Given that the 'record' so to speak, won't be acknowledged, is there any reason why an appropriate aircraft can't do a fly-by and drop her a replacement. Sure, you could argue her voyage wouldn't have been unassisted but, surely, she's been let down by a plonker product. Why should a plonker product get in the way of her attempt?
As has been noted, her vessel can't be steered by a wind-vane....but then that's the fault of the organising party who sent her off on a high-speed craft rather than a more sedate vessel.
I never did understand that. She's doing an age thing, not a speed thing. So why the hurry-up vessel?
But it seems to me that it would be quite acceptable for her to get a new autopilot
, dropped in.
Moreover, are the dicks who supplied the existing pilot prepared to front up with compensation. Apparently, the hydraulic fluid leaks
, the electrical
joints ain't worth tuppence and the whole poxy sheebang has cost a tough little girl a shot at doing what nobody has ever done before.
Nar! I reckon she should get a decent autopilot
dropped and get on with the rest of the trip. Then, at least, she'll have done it.
I had to laugh at and acknowledge the comment one on Abby's blog site who said he couldn't get his teens off the couch. That put this whole thing in perspective for me.
Bugger the rules. Give a kid with a huge heart a bit of a hand-up, I say.