Captain's Log, April 30, 2014 from the Rebel Heart Blog

[who_cares]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

There was no insurance. We have not established whether he would have been allowed to continue by the navy. The coast guard may not have let him based on the perfect storm guy's experience. However, the baby and rest of family obviously needed to be evacuated. A lot of fathers would have chosen to be with them. They still didn't know what the baby was even sick with at this point and he would have been at sea for the next 3 weeks on a boat with no comms and a torn apart deck, alone. His electrics were going out quickly so he probably would have been pumping manually for a lot of the day to keep from sinking.

That would have been a very macho trip, to be sure, but maybe not something to be undertaken while the family is in the middle of a medical crisis?

The kid was stable within a day of the PJs coming on board, I'd hardly call that a crisis. She was being transferred aboard a USN boat with probably super awesome docs and care, and would be back in the states pretty soon. If I was in that circumstance I woulda been like "honey, go home, rest up, sorry for taking you out, I'm taking the boat to Hawaii. See you in a month".

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by who_cares

The kid was stable within a day of the PJs coming on board, I'd hardly call that a crisis. She was being transferred aboard a USN boat with probably super awesome docs and care, and would be back in the states pretty soon. If I was in that circumstance I woulda been like "honey, go home, rest up, sorry for taking you out, I'm taking the boat to Hawaii. See you in a month".

And maybe that would work for you and for your wife. It sure as heck wouldn't work for me or my wife. We all have different priorities and different relationships and different spouses.

So those criticizing Eric for making a decision in his circumstance based on what we think we might do in the "same circumstance" is completely irrelevant. If we were in the same place with the same boat, but with our own family, then the circumstance is different because the people are different.

I would have been tempted to carry on because I like that sort of macho masochistic challenge. But I would have left the boat because that would have been the right thing to do for my relationship.

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by who_cares

The kid was stable within a day of the PJs coming on board, I'd hardly call that a crisis. She was being transferred aboard a USN boat with probably super awesome docs and care, and would be back in the states pretty soon. If I was in that circumstance I woulda been like "honey, go home, rest up, sorry for taking you out, I'm taking the boat to Hawaii. See you in a month".

Your assessment of my daughter's conditions sharply contradicts that of the PJ's, and they continued to be the senior medical providers until arriving at our family physician's office in downtown San Diego. There was a terrific independent duty corpseman on the USS Vandegrift, but no "super awesome docs".

Another relevant aspect of pediatric medicine that I've since learned is that a full grown adult can handle quite a bit of dehydration but children are very susceptible.

Dehydration deaths in infants and y... [Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1996] - PubMed - NCBI

A child with diarrhea and vomiting in a hot environment can die, painfully, within a day or two. It seems trivial, but when you attempt to re-hydrate and are met with only more vomiting, something that as an adult you're used to muscling through becomes an emergency very quickly.

The timelines and events were all covered in the 129th's rather extensive press briefing which is available online and has been for some time.

[Scottuk]

The timelines and events were all covered in the 129th's rather extensive press briefing which is available online and has been for some time.

Could you provide a link RH?

Though it might be in the debrief you mention, I have found myself curious that your child became sick on your 8th day and you pushed the button on the 15th day. I am wondering why you didn't turn back after a couple of days of your child being sick. Especially due to the dehydration, which is a problem with adults after 3 days and obviously sooner for an infant.

[letsgetsailing3]

I googled "rebel heart press conference youtube":

California Air National Guard Rescues Sick Child at Sea - YouTube

You're welcome.

[Scottuk]

cheers

[who_cares]

[QUOTE=rebel heart;1555775]Your assessment of my daughter's conditions sharply contradicts that of the PJ's, and they continued to be the senior medical providers until arriving at our family physician's office in downtown San Diego. There was a terrific independent duty corpseman on the USS Vandegrift, but no "super awesome docs".
QUOTE]


[QUOTE=rebel heart;1553583]We were all on the boat for ~36 hours. After the first day my daughter stabilized. Honestly, I think keeping spirits up was critical both for us and for the rescue men. QUOTE]

Just gonna put that there...

It's an interesting situation, and it would be fascinating and informative to break down the error chain and figure out what led to the boat having to be abandoned. If a mishap happens in the military or in a commercial setting and an investigation is done, you can trace the final mishap to a series of errors that were made, each leading on to the next, and breaking the error chain is the primary thing you can do to prevent mishaps. Honestly, I think you guys screwed up somewhere. I can try to figure out where by myself, but you gotta be honest with yourself and figure out what you did, why you did it, and how you can do it differently. You shouldn't have to abandon your home in the middle of the Pacific, unless there was a catastrophic event which occurred which you had no control of and there was no way of telling it was going to happen.

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

Could you provide a link RH?

Though it might be in the debrief you mention, I have found myself curious that your child became sick on your 8th day and you pushed the button on the 15th day. I am wondering why you didn't turn back after a couple of days of your child being sick. Especially due to the dehydration, which is a problem with adults after 3 days and obviously sooner for an infant.

The symptoms started mildly. At least in my parenting experience it's pretty normal for kids to get runny noses, ear infections, loose stools, and weird little rashes that come and go especially in a tropical environment. But when they were all going on at the same time, or close enough to it, and you add in some lethargy, that's when it crossed the line and became more than I felt comfortable with.

That was basically what I was calling the Coast Guard with. "Hey, here's the symptoms, she's not responding to the treatment the doctor gave us, can you give us some more advice on what to do here."

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by who_cares

Just gonna put that there...

It's an interesting situation, and it would be fascinating and informative to break down the error chain and figure out what led to the boat having to be abandoned. If a mishap happens in the military or in a commercial setting and an investigation is done, you can trace the final mishap to a series of errors that were made, each leading on to the next, and breaking the error chain is the primary thing you can do to prevent mishaps. Honestly, I think you guys screwed up somewhere. I can try to figure out where by myself, but you gotta be honest with yourself and figure out what you did, why you did it, and how you can do it differently. You shouldn't have to abandon your home in the middle of the Pacific, unless there was a catastrophic event which occurred which you had no control of and there was no way of telling it was going to happen.

That's your assessment, and it's yours to have.

1) My daughter had an un-diagnosable illness that required here to go to the mainland. My wife would go with her, and I did not feel comfortable sailing with a now-burned-up EPIRB with my three year old.

2) It would have taken me three weeks to get to Hawaii or the Marquesas.

3) I did not want my daughter to be gravely ill, and possibly die, with me on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific.

The last point is really the judgement call that I don't understand how anyone could see different. To imagine that I would concern myself with the monetary value of my vessel over that of the safety and well being of my family is, frankly, disgusting.

If you see that as a screw-up, that's your business.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

From a time management prospective, I'm not going to sit around wading through speculation to cherry pick out legitimate questions on multiple Internet forums. If there's something I can help answer, please PM me and if you want a public answer I'll put it in the above thread.

Understood.

I left a message on your blog on May 23rd and have not heard back. I'll PM you here. It's not nasty; it's a bunch of "legitimate questions" I would benefit from having answered if you care to do so. Feel free to post it here or just to keep it PM if you wish.

Thanks,
Marc
s/v Alchemy
Toronto

[LakeSuperior]

RH, wonder if you could comment on where you were with the logistics of water. It was reported you left with about 40 gal of diesel. You were going slow so it looked like another 20 days to finish the voyage. Maybe a 30 day passage all told.

With 2 kids and two adults did you feel you were in good shape on this front? 40 gallons for running the engine on a schedule to make adequate fresh water over 30 days seems pretty squeaky from the outside.

[who_cares]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

That's your assessment, and it's yours to have.

1) My daughter had an un-diagnosable illness that required here to go to the mainland. My wife would go with her, and I did not feel comfortable sailing with a now-burned-up EPIRB with my three year old.

2) It would have taken me three weeks to get to Hawaii or the Marquesas.

3) I did not want my daughter to be gravely ill, and possibly die, with me on a sailboat in the middle of the Pacific.

The last point is really the judgement call that I don't understand how anyone could see different. To imagine that I would concern myself with the monetary value of my vessel over that of the safety and well being of my family is, frankly, disgusting.

If you see that as a screw-up, that's your business.

It's not valuing the vessel over your daughter's safety, once the situation progressed that far there were a very very very limited (ONE) number of options for you to take. But how did you get there? What would you do differently to prevent yourself from getting in that situation? Simplest answer is not to go. Is that answer acceptable? Not to me, probably not to you. So the most right answer would be to take steps that would've decreased the possibility of risk and managed the situation so that you didn't end up with that one option that you ended up having to take. I don't know what those steps would be for you, but there HAS to be something you could've done differently to not arrive at the conclusion you did, where you had to scuttle your home, abandon your trip, and have to go through all this scrutiny.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by who_cares

... there HAS to be something you could've done differently to not arrive at the conclusion you did, where you had to scuttle your home, abandon your trip, and have to go through all this scrutiny.

Especially that last bit!

The radio broadcast was pretty respectful, but answered little a sailor would want to know, or so I thought when I heard it. I would like to learn more for admittedly selfish reasons that we are planning something similar, and if I can learn from this, maybe I can have a different outcome or at least figure out a Plan B.

The difference with us is that our kid is going to be 13-14 and is in effect already crewing/keeping watch. That makes a huge difference on a three-human boat. That said, my wife and I did not hesitate to take him sailing at five days of age. It was easier until he was 12 months old, in fact: we just lashed him into the cockpit. He couldn't safely handle the companionway until he was nearly four.

Of course, I'm just talking Lake Ontario. Still, most weathers were experienced, and the cold water will kill you even faster than in the tropics.

[cwyckham]

Originally Posted by who_cares

It's not valuing the vessel over your daughter's safety, once the situation progressed that far there were a very very very limited (ONE) number of options for you to take. But how did you get there? What would you do differently to prevent yourself from getting in that situation? Simplest answer is not to go. Is that answer acceptable? Not to me, probably not to you. So the most right answer would be to take steps that would've decreased the possibility of risk and managed the situation so that you didn't end up with that one option that you ended up having to take. I don't know what those steps would be for you, but there HAS to be something you could've done differently to not arrive at the conclusion you did, where you had to scuttle your home, abandon your trip, and have to go through all this scrutiny.

Let's pretend for a second that the boat was completely 100% ok. He still would have needed to abandon it to stay with his gravely ill daughter and the rest of his family. You may have chosen not to, but he chose to do so.

So the reason that he left the boat was his daughter was sick. What error did me make for his daughter to get sick? Maybe believing the doctor who examined her and gave her a green light to go? Most would make that same mistake, I think.

[who_cares]

Originally Posted by cwyckham

Let's pretend for a second that the boat was completely 100% ok. He still would have needed to abandon it to stay with his gravely ill daughter and the rest of his family. You may have chosen not to, but he chose to do so.

So the reason that he left the boat was his daughter was sick. What error did me make for his daughter to get sick? Maybe believing the doctor who examined her and gave her a green light to go? Most would make that same mistake, I think.

First of all, his daughter wasn't gravely ill anymore. He said above that she was stable after the first day. Maybe stable means gravely ill, and of course it all depends on the person looking at the situation, and as a father he probably takes things very seriously, as he should.

However, I think that the error chain isn't as simple as believing a doctor and going. Maybe the SSB could've been installed more robustly, maybe taking it out shitty weather would've revealed that leak sooner and they could have affected repairs before they took off, meaning that in all likelihood the SSB would've been in better shape and they would've been able to communicate with shoreside help without pushing the button on the SSB. That's just one possible "what-if" scenario that could've been different that might have possibly changed the ending of this story.