Risk & Reward.. I was Wrong!

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

.If ill prepared boaters weren't out there to be rescued first responders wouldn't need to put their lives at risk to rescue.........who exactly?

Simple logic.

The problem I see in trying to simplify this logic is that
BY DEFINITION!
...anyone that needs rescuing
...'IS ILL PREPARED'

so again, whether professional SAR or fellow mariners helping a boat in distress, that is the unspoken commitment we make to each other, devoid of blame.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by tarian

but if its a yatchie , blood and scorn upon him for sailing.

You are making stuff up.
I never made mention of yachties or sailing

Stop all this silly nonsense that the emergency services are putting their lives at risk to rescue people

,

Do you really think going out in mountainous seas or flying in cyclonic winds has no risk for rescuers?

If they are there rescuing someone experienced and prepared who was caught out on a well founded vessel that's one thing
But to be out there because some fool headed out into a known storm on a POS boat that would fall apart in 15 knots of wind is something else entirely.

those that say this are NOT these Brave men and women who CHOOSE to do this out of their true bravery and consciousness and therefore DO not speak for them.

But you are speaking for them.



Here, this article says it way better than I can

https://snowbrains.com/study-reveals...stupid-people/

“I’ve seen some pretty stupid stuff in my time. Why would a boater decide it’s a good idea to sail balls-first into a hurricane with zero lifejackets, zero flares, and apparently zero cares? Why even make an effort for these people? I’m all for a Darwinian Search and Rescue Plan, if you follow me,” said Willmington.

Language modified

[Simi 60]

And further to above, there is the allocation of resources.
And there is also the cost of resources.

As mentioned, Australia has a volunteer coastguard
Much of their funding comes from donations, chook raffles and.....

'Our volunteers signed up to save lives, not to sell sausages'

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/pol...16-p50rnq.html

I'd rather see those finite resources being spent on actual rescues instead of towing idiots in on the weekend who run out of fuel or have the arse end of their rotten POS boat fall off or decide to head out in a strong wind warning in a 11 ft dinghy for a spot of fishing.

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Bromo

...AND who took off for the new world, never arrived and never came back?

You know what Teddy said about that notion.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Some of it is inherent in our nature. Some people just have a much higher tolerance for personal risk than others do. Not every one will run into a burning building, or run toward a guy shooting people. Is it wrong to be either the person who will do that, or won't? No, we need both types.

I worked in a very high risk environment for many years. One of the things that management constantly had to deal with was the fact that people who are willing to take huge personal risks for money, will also take huge risks on their own time for a lot less compelling reasons.

In fact, having worked with the Coast Guard, for instance, a lot in my career, I found it to be more populated by more risk takers than not, especially the actual rescue crews, pilots, swimmers, etc. I don't think they get mad at people who need to be rescued because they took on too much risk, because for the most part, they are same type people they are to a certain extent.

[JPA Cate]

It is certainly correct that other [untrained-in-rescue techniques] yachties try to go to the rescue of others. It happens with buddy boating, and it happened once to us.

We were on a radio schedule with Russel Radio (NZ), and were asked to go to a vessel's aid, as we were the closest contact in the area. We had shortened sail previously, and put on more to try and get to them, as they had reported that they were taking on water faster than they could pump it out.

What actually happened was that their weather got better, and the water inflow lessened, and then they were able to take care of it. During our attempt to catch up to them, we broke one of the brackets on our wind vane, and both vessels, their and ours put in at Raoul Is., both for emergency repairs. They needed to replace one of their gaffs.

While we were there, TC Lisa developed, and at first we were assured that she would go 200 mi north of us. That is not how it eventuated. Both vessels went and anchored in Denham Bay, on the west side of Raoul Is. We anchored out a fair way, and the other vessel went way in to hug the beach (although the chart was marked at the 20 ft. level with notification of dangerously breaking surf).

Here it gets a little complicated. We could talk with the other vessel on VHF and be heard by the met station on the island, but, down underneath the tall cliffs, we couldn't hear them on VHF, so maintained radio contact on MSSB with them, and could also be overheard by the NZ Destroyer Southland. The other guys broke their anchor chain (weren't using a snubber), and asked permission to come alongside. We were at the time a 36 foot sloop, and they, a 74 ft. barkentine, with a huge bow sprit. Jim denied permission (the sprit might destroy our rigging), told them to come up astern, and we'd float a line down to them and bring them aboard (there were two men aboard at that time; the young woman and child were at the met station.) They declined, as they were not able to make progress to windward at the 60 kn. we were experiencing, bullets rolling down off the cliffs. Their plan was to go around the corner of the island, and beach the boat on the north side of the island or swim ashore, using scuba gear. Then they blew out of the bay, and we couldn't hear him any more.

Well, Jim called the met station on 4 megs and told them what had happened so far, and that we no longer had VHF radio contact with the skipper who only had a hand held VHF, and told them we would up anchor and go looking for them. At this, the skipper of the Southland intervened, and asked Jim if he were comfortable with leaving the shelter of the island in the cyclone, reminded him of his duty to his own ship and crew, stating that the Navy ship had a helicopter, trained rescue personnel, etc.; and had obtained permission from Wellington to accelerate to flank speed. Jim responded, "No, but I am here now, there are men in the water, and you're 6 hrs. away, but we will return to the anchorage if it becomes too dangerous."

And so, we went out to look for them. Never saw them, nor another sign of the boat. However, the next morning, after a night interrupted by repeated calls to the missing vessel, the Navy launched the helicopter, and they found the men roughly where they said they'd be. And so, the lives were saved. And, their boat had quickly broken up--a ferrocement barkentine with no sheer clamp.

The points here are that there can be times in the cruising life when you might be called upon to help someone, whether you've rescue training or not; and as the victim in such a circumstance, you'd be extremely grateful for help when you're at the long end of a supply line. But it can take time, and planning on a quick and easy rescue, instead of properly preparing your vessel to go to sea--having the CG bail you out-- really is PPP [piss poor planning]...as is going to sea in an unsuitable vessel.



Ann

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Group9

You know what Teddy said about that notion.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Some of it is inherent in our nature. Some people just have a much higher tolerance for personal risk than others do. Not every one will run into a burning building, or run toward a guy shooting people. Is it wrong to be either the person who will do that, or won't? No, we need both types.

I worked in a very high risk environment for many years. One of the things that management constantly had to deal with was the fact that people who are willing to take huge personal risks for money, will also take huge risks on their own time for a lot less compelling reasons.

In fact, having worked with the Coast Guard, for instance, a lot in my career, I found it to be more populated by more risk takers than not, especially the actual rescue crews, pilots, swimmers, etc. I don't think they get mad at people who need to be rescued because they took on too much risk, because for the most part, they are same type people they are to a certain extent.

Great post[emoji106]

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Group9

I worked in a very high risk environment for many years. One of the things that management constantly had to deal with was the fact that people who are willing to take huge personal risks for money, will also take huge risks on their own time for a lot less compelling reasons.

That's great as long as their risk taking doesn't affect the lives and families of others.

In fact, having worked with the Coast Guard, for instance, a lot in my career, I found it to be more populated by more risk takers than not, especially the actual rescue crews, pilots, swimmers, etc. I don't think they get mad at people who need to be rescued because they took on too much risk, because for the most part, they are same type people they are to a certain extent

.

And here I'll provide a real life example of how risk takers affected my family.

About 30 years ago my parents were taking a leisurely drive in the mountains when they were involved in a head on crash with a "boy racer" motorcyclist who crossed onto the wrong side of the road on a corner.
At around the same time another "boy racer" motorcyclist had also crashed on the other side of the mountain range.

Ambulances called out to rescue risk takers left my parents broken and bleeding on the side of the road for well over an hour while an ambulance and a helicopter had to come in from further afield at great expense.

If the risk taking boy racers hadn't been doing stupid illegal sh1te on public roads my parents wouldn't have had to live their remaining years both mentally and physically scarred.
It changed them and that also greatly affected the rest of the family.

TLDR:
Risk takers using up finite resources by doing stupid sh1te affects others.
The world does not revolve around them

[tarian]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

That's great as long as their risk taking doesn't affect the lives and families of others.

.

And here I'll provide a real life example of how risk takers affected my family.

About 30 years ago my parents were taking a leisurely drive in the mountains when they were involved in a head on crash with a "boy racer" motorcyclist who crossed onto the wrong side of the road on a corner.
At around the same time another "boy racer" motorcyclist had also crashed on the other side of the mountain range.

Ambulances called out to rescue risk takers left my parents broken and bleeding on the side of the road for well over an hour while an ambulance and a helicopter had to come in from further afield at great expense.

If the risk taking boy racers hadn't been doing stupid illegal sh1te on public roads my parents wouldn't have had to live their remaining years both mentally and physically scarred.
It changed them and that also greatly affected the rest of the family.

TLDR:
Risk takers using up finite resources by doing stupid sh1te affects others.
The world does not revolve around them

Sorry for your story and parents, but you are mistaking stupidity with calculated risk taking, there is a fine line but there are plenty including myself that take risks while calculating the risks to others , I do not include emergency services in this, they signed up to do this type of work and I would also risk my life to save others especially on the sea.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by tarian

Sorry for your story and parents, but you are mistaking stupidity with calculated risk taking, there is a fine line but there are plenty including myself that take risks while calculating the risks to others
.

One persons calculated risk is another persons stupidity.
I am sure the motorcycle riders figured they were taking a calculated risk and hey, if it all goes pear shaped someone will be there to bail them out, right?

, I do not include emergency services in this, they signed up to do this type of work

Yeah, our PM thinks the same
Emergency services just love being put in harms way

PM says volunteer fire fighters want to be there.
https://www.theguardian.com/australi...nt-to-be-there

Like the military just loves getting shot and blown up for the hell of it.
That's what they signed on for right?
Expendable redshirts.

and I would also risk my life to save others especially on the sea

I value my life and respect the life of my crew a bit to much than to put us in actual harms way without adequate equipment, training and funding.

Pointless having the rescuer needing to be rescued as well.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Do you really think going out in mountainous seas or flying in cyclonic winds has no risk for rescuers?

Getting out of bed has risk. So don’t get trapped into a requirement for “no risk”. Rescuers are trained and expected to evaluate risk. No one should expect to be rescued if rescuers lives would be put at significant risk. So this idea that “stupid people” put rescuers lives at risk is not a valid argument. Rescuers put rescuers lives at risk.

Now about cost. We can’t use cost as an argument else we invalidate the whole SAR system. I can never agree that incompetent sailors don’t deserve rescue because of cost. Neither can I agree that cost is a justification for restricting who is allowed to put to sea.

You makes your bets, you takes your chances; to paraphrase an old cartoon sailor. You should put to sea expecting to not be rescued if the worst happens. If you do in fact get rescued consider it a gift of another chance and do with that what you will.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Getting out of bed has risk. So don’t get trapped into a requirement for “no risk”.

Getting out of bed has so little risk I don't even know why you are trying to use it as an argument.

Rescuers are trained and expected to evaluate risk. No one should expect to be rescued if rescuers lives would be put at significant risk. So this idea that “stupid people” put rescuers lives at risk is not a valid argument.

Again you make this assumption that the rest of the world has a highly trained and well funded coastguard like the US.

Jim and Ann Cate gave a rescue example above, they are not highly trained or highly funded yet they took on risk but at least had a Naval vessel hours away if something hapenned.

As mentioned earlier I was asked to look for an overdue boat in Vanuatu, there is no rescue service there.
I was not highly trained to evaluate risk or to do rescues , nor was anyone else but we did what we could but was not going to risk our lives or the vessel as there was no one to rescue us.

Rescuers put rescuers lives at risk.

Not sure what that relates to.

Now about cost. We can’t use cost as an argument else we invalidate the whole SAR system. I can never agree that incompetent sailors don’t deserve rescue because of cost. Neither can I agree that cost is a justification for restricting who is allowed to put to sea.

Cost is reality where you rely on donations for funding.
Fuel, boats, gear costs money and does not "magic" itself from thin air.

Earlier I made mention of people heading out in a strong wind warning in an 11ft boat for a spot of fishing.
That was a true story, happened earlier this year.
Volunteer Marine Rescue, Volunteer Coastguard and others spent over a week burning untold amounts of sausage sizzle funded fuel and resources searching for these two.
Unfortunately, that ended up being a body recovery exercise.

Wouldn't it be great if people had intelligence and responsibility?
Such a thing simply need not have happened.

You makes your bets, you takes your chances;

Great if that were true.
But in your world there's unlimited funding, wondrous rescue vessels and highly trained rescuers.
Unprepared dolts can go to sea in any crap boat and weather knowing someone will save their sorry arse when it goes wrong.

Much of the world has no such luxury.

to paraphrase an old cartoon sailor. You should put to sea expecting to not be rescued if the worst happens. If you do in fact get rescued consider it a gift of another chance and do with that what you will

.

And most of us probably take that onboard.
I have never expected rescue and as such have been well prepared, cautious and act responsibly and surprisingly because of that have never needed rescue.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

...If the risk taking boy racers hadn't been doing stupid illegal sh1te on public roads my parents wouldn't have had to live their remaining years both mentally and physically scarred.
It changed them and that also greatly affected the rest of the family.

TLDR:
Risk takers using up finite resources by doing stupid sh1te affects others.
The world does not revolve around them

Unfortunately the "Fast and Furious" mindset glorified by Hollywood is a real danger

But you can't equate illegal activities on public roads as acceptable risks to cruising in open waters.

As I have said many times, I consider sailboat racing poor seamanship, for basically the same reason
....Unnecessary Risk!

But this discussion is more about supporting those who have the inherent risk of Inexperience.

Where do you draw the line?

[JPA Cate]

Someone above wrote:

Jim and Ann Cate gave a rescue example above, they are not highly trained or highly funded yet they took on some risk, but I doubt they would have risked life or vessel.

Yes, and I was sufficiently concerned by the conditions that -- for the first time ever -- I brought our lifejackets to where I could reach them. I would have had to have been even more frightened to insist we put them on. It was scary -- and we were very careful. We did work to windward, and we did search as close in as we dared. Used binoculars, yet saw no sign, no floating sails, nor debris. Their vessel had totally disappeared. As it happened, we heard on the radio, the next day, that some debris had been found further east, at the bottom of the cliff.

Ann

[boatman61]

Every one of us has had to do things for the first time..
Thats how one gains experience..
Even the 'experienced' come unstuck and hit the EPIRB for silly reasons sometimes.

[transmitterdan]

There is no guarantee of safety. There is no fairness in nature. There is no such thing as zero risk. Deal with it.