Sailor Reported Lost Found In Gulf Of Mexico Adrift

[HopCar]

I'm kind of with A64 on this. I don't think the guy thought he was in trouble. He was just having a nice sail when a bunch of rescuers showed up.

[mrlee]

Hi all, as a slightly trepidatious newbie I think a back up for the back up is MINIMUM requirement. I have 2 capacitor banks soldered in series for just such an emergency...They almost charge themselves and I will have 10 mins. of emergency time for whatever priority warrants their power...
Love all your comments...keep em coming...

[lifeofreilly57]

If being adrift were a reason for being rescued I'd be on a first name basis with the Coasties, it seems I'm either sailing upwind in 20-25 or sitting, drifting in 2.5 knots. Dang, it always takes longer than you planned.
Can't ever seem to find that perfect beam reach when I really need one.
As long as there's food and water I'm Ok with it.
I think another part of the reason your seeing more of these types of "rescues" is our "constantly connected" mentality, in these days of permanent connectivity even a day or two of being off the grid leads people to panic. I think the ability to be constantly connected has created more anxiety instead of reducing it.
When I was younger and traveling around by motorcycle for months at a time, most of my relatives figured everything was fine unless I called, since usually you only called when there was a problem. Mom only sounded concerned when I called, it usually required a few minutes of assuring her everything was OK.
Later I worked all over the world, before the internet when phone networks in third world countries were sketchy and expensive.
These days people tend to go into a panic if they don't hear from you on a regular basis, I can understand his relatives concern by not hearing from him for almost 24 hours due to his age but geez, give the guy some credit and a little slack.
Am I a relic for not feeling the need to be tethered to a cellphone 24/7?
Cooler heads and calmer perspectives need to be re-introduced to our totally connected society.
Just sayin.

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by sv-highhopes

Right but this article states his battery and phone was dead but the phone company tracked him by his phone which was ringing which makes no sense..

Many types of batteries will come back to life a little from near dead if left unplugged for a while or in this case if the phone were turned off. I'm not sure about lithium but that might be the case here. Maybe he turned the phone back on at the right time?

[zeehag]

SIX (6) miles off appalachacola is dangerous??? ok...

[NOLA_sailing]

Originally Posted by lifeofreilly57

If being adrift were a reason for being rescued I'd be on a first name basis with the Coasties, it seems I'm either sailing upwind in 20-25 or sitting, drifting in 2.5 knots. Dang, it always takes longer than you planned.
Can't ever seem to find that perfect beam reach when I really need one.
As long as there's food and water I'm Ok with it.
I think another part of the reason your seeing more of these types of "rescues" is our "constantly connected" mentality, in these days of permanent connectivity even a day or two of being off the grid leads people to panic. I think the ability to be constantly connected has created more anxiety instead of reducing it.
When I was younger and traveling around by motorcycle for months at a time, most of my relatives figured everything was fine unless I called, since usually you only called when there was a problem. Mom only sounded concerned when I called, it usually required a few minutes of assuring her everything was OK.
Later I worked all over the world, before the internet when phone networks in third world countries were sketchy and expensive.
These days people tend to go into a panic if they don't hear from you on a regular basis, I can understand his relatives concern by not hearing from him for almost 24 hours due to his age but geez, give the guy some credit and a little slack.
Am I a relic for not feeling the need to be tethered to a cellphone 24/7?
Cooler heads and calmer perspectives need to be re-introduced to our totally connected society.
Just sayin.

+1

I agree 100%. And that's coming from someone born in Reagan's first term.

[biscuitsjam]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

If you REALLY want to see how taxpayer money gets spent...



look into how the generals outfit their private planes. They each get a huge C40 cargo plane, and there are different modules that slide into it, each one is a kitchen, or a bedroom, or a theater, or dining room. They (collectively) spend millions per year re-outfitting these modules with the latest appliances, furnishings, beds, projectors, rare woods, carpeting, etc.



What are these used for? Family vacations sometimes. Usually boondoggles and bragging rights. Sometimes they bring aides with them. And they're never ugly.

Most generals fly coach and rent cheap economy cars. It would be illegal to take milair for a family vacation. I don't know if you'd consider me an ugly aide, but most of our trips are to places like Detroit and the Mojave desert, not resorts. Maybe you should check your facts next time before spouting nonsense on the Internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by biscuitsjam

Most generals fly coach and rent cheap economy cars. It would be illegal to take milair for a family vacation. I don't know if you'd consider me an ugly aide, but most of our trips are to places like Detroit and the Mojave desert, not resorts. Maybe you should check your facts next time before spouting nonsense on the Internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

I don't know where you got your info from, but my info came directly from an Air Force officer in charge of the budget and constant renovation of a couple of those planes at Hickam Air Force Base.

You obviously don't know me but if there is one thing I never do - that's post something that I don't know about and can't back up. You may think I'm spouting nonsense on the internet, but you are certainly welcome to call the seasoned reporters of Salon, The New York Times, Slate, The Washington Post and The Huffington Post liars if you like. I'd love to see a copy of that letter that you're going to send them.

I'm going to expand my previous statement of facts to include that there are waaaaay too many generals and admirals and each one costs the taxpayers over $1M in perks - not counting their salaries.

Here's an article discussing generals' flotillas.

7 absurd ways the military wastes taxpayer dollars - Salon.com

According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are 963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror — and polishing the boots of senior military personnel — became Washington’s No. 1 priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)

Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.

Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”

The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million — per general. That’s not even including their own salaries — which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation — and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

The average cost to the taxpayers PER GENERAL or ADMIRAL is estimated at over $1 MILLION PER YEAR.

Robert Gates wants to eliminate 50 generals from the military. Will that save a lot of money?

The real cost of generals, however, isn't their salary but their entourage. They need a driver, a security detail, someone to manage their communications equipment, and a coterie of assistants, all of whom are high-ranking military officers themselves. (It was the loose lips of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's 10-member traveling staff that led to his downfall.) And generals typically don't fly commercial, because of security concerns. There's no precise estimate of the average general's total cost to the taxpayer, but it is certainly well over $1 million annually. In contrast, most colonels fly coach, drive themselves around, and answer their own cell phones.

Retirement pay is also a concern. A four-star general who retires in 2010 with 30 years of service would cost the government more than $3.8 million in pension if he managed to live 20 more years. If the same person retired as a colonel, it would save Uncle Sam $1.4 million.

Here's an article from Huff Post discussing how a 4 star general flew his wife everywhere on a military plane and made a nice refueling stopover in Bermuda...

William Ward, Four Star General, Demoted For Lavish Spending, Ordered To Repay $82,000

A report by the Defense Department inspector general found that Ward used military vehicles to shuttle his wife on shopping trips and to a spa and billed the government for a refueling stop overnight in Bermuda, where the couple stayed in a $750 suite. The report detailed lengthy stays at lavish hotels for Ward, his wife and his staff members, and the use of five-vehicle motorcades when he traveled to Washington.

The report also said Ward and his wife, Joyce, accepted dinner and Broadway show tickets from a government contractor during a trip during which he went backstage to meet actor Denzel Washington. The couple and several staff members also spent two nights at the Waldorf Astoria hotel.

Other charges were that Ward often extended his overseas trips – particularly those to the U.S. – for personal reasons, resulting in "exponential" increases in costs.

Although the report included responses from Ward to a number of the allegations, investigators often found records and statements that contradicted his explanations. At one point, Ward defended the Bermuda layover, saying that it came up on short notice, which is why his security team had to stay there longer. The report found records showing that the layover had been planned for at least four days in advance.

A common theme running through the report was Ward's insistence that his wife travel with him at government cost, even though it was often not authorized and she performed few official duties. It said he also routinely stayed in high-priced suites in luxury hotels rather than in standard rooms or less expensive locales.

I think the tripwire for the investigation was his acceptance of Broadway tickets from a government contractor. That's an absolute no-no. His other behavior is pretty normal, but after the Patraeus incident, it looks like they were looking for a nail to hammer, to make an example out of him.

As a gov't contractor, I wasn't even allowed to give a gov't employee a ride in my rental car or drive his rental car. When we took trips, the travel arrangements were all made separately, we each had our own rental cars and either we both drove to the base, or I could ride in his rental car, but he was never allowed to ride in mine, so that it couldn't be misconstrued as some sort of "gift" of any sort.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by biscuitsjam

Most generals fly coach and rent cheap economy cars. It would be illegal to take milair for a family vacation. I don't know if you'd consider me an ugly aide, but most of our trips are to places like Detroit and the Mojave desert, not resorts. Maybe you should check your facts next time before spouting nonsense on the Internet.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

If most generals fly coach, why does the US Air Force have a specific aircraft designation for senior commanders? Generals and Admirals are THE senior military personnel, it doesn't get any more senior than that. They identified a need for them, apparently enough of a need to come up with a specific model, the C-40B.

Notice the source of my info, the US Air Force.

C-40B/C > U.S. Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Mission
The C-40 B/C provides safe, comfortable and reliable transportation for U.S. leaders to locations around the world. The C-40B's primary customers are the combatant commanders and C-40C customers include members of the Cabinet and Congress. The aircraft also performs other operational support missions.

Notice they're not used for troop transport, just for carrying a general and his staff.

The C-40 B/C is based upon the commercial Boeing 737-700 Business Jet. The body of the C-40 is identical to that of the Boeing 737-700, but has winglets. Both models have state of the art avionics equipment, integrated GPS and flight management system/electronic flight instrument system and a heads up display. Heading the safety equipment list is the traffic collision avoidance system and enhanced weather radar. The aircraft is a variant of the Boeing next generation 737-700, and combines the 737-700 fuselage with the wings and landing gear from the larger and heavier 737-800. The basic aircraft has auxiliary fuel tanks, a specialized interior with self-sustainment features and managed passenger communications.

The cabin area is equipped with a crew rest area, distinguished visitor compartment with sleep accommodations, two galleys and business class seating with worktables.

The C-40B is designed to be an "office in the sky" for senior military and government leaders. Communications are paramount aboard the C-40B which provides broadband data/video transmit and receive capability as well as clear and secure voice and data communication. It gives combatant commanders the ability to conduct business anywhere around the world using on-board Internet and local area network connections, improved telephones, satellites, television monitors, and facsimile and copy machines. The C-40B also has a computer-based passenger data system.

The C-40C is not equipped with the advanced communications capability of the C-40B. Unique to the C-40C is the capability to change its configuration to accommodate from 42 to 111 passengers.

[fryewe]

Thread drift continues...

Max, "combatant commanders" has a specific meaning. They are the handful of general and flag officers who regionally (except in a couple of cases) are responsible for the planning and conduct of war fighting for the US. The C-40 is a tool that allows them to execute those responibilies.

Your posts make it sound like every one of the 900+ officers of all general and flag rank officers have these perks (the planes aren't a perk but a tool, as I said). Taint so. In fact, the more junior of them are treated like chaff when they are assigned to DC and other political centers. I'd rather be a seaman in San Diego than a Brigadier General on the Joint Staff.

Your posts are an exaggeration of the facts (whoddathunk HuffPo or MSNBC or Salon would ever exaggerate?).

Are there too many flag and general officers? Probably. Probably too many Deputy Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries, and even too many government contractors. The numbers of all of these are to a certain extent politically determined.

Do flag and general officers have too many perks? Perhaps some do. Most don't. Next time I see a two star general standing in line at 1800 in the August heat in the Pentagon parking lot waiting for a commuter bus to take her on the 45 minute ride to get home in the remote 'burbs, I'll ask her if she feels like she has adequate perks to compensate for both the 14 hour days plus Saturdays she works and the responsibilities of her position.

[Viking Sailor]

This caught my eye as the last line in the C40 B/C spec:

Inventory: Active force, 4; Air National Guard, 3; Air Force Reserve, 4

That is a total of 11 aircraft.

[Pyxis156]

Actually, I believe it is just the C-40B that performs the function being criticized in this thread...

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/defense...40b/index.page

And it appears there are just four of them total. The following gives the funding history of the entire C-40 program since about 1998...

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...roversy-01559/

I believe I saw somewhere that at least one of the four functions as Air Force 2 for transporting the Vice President. The above certainly supports fryewe's assertions. That said, the depths of our Department Of Defense's pockets is mind boggling!

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Thread drift continues...

Max, "combatant commanders" has a specific meaning. They are the handful of general and flag officers who regionally (except in a couple of cases) are responsible for the planning and conduct of war fighting for the US. The C-40 is a tool that allows them to execute those responibilies.

Your posts make it sound like every one of the 900+ officers of all general and flag rank officers have these perks (the planes aren't a perk but a tool, as I said). Taint so. In fact, the more junior of them are treated like chaff when they are assigned to DC and other political centers. I'd rather be a seaman in San Diego than a Brigadier General on the Joint Staff.

Your posts are an exaggeration of the facts (whoddathunk HuffPo or MSNBC or Salon would ever exaggerate?).

Are there too many flag and general officers? Probably. Probably too many Deputy Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries, and even too many government contractors. The numbers of all of these are to a certain extent politically determined.

Do flag and general officers have too many perks? Perhaps some do. Most don't. Next time I see a two star general standing in line at 1800 in the August heat in the Pentagon parking lot waiting for a commuter bus to take her on the 45 minute ride to get home in the remote 'burbs, I'll ask her if she feels like she has adequate perks to compensate for both the 14 hour days plus Saturdays she works and the responsibilities of her position.

My first reaction to that story of extreme deprivation is to get some Dolphins on her chest, go to sea for 6 months straight standing port and stbd watches, run drills and training during her 6 hrs off, eat canned chow because fresh food lasts even shorter on a sub than on a sailboat, do laundry and get about 3 hrs sleep per day, submerged between 30 and 90 days at a time. Then an admiral intercepts the sub on it's way in after 6 months, comes onboard with his aid and fresh food for the officer's mess, and turns the boat around for another week at sea so he can maintain his sea time clock and collect the extra $463 per month. Then we can talk about the good old days. LOL

My first exposure to any of this C-40 info was from the Air Force officer whose sole responsibility in his position at that time was the upgrading and outfitting of these jets (at least 2 of them at Hickam) with exotic and luxurious furnishings for admirals and generals. I don't know how many admirals and generals of each rank there are in HI, but it led me to believe that most of them did have use of these planes - and they also have the equivalent of Gulfstream jets as well. According to all of the newspaper and magazine articles quoted they DO live lavish lifestyles, supported by quotes from the former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Is he exaggerating as well?

The "too many generals" quote is from a major general tasked with determining staffing levels. It's not like some reporter just plucked his opinion out of his backside, they did some research and quoted some pretty credible people within the system. These aren't articles from Rolling Stone or Mother Earth News or The Sun or The Enquirer.

Here is the current inventory of luxury planes specifically for VIP use. These include Beechcrafts, Gulfstreams, Learjets, Cessnas - all corporate jets, except the 25 C-40 variants included in the totals.

Air Force = 45
Army = 82
Coast Guard = 2 (known as Coast Guard 01 and Coast Guard 02)
Marine Corps = 23
Navy = 28
total = 180

These are luxury aircraft specifically for transport of high ranking personnel. This doesn't include the 178 T-1 Jayhawks that are ostensibly for training, but are pretty nice for a twin jet 3 seater. Why do they have all of these aircraft if they all fly commercial? It doesn't pass the sniff test.

There are also a number of VIP helicopters as well, but the fixed wing VIP aircraft inventory I think is alarming enough. I have the actual numbers of each aircraft, but for brevity I just distilled it to totals per branch of service.

I know a pilot who works for an executive jet service. He is currently in the Middle East, flying someone around. I'm sure it's not US businessmen, he says it is military related, so I guess they're starting to outsource that as well.

For the record, I was involved in a SAR operation of an admiral and his pilot off the coast of the Philippines when they had to ditch their Learjet. They were rescued by a local fisherman, but it was the first time I realized that the military had luxury jets.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, the flotillas are a whole 'nother level of excess.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Viking Sailor

This caught my eye as the last line in the C40 B/C spec:

Inventory: Active force, 4; Air National Guard, 3; Air Force Reserve, 4

That is a total of 11 aircraft.

The C-40A is the Navy variant, and there are 14 of those in service, for a total of 25.

They also have 180 corporate style jets that the military owns, and a large number of civilian registered aircraft, making the totals of "luxury" aircraft difficult to pin down. In the case of a number of aircraft, like the Beechcraft King Air 200, 350 or 1900, they use the same type of plane both for surveillance (ELINT), medical and VIP transport.

Note: The U.S. military also operates other King Air versions under other designations, including the C-6 Ute and T-44 series. In addition, there are a number of Beechcraft 1900s operated by the military under civilian registrations, using their civilian model designations.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Pyxis156

Actually, I believe it is just the C-40B that performs the function being criticized in this thread...

Boeing: C-40B Special-Mission Aircraft

And it appears there are just four of them total. The following gives the funding history of the entire C-40 program since about 1998...

C-40 Clippers Hitting Their Stride, Despite Past Controversy

I believe I saw somewhere that at least one of the four functions as Air Force 2 for transporting the Vice President. The above certainly supports fryewe's assertions. That said, the depths of our Department Of Defense's pockets is mind boggling!

Air Force Two is the air traffic control call sign held by any US Air Force aircraft carrying the U.S. Vice President, but not the President.[1][2] The term is often associated with the Boeing C-32, a modified 757 which is most commonly used as the Vice President's transport. Other 89th Airlift Wing aircraft, such as the Boeing C-40 Clipper, C-20B, C-37A, and C-37B have served in this role as well.[citation needed] The VC-25A, the aircraft most often used by the President as Air Force One, has also been used by the vice president as Air Force Two.

I'm sure they wouldn't stick the VP into a cargo plane, so can we assume that all of the planes in bold are luxurious enough to serve as Air Force 2? That's certainly more than one luxury aircraft.

Since there is only 1 VP yet apparently more than one of each of those models of planes and well over 900 admirals and generals (nobody is really alarmed at how brass heavy the military currently is?) we can assume that generals, etc are using them when the VP isn't, or they are all sitting around, scattered across the globe in airfields just waiting to be used.

Which is more wasteful? Flying them around so a general and his wife can go shopping, or letting them sit? I'm not sure. I think aside from fuel costs, maintenance costs for a plane do go up slightly when it's flown vs just sitting, but I can't imagine just sitting on the ground is good for it.

I don't even want to know how much these planes cost. I heard a used Gulfstream G650 was $67M. Ouch!