Father and his kids missing at sea

[The Garbone]

With all tho talk about PLBs and Epirbs let us remember that this was a boat without a functioning VHF. There are a large number of people on the water without a clew about safety. Sure some old salts get by without even a VHF, of course they are not helping themselves or anyone else. No way to hear a coasty Pan Pan on 16 if your not listening.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by vjm

Why can't they respond to mayday calls, but not to reports that someone without an EPIRB is missing/late?

In the first case, someone is asking for help. In the second case I think that person has made it clear they don't want SAR help.

I'm with Cadence. You are joking, right? A guy with his young family is sinking in a storm, calls the Coast Guard on the VHF, sends his position by DSC, asks for help, and you're saying that the CG is going to say "Sorry, Sir, you're just going to have to drown. We don't come out if there's no EPIRB. Rest in peace, sir."

Very funny.

[vjm]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I'm with Cadence. You are joking, right? A guy with his young family is sinking in a storm, calls the Coast Guard on the VHF, sends his position by DSC, asks for help, and you're saying that the CG is going to say "Sorry, Sir, you're just going to have to drown. We don't come out if there's no EPIRB. Rest in peace, sir."

Very funny.

Not joking. You seem to be not reading terribly closely. What I have said is that of course they respond to maydays. So in your scenario, SAR would respond because someone has asked for their help.

If someone does not have an EPIRB, has not sent out a request for assistance, and is merely reported as missing or late, then no SAR response.

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding.

[a64pilot]

I don't think there is a SAR response from just an overdue boat is there?
I know there are Pan Pan's with the CG asking for everyone to be on the look out for the overdue boat, complete with occupants names etc. but I don't think they launch SAR on that.
For example, I forget the name of the boat, but the Sunday of the Tropical storm, three I assume kids left Appalachola in a 29' Catalina bound for Tampa Bay and apparently never made it. I don't think SAR was launched.
But early Sat morning a 74 yr old Man fell off of his boat that was anchored off of Anclote Key, the UH-60 flew over me on the way to that, just before Sunrise, I think to be onsite just as the sun rose, so they launched for a MOB, no question.

I do think that the -60's, 130's and the jets do fly training missions, and in fact looking for an overdue boat, is probably excellent training, so why not tack on a real life mission, to a training one?

[vjm]

I think that is hard to tell from what gets reported. In this particular case, it seems the boat was overdue plus the brother received the phone call saying they were struggling. Whether you put this incident or similar incidents (boat is overdue but no call for assistance or with news, panicked family calls for SAR- as in the event last year with two kids off the Florida coast) in one category or another doesn't really change the application.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by vjm

Not joking. You seem to be not reading terribly closely. What I have said is that of course they respond to maydays. So in your scenario, SAR would respond because someone has asked for their help.

If someone does not have an EPIRB, has not sent out a request for assistance, and is merely reported as missing or late, then no SAR response.

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by vjm

I would appreciate it if everyone could manage to keep their comments polite and not personal.

Thanks.

You're recommending the Coast Guard ignore family requests to search for sailors who are overdue? Do you recommend the same for airplanes overdue or hikers caught out in bad weather?

That doesn't sound very "polite," some may even consider your comment a little "personal."

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by vjm

Not joking. You seem to be not reading terribly closely. What I have said is that of course they respond to maydays. So in your scenario, SAR would respond because someone has asked for their help.

If someone does not have an EPIRB, has not sent out a request for assistance, and is merely reported as missing or late, then no SAR response.

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding.

Yes, I misread your post, and sorry for that.

But still -- I think what you're recommending is to refuse SAR services in some cases, where they are provided now, just because someone does not have an EPIRB. The Coast Guard has a very carefully designed policy about what circumstances can trigger a SAR response. I don't think there will be much support to change these policies as a way to manipulate people, by threat of not rescuing them, to acquire EPIRBs. Just imagine the first case of that young family no one looks for, under the new policy. This does not reflect our values as a society.

If someone wants to require people to have EPIRBs, then the straightforward and honest way to do that is to debate making them mandatory, like in Australia.

[psneeld]

yes, the USCG searches for overdues...circumstances and info dictate what actions are taken....and in what order....

[vjm]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You're recommending the Coast Guard ignore family requests to search for sailors who are overdue? Do you recommend the same for airplanes or hikers out in bad weather?

That doesn't sound very "polite," some may even consider your comment a little "personal."

Again, my points are outlined above.

I have no interest in getting into an argument and your sarcasm does not seem to advance any information or point of view. You don't like my request for polite dialogue with no personal insults, and you feel it is your prerogative to let me know that with belittling sarcasm. Message received.

Again, for the I think third time, I am not making decisions for anyone else. For me, self-sufficiency is one of the most attractive parts of sailing. If someone wants SAR services, by all means, let them request them/make arrangements before leaving for others to request those services on their behalf.

For people who have made the choice not to have an EPIRB, not to send a distress call, not to empower folks on shore to act on their behalf to request help, I don't think SAR response should be automatic.

Have a nice day folks, and enjoy the sailing wherever you are.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Do you know if the USCG budget for SAR has changed in the last 10 years or so?

So has the budget of many good and necessary things.
The budget for blowing stuff up on the other hand is immense.



SAR and border protection should come under the same banner, therefore military in my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita..._United_States

Whoops, misread that, I thought you were saying the CG budget had been cut.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The Free handout budget dwarfs the Money spent on the US Military my friend...of course those receiving the free handouts won't give them up and don't like it when you point out that they are "welfare queens"

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by vjm

. . . For me, self-sufficiency is one of the most attractive parts of sailing. . . .

I think the main point here, a broader and more philosophical one, is that "self-sufficiency" is a fantasy. Or maybe even -- a pose. It smacks of -- hubris.

Of course good seamanship demands that we do what we can to help ourselves, and prevent the case where we have to impose on someone else.

But seamen know that at sea no one is safe from that case where we can't manage without someone else's help. There but for the grace of God go I. That's why we are so superstitious about helping others. No matter how stupid the other is, we always help. We help without hesitation, without judging how the other seaman, got into whatever situation, he got into. That's because we know that no matter how skillful we are, no matter how well prepared we are, we could be the next, to need help.

"Make arrangements in advance, or, tough ****, drown" contradicts everything we believe. It is an arrogant and lubberly idea.

[Steadman Uhlich]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think the main point here, a broader and more philosophical one, is that "self-sufficiency" is a fantasy. Or maybe even -- a pose. It smacks of -- hubris.

Of course good seamanship demands that we do what we can to help ourselves, and prevent the case where we have to impose on someone else.

But seamen know that at sea no one is safe from that case where we can't manage without someone else's help. There but for the grace of God go I. That's why we are so superstitious about helping others. No matter how stupid the other is, we always help. We help without hesitation, without judging how the other seaman, got into whatever situation, he got into. That's because we know that no matter how skillful we are, no matter how well prepared we are, we could be the next, to need help.

"Make arrangements in advance, or, tough ****, drown" contradicts everything we believe. It is an arrogant and lubberly idea.

Very Well Said!

[SV THIRD DAY]

There is always a disconnect between Chat Room Cruisers and Real Cruisers...and here we see it well advertised. DockHead said it well.

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

I think the main point here, a broader and more philosophical one, is that "self-sufficiency" is a fantasy. Or maybe even -- a pose. It smacks of -- hubris.

Of course good seamanship demands that we do what we can to help ourselves, and prevent the case where we have to impose on someone else.

But seamen know that at sea no one is safe from that case where we can't manage without someone else's help. There but for the grace of God go I. That's why we are so superstitious about helping others. No matter how stupid the other is, we always help. We help without hesitation, without judging how the other seaman, got into whatever situation, he got into. That's because we know that no matter how skillful we are, no matter how well prepared we are, we could be the next, to need help.

"Make arrangements in advance, or, tough ****, drown" contradicts everything we believe. It is an arrogant and lubberly idea.

Very well written and perfectly describes the reality. It also legitimizes requiring all folks going on the water to pass a boating test and have a boating licence. If we are going to go save every fool that screws up, and in doing so put our SAR folks at risk, then everyone needs to be certified as knowledgeable about boating before they can own, rent, lease, or operate a boat regardless of size. Its a car on the water; why should it be treated any different?