The practice that occured in 1912 in regards to ice I am sure is different then that which is applied today. As for keeping the schedule. That is a lesson that can not be learned. In the modern world money drives all, if you are late, you are loosing money, if you sit at a pier waiting for something you are loosing money. Technically when a ship is offloading it is loosing money.
In regards to Smith...he did what masters do. If tomorrow I get in a accident in the St. Clair river while doing 12 knots. Other captains will testify at the hearing that everybody does it. Smith was indeed NOT reckless.
Keeping that in mind, there are instances that are reckless, there are captains that are reckless. Those tend to get weeded out pretty early.
My rather blunt post was in regards to this quote from Mark:
My understanding of that is that by keeping the schedule and doing what the master thinks is right, is in the writters opinion wrong. It also implies (in my mind) that keeping schedule is neglecting the masters responsibility for the entire ship, crew, cargo etc, without due guard to safety, and that using the schedule to take calulated risks is a "cop out". There are examples of where a skipper has done that,I doubt highly that E.J. Smith would have taken the low road.
\quote {"Doing one's job" isn't a good enough excuse, nor does it justify such recklessness, especially when the preservation of lives is a part of the job for many mariners.}
The use of the work "such" implies to me that we are talking about an individual. This also states in my view that because a master is charged with lives instead of cargo that just "doing the job" which at times means safety gets a back seat is reckless. This has direct corralation to me, and E.J. Smith. Both of us have made decisions for the best interest of the company while safety a very close second. It implies that those who do it, are reckless. The difference between E.J. Smith and I (besides the obvious) is that his luck ran out, and mine hasn't....yet (knock on wood).
I couldn't agree more. But there in lies the problem. "Doing one's job" must be done, in order for a ship to sail, no it doesn't always pay off, but more often then not, it does.
This is where I get the lack of maritime knowledge from. It must be that way, or things don't get done. It isn't always that way mind you, but there are times where it must be that way. Ships are governed by money and nothing else. Having said that, there are companies out there (Interlake Steamship comes to mind) where company policy is in place that allows the master the leeway without reprisal to seek shelter if it is needed. The Lakes in general are good about that, of course that is because they are almost always in restricted waters, but you get the idea. On lakes the economics of shipping are considerably different then they are in salt. Shipyards are closer, fines in some cases are much much higher, etc.
To say that something shouldn't be a certain way, without the understanding of why it is that way and to state (in my opinion it was stated that way) it as fact is what prompted me to post what I did.
This comparing apples to the 1943 World Series. There is no direct corrallation to the two. One (the bus driver) operates under completely different guidelines, and operates in a completely different setting. On land, normally safety comes first.
\quote {Destroying/losing your cargo (i.e. passengers) in an attempt to keep to your schedule is pointless.}
Again with the schedule. First, the amount of accident free shipping that goes on compared to the accidents is astounding. So the same practices used by 100's of countries and companies normally work...ok...and the economics show that the schedule is usually kept. That means sometimes safety get's a back seat sometimes. The fact remains that however "pointless" one thinks it might be is SOP for most shipping companies.
In a perfect world what Mark suggests would be the truth and what I say would be against it. But in reality it just isn't that way. Unless you get companies to stop liking money, or convince Unions to stop requiring overtime that is the way it will continue to be.
In regards to Smith...he did what masters do. If tomorrow I get in a accident in the St. Clair river while doing 12 knots. Other captains will testify at the hearing that everybody does it. Smith was indeed NOT reckless.
Keeping that in mind, there are instances that are reckless, there are captains that are reckless. Those tend to get weeded out pretty early.
My rather blunt post was in regards to this quote from Mark:
My understanding of that is that by keeping the schedule and doing what the master thinks is right, is in the writters opinion wrong. It also implies (in my mind) that keeping schedule is neglecting the masters responsibility for the entire ship, crew, cargo etc, without due guard to safety, and that using the schedule to take calulated risks is a "cop out". There are examples of where a skipper has done that,I doubt highly that E.J. Smith would have taken the low road.
\quote {"Doing one's job" isn't a good enough excuse, nor does it justify such recklessness, especially when the preservation of lives is a part of the job for many mariners.}
The use of the work "such" implies to me that we are talking about an individual. This also states in my view that because a master is charged with lives instead of cargo that just "doing the job" which at times means safety gets a back seat is reckless. This has direct corralation to me, and E.J. Smith. Both of us have made decisions for the best interest of the company while safety a very close second. It implies that those who do it, are reckless. The difference between E.J. Smith and I (besides the obvious) is that his luck ran out, and mine hasn't....yet (knock on wood).
I couldn't agree more. But there in lies the problem. "Doing one's job" must be done, in order for a ship to sail, no it doesn't always pay off, but more often then not, it does.
This is where I get the lack of maritime knowledge from. It must be that way, or things don't get done. It isn't always that way mind you, but there are times where it must be that way. Ships are governed by money and nothing else. Having said that, there are companies out there (Interlake Steamship comes to mind) where company policy is in place that allows the master the leeway without reprisal to seek shelter if it is needed. The Lakes in general are good about that, of course that is because they are almost always in restricted waters, but you get the idea. On lakes the economics of shipping are considerably different then they are in salt. Shipyards are closer, fines in some cases are much much higher, etc.
To say that something shouldn't be a certain way, without the understanding of why it is that way and to state (in my opinion it was stated that way) it as fact is what prompted me to post what I did.
This comparing apples to the 1943 World Series. There is no direct corrallation to the two. One (the bus driver) operates under completely different guidelines, and operates in a completely different setting. On land, normally safety comes first.
\quote {Destroying/losing your cargo (i.e. passengers) in an attempt to keep to your schedule is pointless.}
Again with the schedule. First, the amount of accident free shipping that goes on compared to the accidents is astounding. So the same practices used by 100's of countries and companies normally work...ok...and the economics show that the schedule is usually kept. That means sometimes safety get's a back seat sometimes. The fact remains that however "pointless" one thinks it might be is SOP for most shipping companies.
In a perfect world what Mark suggests would be the truth and what I say would be against it. But in reality it just isn't that way. Unless you get companies to stop liking money, or convince Unions to stop requiring overtime that is the way it will continue to be.
