Abby Sunderland - The Debate

[SurferShane]

Biggest issue over here at the moment is probably the moral panic about whether the parents should accept vicarious liability and pay for the rescue. The current status is that the Australian organisation that orchestrated the search and the other rescuers are happy to waive any charges. The exact same thing happened when Tony Bullimore needed rescuing.


Still, if everyone keeps jumping up and down on the ants nest and basically looking for needles in the haystack over who was right or wrong the next legislation passed over here will probably be a user pay rescue scheme (not unlike current ambulance fees)?

Kind of worries me somewhat especially when I can’t currently afford private health care cover and am just hanging on paying the boat insurance. Anyway, my thanks to the Maritime Authority guy who gladly towed me up the harbour after my drive shaft bolts sheared away after hiting something in the floodwater earlier this week. Thank God I didn't have to pay ( No blasphemy intended)

[Factor]

just as well they are happy to waive charges, they have no statutory power to issue charges.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by meyermm

Jessica Watson has already made millions from her trip this is not idle gossip.

Evidence? Just one scintilla will do me.

[MarkJ]

The poor old fishing boats - not pirateers of near extinct fishus- will have used a crap load of diesel getting there. I know when we went max revs for a few hours a couple of months ago we used 48 hours fuel in maybe 2 hours (could that be right??), maybe it was 3 hours, who counts when a pirate is in the area, well it was a lot of fuel anyway...

So 40 hours running at max revs these fishing boats may have used a weeks worth of fuel, plus the minus time with nets in the water raping - sorry, fishing... Its a lot of money for people who probably the salt of the earth.

Who pays for their time and fuel?

But I spose a 16 year old is too young to sue...........


Mark

[Get-a-Life]

Who pays, well Maritime Australia will reimburse the fishing boat for all expenses, but ultimately its us the tax payer who pays .

Two years ago we paid for a delivery skipper to sail a yacht from Sydney to Hobart for us, the fool managed to sink it.

They rescued him in Bass Strait using a cruising yacht that was sheltering nearby and a private helicopter. Maritime Australia paid, from memory they told us the rescue cost $70,000.

The Tony Bullimore rescue was reported to have cost millions and this one won't be any cheaper.

Age, gender, who cares, you take on extreme sports and you should have the money to cover insurance for a rescue. No insurance, be prepared to be in debt for the rest of your life!!

There are a million other things I want my tax dollar to go too.

[Doodles]

Whose going to pay for the rescue? Why oh why are we so obsessed with the money here? With all the trillions wasted on wars, bailouts, handouts, corporate give-away, and on and on ... why do so many get their panties in a wad over the cost of a rescue? Its so minuscule when you stop to think about it. Is it really the money or an underlying resentment like the people who don't want to pay for public education because they don't have any kids.

[hoppy]

Mark,

would you have paid the fuel and other costs if you needed naval help when taking a leisure cruise through pirate waters?

There is an economic benefit for Australian tax payers to help protect commercial shipping, but world cruisers, I think not.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Get-a-Life

Who pays, well Maritime Australia will reimburse the fishing boat for all expenses, but ultimately its us the tax payer who pays .

Two years ago we paid for a delivery skipper to sail a yacht from Sydney to Hobart for us, the fool managed to sink it.

They rescued him in Bass Strait using a cruising yacht that was sheltering nearby and a private helicopter. Maritime Australia paid, from memory they told us the rescue cost $70,000.

The Tony Bullimore rescue was reported to have cost millions and this one won't be any cheaper.

Age, gender, who cares, you take on extreme sports and you should have the money to cover insurance for a rescue. No insurance, be prepared to be in debt for the rest of your life!!

There are a million other things I want my tax dollar to go too.

I seriously doubt both those figures, especially TB's. As an accountant, I know figures like this get throw around way too freely. Most of the costs of any rescue are "fixed" or "sunk" (no pun intended) cost, which means they would be incurred no matter what. Any figure in going to include depreciation of the equipment used and that is the same if the plane sits in the hanger that day or goes on a rescue. Same for personnel salaries. Maybe not the overtime but the base salaries. These figures are grossly inflated to get the most attention possible.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by hoppy

Mark,

would you have paid the fuel and other costs if you needed naval help when taking a leisure cruise through pirate waters?

.

I
surely would have paid their rum ration!!
Mind you, the navy’s protecting the pirate waters are doing a duty to protect and I never suggested the navy ships be reimbursed their fuel for helping Abby. But the poor ol fisherman is another matter. If he is reimbursed by Australian Government (or the Reunion government as it was INSIDE the Reunions SAR area) then thats fine and thats what I'm asking. That the little folks not go broke because they go help someone.

As the Bullimores and the Sunderlands position repaying those cost I know that won't ever happen.

Oh ant the Bullimore rescue did cost quite a bit as the ship was in harbour without the intention of going to sea, so there were vast additional costs. And a number of planes too, if I remember correctly.

However when someone profits out of the rescue then perhaps there maybe a reasonable adverse reaction.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

I surely would have paid their rum ration!!
Mind you, the navys protecting the pirate waters are doing a duty to protect and I never sugested the navy ships be reimbursed their fuel for heling Abby. But the poor ol fisherman is another matter. If he is reimbursed by Australian Governement (or the Reunion government as it was INSIDE the Reunions SAR area) then thats fine and thats what I'm asking. That the little folks not go broke because they go help someone.

As the Bullimores and the Sunderlands position repaying those cost I know that won't ever happen.

Oh ant the Bullimore rescue did cost quite a bit as the ship was in harbour without the intention of going to sea, so there were vast additional costs. And a number of planes too, if I remember correctly.

However when someone profits out of the rescue then perhaps there maybe a reasonable adverse reaction.

Maybe all true Mark, but the question or point I keep raising is that other than fuel and overtime costs for personnel there is not a lot of additional costs. And I don't think millions of dollars in OT and fuel were incurred. Most of these figures are based on "hourly costs to operate" and most are fixed costs. How much does it cost you to motor your boat 100 miles? There are two costs .... the fuel burned and then all the other costs that are essentially the same if you had stayed put.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Adela

Well, I'm twelve and I'm glad that she isn't harmed. But I have no kids, so you can ask me directly . . . yeah, I'm thrilled.

Good for you and welcome to the forum. At 12 if you hurry in a couple years you may be able to grab the record Abby was after.

[LeftRoamin]

Two things:

1) Abby Sunderland has survived over three months at sea solo circumnavigating over which time a few thousand other American teenagers have perished on US highways. How many of those parents wouldn't trade Abby's "unfortunate situation" for their child's life ..... 2 bucks says not one. Had the loving, responsible parents of those dead teenagers spent 1/10th the amount of time preparing their kids to drive that Abby's "irresponsible" parents spent prepairing her for the solo circumnavigation ..... then many , if not most, of those kids might still be alive today.

2) As for "who pays the cost of rescue" ...... I think John Donne said it best: ~ ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. ~ The person who screams the loudest about making sure that "somebody pays for this rescue" .... may very well own the next EPIRB that goes off ... AND ... is there ANY guarantee that it couldn't be the owner of the French fishing boat?

[surfingminniwinni]

Originally Posted by Get-a-Life

Who pays, well Maritime Australia will reimburse the fishing boat for all expenses, but ultimately its us the tax payer who pays .

There are a million other things I want my tax dollar to go too.

Now don't be too hasty there Getalife. As a a born again Tax payer, I would rather see my hard earned tax, going to rescue Abby,Tony or hopeless delivery skippers, than see it go to dole bludgers and riff-raff who won't move away from the front of their TV's or computers, whilst expecting to be financially rescued every fortnight.

BTW when are you getting back?

[surfingminniwinni]

Originally Posted by LeftRoamin

Two things:

1) Abby Sunderland has survived over three months at sea solo circumnavigating over which time a few thousand other American teenagers have perished on US highways. How many of those parents wouldn't trade Abby's "unfortunate situation" for their child's life ..... 2 bucks says not one. Had the loving, responsible parents of those dead teenagers spent 1/10th the amount of time preparing their kids to drive that Abby's "irresponsible" parents spent prepairing her for the solo circumnavigation ..... then many , if not most, of those kids might still be alive today.

2) As for "who pays the cost of rescue" ...... I think John Donne said it best: ~ ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. ~ The person who screams the loudest about making sure that "somebody pays for this rescue" .... may very well own the next EPIRB that goes off ... AND ... is there ANY guarantee that it couldn't be the owner of the French fishing boat?

Well said mate, my point exactly.

[Get-a-Life]

The point is the fishing boat is going about its normal business and not trying to break silly records and the average cruiser is trying their best to cruise safely.

I don't have a problem rescuing any of these people, I do have a problem with the publicity seeking adventurer taking undue risks. or the person who decides they have had enough, time to go home.

For silly rescues talk to the teams in Tasmania, people setting off personal EPIRBS because they are tired, haven't got enough time to make it back to the airport for their flight home, etc.

OK Abby's situation is for real, but I still say if ALL adventurers are going to keep on doing these ill thought out and ill prepared sports then eventually we will all be paying the price either thru compulsory insurance or government regulations.

Make them pay now the same as the insurance companies place a huge premium on race boats and their rigs.

The ability to sail any where is a privilege not a right to be abused.