What is the rationale for a Captain to go down with a sinking ship?
I don’t think there is any expectation of him doing that but it is a show that he tried to do everything to save it until the last moment. A captain who leaves before it is clear there is no hope would be irresponsible.
Yes. The captain of the Lusitania, for instance, got off safely. But the captain is expected to stay at his post at long as he can to direct the crew and try to get as many people off safely as possible. Similarly, the crew is supposed to put the safety of the passengers ahead of their own.
Hi Sailor, your user name is the one I use on other sites-but as it was taken I came up with Frabus and this is my first post. The rational for the Captain going down with the ship was an economic one. As long as he was there representing
the company the vessel wasn’t abandoned and he could negotiate with would be salvors. This sometimes enabled the owners and underwriters to settle for a towing fee instead of being sued for salvage. Also the Captain if he actually did perish with his vessel was often regarded as a hero rather than the incompetent who lost his ship.
** Frabus**, welcome aboard the board!
(sorry…couldn’t resist the welcome…)
And there are other theories, too … I read an anecdote from a Navy noncom about being billed for a piece of equipment that was stolen from him. When he complained, he was told that he was responsible for the security of any piece of Navy property entrusted to him. “So, if a Jeep I was driving was stolen, I’d have to pay for that too?” he asked. On an affirmative response, he mused, “Now I know why the captain always goes down with his ship …”