Abby Sunderland - The Debate

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Eleebana

but remove the rest of the crew as a safety precaution.

Greg

They can have her.

Well only for a few days.

One of the things I miss about cruising is sneaking out with my mates and drinking too much beer.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I am agnostic on this issue, but I find these two statements, from the story referenced above, entirely contradictory:

"The Sunderlands did not carelessly endanger their daughter as many suggest."

and

"People have argued that Abby was sailing too late in the season, increasing her chances of encountering strong Southern Ocean storms. I agree."

At age 16, Abby's parents are legal guardians and could have called off the venture once her weather window for the Indian Ocean crossing slipped away.

I do not fine the statements contradictory.

One can chose to do something dangerous and/or stupid after a lot of careful consideration. Just because the decision was in medocre to poor judgement doesn't mean it wasn't thought about at length beforehand.

As far as her parents go, I figure Abby was in that gray area between childhood and adulthood called adolescence. If she was 12 or 13 there would be no question that she was a child and her parents should be excersizing a lot more judgement on her behalf. If she were 18 she would legally be an adult and her parents would have no legal say. At 16 she is approaching her majority and her parents should rightly be allowing her a lot more discretion (sp?) in how she leads her life than a 13yr old. Holding complete control of a child until 18 and then telling them they are free to do as they please is no way to teach responsibility.

On the other hand they financed this little escapade so there is certainly an arguement to be made that they weren't just allowing her to make decisions but enabling those decisions too and thus implicitly approving them.

[Get-a-Life]

Dotdun,

You connected the wrong dots.

What I think has been inferred (and I subcribe to) is that everyone should be rescued regardless. However, if the person being rescued has taken undue risks then they should be responsible for part if not all of the rescue costs.

As an Australian taxpayer, I am sick to the back teeth of the amount of money going towards rescuing irresponsible people in our region. I am not just refering to Abby.

If they can't afford the insurance or the rescue, they can't afford the adventure.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by Get-a-Life

Dotdun,

You connected the wrong dots.

What I think has been inferred (and I subcribe to) is that everyone should be rescued regardless. However, if the person being rescued has taken undue risks then they should be responsible for part if not all of the rescue costs.

As an Australian taxpayer, I am sick to the back teeth of the amount of money going towards rescuing irresponsible people in our region. I am not just refering to Abby.

If they can't afford the insurance or the rescue, they can't afford the adventure.

I certainly understand what you are saying. The problem I have is who is going to set the bar for the definition of 'undue risks'. Irresponsible is a very subjective value. If you, a smart sailor as viewed by most, ventured out and ran into problems that weren't anticipated, are you 'irresponsible'? And who decides that, the rescuing gov't or your home gov't?

The SAR system works due to it's impartiality! Anything less would fail as the bickering between governments would cause it to collapse under the weight of 'Who's going to pay?'!

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I certainly understand what you are saying. The problem I have is who is going to set the bar for the definition of 'undue risks'. Irresponsible is a very subjective value. If you, a smart sailor as viewed by most, ventured out and ran into problems that weren't anticipated, are you 'irresponsible'? And who decides that, the rescuing gov't or your home gov't?

The SAR system works due to it's impartiality! Anything less would fail as the bickering between governments would cause it to collapse under the weight of 'Who's going to pay?'!

Thanks, and well said. This is the point I think keeps getting missed in this debate.

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by Get-a-Life

Dotdun,

You connected the wrong dots.

Second that. What's been overwhelmingly suggested is that when someone sails into the Southern Ocean in Winter, they should be libel for the rescue costs. Look at the incredible costs for Abby's rescue! She sails a race boat, leaves as soon as she can, and pushes it to the limit (and beyond) to be the youngest. She is trying to break a record. Two long flights, two more on standby, and at least three diverted ships all because her "team" thought she could beat the odds and Mother Ocean. I'll bet you anything that her parents didn't mind risking Abby but would never have risked it if they felt monetarily libel for the rescue...IMHO

[paradix]

Originally Posted by Christian Van H

Second that. What's been overwhelmingly suggested is that when someone sails into the Southern Ocean in Winter, they should be libel for the rescue costs. Look at the incredible costs for Abby's rescue! She sails a race boat, leaves as soon as she can, and pushes it to the limit (and beyond) to be the youngest. She is trying to break a record. Two long flights, two more on standby, and at least three diverted ships all because her "team" thought she could beat the odds and Mother Ocean. I'll bet you anything that her parents didn't mind risking Abby but would never have risked it if they felt monetarily libel for the rescue...IMHO

And what has been overwhelmingly pointed out is:

- who makes those value judgements (draws up the list of things not to do, like your example of sailing in the southern ocean in winter)?

- who enforces it (home country, country of rescue, etc)?

- how much money would be wasted in endless litigation arguing about whether something should be defined as "undue risk"?

Unfortunately, common justice is some way from practical and enforceable legislation in this case. Hence we are where we are. If you can provide a workable, fully thought-through solution, it would be of great interest.

Incidentally, Abby was not sailing in the Southern Ocean when she was rescued.

[jpemb7]

There are all manner of situations where people make choices and mistakes which turn out to have negative consequences, especially in hindsight. Consider the road statistics, life style health issues or domestic violence.
One of the things that makes us human is our willingness to help those who fall on difficult times whether it is their fault or not.
We lost a boat in the Marqueses some years back. Of course, it was our fault. But my family were overwhelmed by the generousity and support of everyone at the time.
People can pick over the bones of the Abby Sunderland quest as much as they like but can you really understand if you have never been in that situation ?
I lament a "user pays" world where only the rich can afford to take risks and the weak are left to be trampled by the panicked herd.

[xxuxx]

What is with all of you guys??? Many of you are whining about costs of rescue when in actuality it is a mere pitance in comparison to the billions spent by the army,navy etc of many countries. . Why in the world would you want to charge for a service that is available to us all now for free? We are all sailors and there may be a time when you might need a rescue.....do you really want to be charged hundreds of thousands of dollars or have someone else charged? If you calculated the actual cost per centage out of your pocket , out of one taxpayers pocket, to rescue a stricken sailor it would probably pennies. I just don't get it. Why are you whinning so much about the cost of her rescue. As they say in Brooklyn.....Fagetaboudit!!!

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by paradix

Incidentally, Abby was not sailing in the Southern Ocean when she was rescued.

No, you are quite right. She was bobbing...

[Christian Van H]

Originally Posted by jpemb7

People can pick over the bones of the Abby Sunderland quest as much as they like but can you really understand if you have never been in that situation ?
I lament a "user pays" world where only the rich can afford to take risks and the weak are left to be trampled by the panicked herd.

First off, I am sorry for your loss. Let me ask you this though...before you lost your boat, did a team with professional weather routers warn you that there's a 70% chance you could experience hurricane force winds? Did a sailing expert warn you that one accidental jibe could wipe out your running backstays and mast? I must be the only one on this forum who sees the difference between losing your pride and joy on a reef during a well planned cruise, and losing your race boat while trying to set a record by sailing thru the Southern Ocean during the Winter. I'm sorry to disagree with you, you seem like a really nice person...

BTW, Abby's quest was not poor. I have heard talk of over $400,000+ in sponsorship, not to mention they had recently supported her brothers circumnavigation and bought her a quite expensive race boat plus outfitting. Most would put them closer to the Rich category...and I personally dont see much resemblance to a normal "pleasure" type cruise...you know, one that would heed the advice of "World cruising routes".

[Get-a-Life]

Christian Van H,

Hear, hear!!

[SaucySailoress]

I feel what is the real issue here, is not that she was allowed to do it - after all at 16 I left home and was addressing lots of grown up choices (although my decisions weren't always the best in hindsight). The issue here is that the family made an irresponsible decision regarding the season in which she confronted the Southern Ocean - and probably did so for the wrong reasons.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Aaza Dana

I feel what is the real issue here, .

The real issue here is not this particular girl at all. Its the next one, then the one after and the ne after that....


16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11,10..... down till the age of that pilot that was killed trying to be the youngest female to fly across the USA... at 7 (SEVEN) years old.

Do people really want to wait till its some 14 year old dying for the sick sake of the media and a voyeuristic public?

Thats the real issue as far as I am concerned, that each child who does is sets a bad example for the next dream crazed kiddy.

[Mariness]

MarkJ - I don't necessarily disagree. But: although I remember the Jessica Dubroff thing, I couldn't recall any details, so I looked it up. Jessica Dubroff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Her father and flight instructor (both adults) were on board, and if you scroll down to some of the info about the NTSB investigation, the conclusion seems to have been that it was the instructor who decided to take off during a bad weather forecast, put too much weight on the plane, and was directly in control at the time of the accident.
Would people still have had a problem with it if an adult record-attempter had crashed and just happened to have brought their child along as a passenger? It doesn't change what she was trying to do, but they would be just as dead, just as unnecessarily.