Okay all you sea dogs out there, tell me about this. I work with an ex-navy guy and he tells me that the Captain is always responsible even if he isn’t. That’s the way the Navy has always been run. If a meteor came out of the sky and struck a ship at sea and damaged it then the Captain is at fault. No matter how preposterous it may seem, the Captain is at fault. Is there a degree of truth in this. Does the top brass hang you out to dry even if it’s not your fault? I’d be interested in knowing.
Yes.
Rocks and shoals.....your crew should be trained and prepared for anything and everything no blaming Bush.
I would say this is more than hanging out to dry. This is the most incompetent fool in the world being the most incompetent fool in the world.
Anyone had enough of him to have him resign?
Well I was a airdale on a carrier and according to NAVY regs, any Officer who is qualified to be a sea going Officer of the Deck(OOD)has his final qual signed by the Commanding Officer, so thus any action(s)other than those that would be considered an Act of GOD by the NAVY thus become the fault of the Commanding Officer since in the end it is his ship, the only time I saw a Commanding Officer escape blame was when our ship hit a unknown rock during docking at which point the ship was under the direction of the harbor pilot.
Hope this cleans some of it up on why a Commanding Officer is alays at fault.
A member of the crew may be guilty, but the captain is always responsible. That’s why leadership and unity on a ship is so important - everyone wants to succeed, and failure is not an option.
The false premise here is that there are situations onboard ship that the skipper isn't accountable for. There aren't. That's what accountability is all about. I know that's an unusual concept these days, but that's how it is when one man's action (or inaction) can get another man killed.
Years ago we were enroute from San Diego to Norfolk, VA with another ship. We had a towing exercise with them off Mexico. The excercise turned into a collision with damage to our ship's hull, bridge, davits and their Papa boats; and Mike boats on the main deck (one of their ramps ended up on the main deck of the other ship.
After arrival in Norfolk we went into the shipyards to have sections of the hull replaced, etc.
No skipper replacement for our ship, I don't know the fate of the other ship's CO.
Now it seems a minor 'fender-bender' is curtains.
Not quite. That would be an Act of God and not the Captain's fault.
But any adverse event that the Captain reasonably should have foreseen and avoided, or trained his underlings to foresee and avoid, is indeed his responsibility. If he is asleep in his cabin when the ship runs aground on a charted reef, his fault lies in not ensuring that the Officer of the Deck was well trained enough not to scratch the paint before he turned over the bridge. This is the doctrine of "respondeat superior" and it applies to ship captains, airline pilots, physicians, and all other highly trained individuals in a position of ultimate command. If a captain screws the pooch, even the admiral on shore who recommended him for command may suffer adverse consequences to his career under this doctrine.
Same with the Titanic's captain when the ship hit the iceberg; even though he couldn't have known that that particular iceberg would be in that particular time and place, he knew there was an ice warning, he knew he was running at top speed, he knew it was a moonless night with low swells that made bergs harder to see, and he should have known his men in the crow's nest had no binoculars.
Even the submarine that hit a seamount in the Pacific a few years ago turned out to be the captain's responsibility. True, it was not marked on the charts they carried. However, those charts were not up to date, and on a later version it was indeed marked. It was the Captain's responsibility to get the most current version of the charts on board and in use before unmooring the boat from the pier. If the seamount had been uncharted even on current charts, then the captain probably would have escaped disgrace and relief of command, assuming there was no other violation such as operating at an unsafe speed or depth.
Respondeat superior is a tough but fair standard. There really is no other way to run a vessel without craven finger-pointing avoidance of responsibility in the event of an accident.
If a meteor is falling, it should be picked up by the ship’s defense system, at the least, NASA should know about it. So an alert would go out to ships in the general area, so, yes, the skipper would be responsible. However, I don’t recall what happened to the captains of the USS Stark or the USS Cole when they were attacked, but those were “relieveable” offenses, too.
Even if he isn't, he still is. Captians are there to provide the leadership necessary for the ship to run and the crew to perform. Failure to perform indicates a failure of leadership. Now I won't go so far as to say that a comet strike would end the career, but it wouldn't help.
The Navy taught me that “You can assign authority, you can not assign responsibility.” You are responsible to train and instruct those you allow to act in your place as relief.
Strange as it may sound to non-Naval ears, the Captain is the ship, the Captain becomes indistinguishable from the metal, electronics, weapons and crew.
The melding is so complete that for instance, when the Captain of The Sullivans arrives or departs the ship, the 1MC (ship's PA system) does not inform the crew that Captain Smith arrived/departed.
No, the bosun mate of the watch informs the crew, "The Sullivans, departing."