Navy warship reaches sailboat

SAR (world-wide Search And Rescue) is $15.96-18.85/year per person: https://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=104

There is family medical EVAC (after rescue) available for a few hundred bucks per year. I would say these parents were not prepared and put their own lives and the lives of their children at risk (all while costing the US taxpayers a hefty sum). I'm starting to think the problem with our society is that we're removing natural selection from our gene pool. It's a damn good thing this family wasn't in Benghazi as the US government wouldn't have sent help.
 
Who cares about the cost of this rescue... It s all good practice anyway.

How much does it cost to fly Air Force One so the community organizer in chief can go play a round of golf or raise a fe bucks for the DNC or send the first "not so lady" to china , aspen or God, sorry... Allah..., knows where?
 
quote:
Originally posted by Les Hall

Bill, I'm not sure why you keep saying that I want new laws and government intervention. We are talking only about personal responsibility. All I am suggesting is that there be consequences to irresponsibility. None of the eight states I mentioned above have laws prohibiting hiking that I know about. In NH, if you want to go hiking alone in flip flops and shorts with no compass or GPS, have at it. However, if your actions require teams of searchers to risk their lives to find you, prepare to pay. And they did indeed have a life threatening emergency, caused by their own actions. They took a sick baby a thousand miles offshore on a boat ill equipped for the voyage - with no insurance. Now they are on the internet begging for money as if they are the victims here. They didn't get caught in a big storm, they didn't hit anything, they didn't have an accident of any sort and, by all indications, the baby was sick when they put her on the boat in Mexico, despite getting cleared by a Mexican doctor. If the timeline reported by the media is correct, they didn't even call for help until they lost steering and were taking on water, ignoring the baby's condition. As I said before, it was pure luck that they broke down within reach of US rescuers. If they were in the middle of the pacific in a typical pacific storm, all four would have perished. To clarify, I am NOT advocating any new laws and I am not suggesting the government control who sails and who doesn't. I am suggesting that there be consequences for irresponsibility.

PJ, the captain of the bounty was responsible for two deaths and the loss of the vessel. He knowingly and willingly sailed directly into the path of Hurricane Sandy, putting the entire crew at risk. In addition, the NTSB report stated that, although the Bounty took on water even in good conditions and wood rot had been discovered, the captain gave no order to ensure all onboard pumps were fully operational before departing. This, despite his knowledge that the ship was sure to encounter rough seas as it sailed closer to Sandy, according to the report. Here's the report from one of the crew members of the "Be Good Too" cat that was abandoned on the way to Bermuda (in Winter). You can judge for yourself the wisdom of the voyage:

http://www.wavetrain.net/news-a-views/558-helicopter-evacuation-abandoning-be-good-too

I personally have no problem with their decisions. They were adults who knew the risks involved. Granted, they were in the first vessel ever built with that design, had no extended shake down cruise and did set out in the middle of winter, fully aware of the possibility of winter gales. But equipment failure was the primary reason for the incident and they had no babies on board.

We are all lucky to have brave men like November Charlie who will put their lives on the line to save us from the wrath of the ocean. They have, unfortunately, limited resources. CG budgets are usually the first to be cut in tough times. Those limited resources shouldn't have to be consumed by those who venture offshore without the experience or equipment to voyage successfully.

Click to expand...


The problems there are twofold:

First, those guys that go hiking in shorts and flip flops and a SAR case is undertaken - I don't have clue as to the numbers and actual percentages for inland SAR like that, but how often are they the ones to make the request for rescue, versus a friend or relative getting panicked and making the call?

Second, and more importantly, as you mentioned, the sailboat in question didn't call for help until they lost steering and were taking on water. How much longer would they have waited if footing the bill was influencing their decision? People always want to save face. It's just human nature. More often than not, they tend to wait until it's overwhelmingly clear that they need help before they call for it. Lost time cannot be regained - waiting until things go from bad to worse does absolutely nothing but allow things to go from bad to worse, and financial concerns are a powerful motivator to humans (I'll even dare to say to sailboaters in particular!)
 
Here's the "hike safe" page from NH.

http://hikesafe.com/index.php?page=costs

One line stands out. "You are responsible for yourself, so be prepared." That seems to be a unique concept these days. Nonetheless, we get our share of folks from Massachusetts who are so used to the government meeting their needs that they just assume they can wander through the presidential range without skills or equipment and are shocked when they can't get a phone signal or wifi on the side of a mountain.

Not sure why this particular case angers me so much. I guess it's because of the total lack of respect for the ocean. The guy blew out his drifter the first time he used it, nearly getting the prop and keel fouled. The sail must have been very old and in bad shape. The weather wasn't that bad yet he still managed to lose his engine, take on water and lose all power - none of which occurred because of an accident, just poor maintenance or ignorance. I wouldn't have given all that a second thought if he didn't have two very young children on board. To me, anyone with an ounce of common sense would have come about and headed back in on day three when he lost his sail or, at the very least, when the baby got sick.

These comments are directly from the wife's blog:

Day 6, March 25: "Lyra is absolutely the most challenging part of the trip. And Lyra, if you are reading this someday, know that we don’t mean you were a “bad baby,” or anything of the sort. You’re a wonderfully active, happy, ingenuitive (is that an actual word?) child. You are vocal, and curious, and BUSY, just as you should be. WE are the nutballs who decided to set to sea with you. Trust me, we have no one else to blame for bringing a 13 month old to sea than ourselves. I keep telling myself that Bora Bora will be worth it, worth what I’m now calling ‘extreme parenting.’"

Day 8, March 26: "I think this may be the stupidest thing we have ever done. ‘Stupid’ is the number one word that resonates throughout my day as we tick the slow minutes away to the kids’ bed times each night. ‘Why am I doing this?’ ‘What the ... was I thinking?’ ‘Why did we pick such a hard way of traveling?’ Stupid."

Day 11, March 29: "The first few days the wind was accompanied by an incredibly awful sea state. It had each of us in a foul mood. There were tears (on my part). There were bruises (not from each other, geez), but from getting knocked all over the cabin …. Lyra and I are having the hardest time sleeping, she because she is so tiny that a single roll of the cabin in one direction could roll her 1.5 times in one direction, and then back the same amount the other way."

To me, that doesn't sound like the writing of an experience sailor who knew exactly what to expect at sea. This reads like a weekend sailor who may have lived on a boat but never embarked on a cruise with 2 small kids before.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Radioactive

--> BruceIII :)

For what it's worth, the moment they left the dock they violated my rules regarding children aboard: Each child is assigned a responsible adult who who will ensure the safety of the assigned child when "bad stuff happens". In this case that would leave no one to operate the vessel while the assigned adults cared for the children. For me, this is a "do not leave the dock" situation.

Click to expand...


That's a very good rule, I never thought about. We have grandchildren aboard allot lately, and I quess I didn't give it a second thought other then getting life jackets on them right away, and warning mom and dad not to go in cabin areas with it on. Will definitely implement this safety rule on board.
 
OK so in NH you may be billed for your rescue. If it doesn't have the force of law behind it, how exactly does NH collect on it?

And mind you I don't disagree that these folks were foolish to try this journey as I'll prepared as they obviously were. I just don't see how you can stop people from doing this in the future with out enacting more laws.

And apparently you can't either because you have yet to answer that question. Or if you have I missed it.
 
Bill,

Laws don't stop anyone from doing anything stupid or illegal. If this was the case the jails would all be empty.

You can't stop any one from being stupid. We are surrounded by people who are clueless or dreamers and don't realize the insanity or risk behind their actions.

I'm glad they sunk the boat, this way these idiots might not be able to drum up enough money to buy another one.

I'm glad these 2 kids are ok.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robyns Nest

Bill,

Laws don't stop anyone from doing anything stupid or illegal. If this was the case the jails would all be empty.

Click to expand...


True. But if they didn't stop many people they would be over flowing. :-)

Les is the one who stated: "They should be forced to pay for all the rescue efforts".

I'm just waiting to hear exactly how that would happen without any new laws being involved.
 
Bill, it does have the force of law behind it in NH. And many other countries will charge for rescue at sea, including most of Europe. They have "travel insurance" you can get to protect you. I don't know under what circumstances they will charge you but they will. I also don't know what authority the CG has to charge for all or part of a rescue. Because they fall under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security, there's probably something in there. Either that or they can waterboard you until you agree to a voluntary contribution.

But seriously, things have changed dramatically over the past thirty years while CG policies haven't. Prior to satellite phones, EPIRBS and GPS, the consequences of going offshore in a small boat unprepared were dire. As a result, folks actually had to learn how to navigate, how to use a sextant, learn celestial navigation, have extra sets of sails on board, extra sets of hoses and other spares, learn weather patterns, etc. In other words, had to be self-sufficient. Those requirements alone kept the amateurs on the coast. As we have said here a number of times, the goal is not to focus on how to get out of trouble, it's to learn how not to get into trouble in the first place. These days, it's far too easy to develop a false confidence level based on electronic equipment, knowing you can cry for help using any one of a number of devices. The result is more and more people venturing off shore with limited skills and then putting the lives of people like Sardog and November Charlie at risk. At some point, there needs to be some accountability.
 
quote:
Originally posted by Capt. Bill1

quote:
Originally posted by Robyns Nest

Bill,

Laws don't stop anyone from doing anything stupid or illegal. If this was the case the jails would all be empty.

Click to expand...


True. But if they didn't stop many people they would be over flowing. :-)

Click to expand...


The jails are overflowing.

Laws are just a suggestion not to do something and if you do, there is a penalty.

Like traffic lights in Italy, just a suggestion.
 
Bill, what would you do with a guy like this?

An incompetent sailor dubbed Captain Calamity has been arrested by police after coastguards were called to rescue him at sea for the 10th time in a month.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rested-rescued-TENTH-time-yacht-grounded.html

In most places in the US, he wouldn't have survived two groundings because a commercial towing co. would have ungrounded him and held the boat until he paid. The system always works better when there are consequences for irresponsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top