got on the life boat, given up on the rest of you and lunched, on the way down 2 crew fell in, how lucky was that?

Tricky one - I am no feminist so don't care if it is not pC to like the idea of women and children first... whether that be through a door or on a lifeboat. I do think folks with dependants should go first, not sure where I stand on disabled... on the one hand they need help on to a boat, on the other, it could take ages to put them on and if the boat sunk fast then people without disabilities might miss the lifeboat because of the time factor of getting the one person on...

oh save the kids and leave disabled to drown

Does anyone know what the procedures are for evacuation of disabled people from planes? Assuming that we have landed on land and in one piece? That worries me because I regularly travel with a group of disabled people, and depending on the size of our group it can take 40 minutes to get them on and off. Are the crew meant to help carry people?

Not sure. I read that when they landed on Hudson couple years ago, they evacuated women and children first. I would imagine the disabled would be given priority.

Thanks. I saw that on telly the other day, that pilot was amazing to be able to do that.

I don't know about planes. I would imagine that it turns into a free-for-all. I would also guess that the crew are trained to get as many people off as quickly as possible, so presumably that would mean pushing 20 able-bodied people who'd got themselves to the door down the slide in the same time it might take to get one disabled person to the door (against a flow of panicked passengers) and off the plane.

Whenever we board a plane DH and I have a quiet discussion about what to do if the plane were to crash on takeoff or landing, and count the rows between us and the exits. Because there are four of us, we get the middle row, and the idea is generally that DH grabs DD1 and gets out the door on his side of the plane, I grab DD2 and get out my side, and we meet up on the tarmac. My feeling is that all four of us would stand a better chance if we split up and run than if we try to organise ourselves and leave as a group.

I'm sure that in an emergency it would play out differently, but I hope to God I never find that out for sure.

He was amazing, what sang froid!

Not like this one I have no experience of cruise ships but I sail (or used to) and it would never occur to me to jump ship before everyone else was safe.

Not sure. I read that when they landed on Hudson couple years ago, they evacuated women and children first. I would imagine the disabled would be given priority.

I wonder how they would do that in the relatively cramped environs of a plane cabin with people sat three abreast and a limited number of exits? I don't doubt what you say but it would seem to be a logistical nightmare.

Yeah, I wondered at that as well. Dunno. I'll look it up tomorrow when Wiki is back on.

ninedragons I fly a lot, and I always count the rows to the nearest exit much to the amusement of DP. I always sit near the back (statistically the safest place) and have my jacket ready to put over my head in the event of a crash landing to prevent burnage in a fire

Like I said I fly a lot and have too much time to think about these things

From reading about air crashes, you are right that sitting near an exit is important. Also counting the number of rows to the nearest exit. But the other mistake people make is to try and release their belt like a car seat belt, in the panic. So I admit I every so often on a flight "practice" releasing the belt to remind myself how it opens.

My Dad was at sea for most of his life. He has a medal for boarding a burning ship in the middle of the Pacific, helping the (exhausted) crew off and then fighting the fire. There is no way on earth would he (or my DH for that matter) ever put themselves ahead of anyone who needed help.

I think youngest first is a pretty fair way, an 18yr old just starting out in life or an 80yr old who has had a life?

The notion of women & children first is a bit of an odd concept all round.It doens't happen in other emergency/evacuation scenarios.

In building evacuations in the case of fire, Fire Marshalls don't usher out women and children first. As far as I am aware firefighters don't rescue women and children first from burning buildings.

Is it because the sinking ships are comparatively rare and our experiences are largely based on films that we think these archaic rules apply?

I fly quite a lot, but mostly on the same route. I don't really bother too much about the safety stuff because if the plane crashes we are all going to die (about 90% of the flight is over mountains).

I imagine that evacuating a ship is a bit different from a burning building or plane where the key thing is speed. There are still rules about the disabled though (at least our building had places specially for leaving people in wheelchairs for emergency crews). When I worked in a hospital there were also rules about evacuating patients.

Those miners from Chili who were buried for two months worked out quite a careful schedule for who would be rescued first. I don't think these things are easy. In general I would think children first, and for the smaller ones a parent/adult to look after them. Simply because otherwise they would probably die you would l hope that mos people would help a frightened child before pushing themselves forward.

I agree a small child should have a parent/guardian with them. But i don't agree a small child on a lifeboat without one would probably die. I think in most cases other passengers would look out for them. I know I certainly would!

The notion of women & children first is a bit of an odd concept all round.It doens't happen in other emergency/evacuation scenarios.

I think the decisions change depending on how many people are expected to survive.

I agree Serin. This jars with me hugely, as having grown up in the company of seamen (dad was a Captain, now a Pilot) the concept of the Capt getting off before his duty was discharged is just so discordant. I cannot imagine anyone I know, my father, sister etc doing that. It just wouldn't happen.

I think that generally people would hand a child over the heads of people to get them to safety -it seems to be what happens in a nightmare scenario. If it is life and death it is better to get the DC into the lifeboat alone. It is obviously better to have a parent with them, but someone would look after them. I can't imagine anyone saying it is better to stay with mother and die. Hopefully we will never be in the position, but I think that instinct would kick in we would do anything to save our DC.
I know that my DS is an adult man, but he is still my baby and I would want him in the lifeboat before me! You could say that my elderly, disabled mother has had her life, but I wouldn't want to leave her to her fate.

I thought actually the Titanic casualties depended more on the education of the survivors (those who could read and follow instructions were more likely to survive) and the location at impact (those lower in the ship more likely to have died - not poor folks, inside at the bottom).