Father and his kids missing at sea

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

This family was on a one-off passage for a few days. They could have rented an EPIRB for about $65 per week and even less for a couple days. So I don't accept that the cost is prohibitive. I suspect that most families have no idea they can have this security for themselves and their families for such a small amount of money. Several posters here seem to not know about it so that suggests some education is warranted.

Originally Posted by redsky49

Sailing is dangerous. To not stack the odds in your favor is short-sighted, if not foolish. That includes having a functional VHF, and the minimum Coast Guard requirements - at the very least!

If traveling offshore, and out of sight of land, an EPIRB is called for. If children are aboard it is your obligation. The "in the cart" price for an EPIRB is $350 at Defender. No excuse.

ACR GlobalFix V4 EPIRB - Category 2

I am with T-Dan on this issue.

Agreed, the education in the variety of options for obtaining an EPIRB is somewhat valuable (I for one was not aware of this), but the real education --though one for which I don't hold too much hope (for several somewhat obvious reasons)-- would be one that allowed the skipper to know when he and his crew and vessel were capable for the conditions, and when they were not. After all, the best education in this respect would be gained exactly by what Ace Kimberly was doing in attempting the trip; that is, the experience.

I personally cannot begin to call anything I see here foolish. Straight line, over the water. point to point distance, outside (Stump Pass-Boca Grande)/ inside (Boca Grande-Matlacha Pass-Ft. Myers) is about 55 miles. Straight line, outside-all-the-way (Stump Pass-around Sanibel Island- Ft. Myers) is about 70. There're three bridges either way.

It's not hard to imagine the trip being looked at, in honest ignorance, as a
simple, single days' adventure. I can even imagine a father, planning an inside trip for safety's sake, being badgered into going outside by enthusiastic kids. Who knows?

What is most telling about the situation as it stands now is how similar the conditions that led to the tragedy and the after-the-fact pronouncements of the EPIRB proponents are.

Ace Kimberly it seems probably wasn't aware of the real weather conditions and potential, nor of the real condition of his boat, and possibly not even of his own capabilities.

The EPIRB enthusiasts don't appear to be aware of the real varieties of --human existence?--with limited income levels. This cavalier talk of '65.00 a week' or '350.00 at Defender, no excuse' seems to demonstrate either an ignorance of life at that level or even some level of contempt for it (intended or not).

This family wanted to get their boat from one place to another place less than a hundred miles away with the resources they had at the time. They didn't have an EPIRB or a radio. The only difference a law making those mandatory would have made is that by making the trip they would have been committing an illegal act.

Certainly in an ideal world we'd all make intelligent, well informed decisions. Just as certainly, that ideal world (thankfully) doesn't exist.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Agreed, the education in the variety of options for obtaining an EPIRB is somewhat valuable (I for one was not aware of this), but the real education --though one for which I don't hold too much hope (for several somewhat obvious reasons)-- would be one that allowed the skipper to know when he and his crew and vessel were capable for the conditions, and when they were not. After all, the best education in this respect would be gained exactly by what Ace Kimberly was doing in attempting the trip; that is, the experience.

I personally cannot begin to call anything I see here foolish. Straight line, over the water. point to point distance, outside (Stump Pass-Boca Grande)/ inside (Boca Grande-Matlacha Pass-Ft. Myers) is about 55 miles. Straight line, outside-all-the-way (Stump Pass-around Sanibel Island- Ft. Myers) is about 70. There're three bridges either way.

It's not hard to imagine the trip being looked at, in honest ignorance, as a
simple, single days' adventure. I can even imagine a father, planning an inside trip for safety's sake, being badgered into going outside by enthusiastic kids. Who knows?

What is most telling about the situation as it stands now is how similar the conditions that led to the tragedy and the after-the-fact pronouncements of the EPIRB proponents are.

Ace Kimberly it seems probably wasn't aware of the real weather conditions and potential, nor of the real condition of his boat, and possibly not even of his own capabilities.

The EPIRB enthusiasts don't appear to be aware of the real varieties of --human existence?--with limited income levels. This cavalier talk of '65.00 a week' or '350.00 at Defender, no excuse' seems to demonstrate either an ignorance of life at that level or even some level of contempt for it (intended or not).

This family wanted to get their boat from one place to another place less than a hundred miles away with the resources they had at the time. They didn't have an EPIRB or a radio. The only difference a law making those mandatory would have made is that by making the trip they would have been committing an illegal act.

Certainly in an ideal world we'd all make intelligent, well informed decisions. Just as certainly, that ideal world (thankfully) doesn't exist.

"Ideal world" seriously

It's not an ideal world to take basic safety precautions, it's common sense I know there in short supply over your way at the moment, but it's still 'common' sense. You don't take unreasonable, negligent risks, especially with other people on board, and especially with your children on board.

[weavis]

Let us try being nice.
The thread has been doing well..

No need for heated arguments..

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

As I tried to imply, it is common sense to have and know how to use safety equipment. The government has done their job in that respect, and are in danger (in the US anyway) of exceeding it.

)

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"Ideal world" seriously

It's not an ideal world to take basic safety precautions, it's common sense I know there in short supply over your way at the moment, but it's still 'common' sense. You don't take unreasonable, negligent risks, especially with other people on board, and especially with your children on board.

As usual, I've been unclear.

'This family wanted to get their boat from one place to another place less than a hundred miles away with the resources they had at the time. They didn't have an EPIRB or a radio. The only difference a law making those mandatory would have made is that by making the trip they would have been committing an illegal act.'


For them, the 'common sense' (apparently, or they wouldn't have made the trip) was, "This is a good day to make the trip to Ft. Myers." I doubt very seriously that they went out in search of 'Victory at Sea' conditions, nor that they expected anything more than a fun day on the water, with the added benefit of getting the vessel to a yard to make repairs (or vice versa).

You're right, I don't take unreasonable, negligent risks (at least that I know of, but that opens a whole 'nuther [though relevant] can of worms) with or without children or anyone else onboard; in fact, I won't go out on a vessel that I feel is unsafe or has a known unsafe operator. My point is that, unfortunately, for this family the risks appeared to them to be neither unreasonable nor their preparations negligent.

Again, put another way, ideally everyone could agree what constitutes these 'risky behaviors' and try to limit them as best they could, but in the real (not ideal) world, good luck with that... Or are you suggesting we somehow legislate common sense?



In this part of the world, we have these things called 'cars' and 'roads'. You have to learn to operate the cars and then learn the rules to do what they call 'drive' them on the roads. You have to pass a test to get a license to drive them, and there are penalties if you get caught breaking the rules, but not only do most people regularly break the rules, they also impede, and often injure and kill, themselves and others by lack of foresight and the taking of unreasonable, negligent and counterproductive risks. There are also many passive and manually operated safety devices in place, stipulated by the government, yet something on the order of 40000 deaths a year here are caused by this activity. Surely in the land of common sense where you live this is not the case?



Believe the appropriate old saw is 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.

Just proves that --contrary to the trite expression-- ignorance is rarely bliss.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Nick Stephens

In all the babbling and prattling about legislation, big brother and epirbs, have any of you noticed the title of this thread? You're talking about airbags while the poor guy went into a thunderstorm with bald tires. Seriously. An epirb cannot fix an unseaworthy boat, cannot feed a family, cannot predict weather. So in this case, I would suggest looking at the initial issues as they relate to this tragedy rather than worrying about the latest nautical nanny cam. Just a thought.

Yes, from the local news sources i have read thats what i gather. Thats why my earlier post said i couldnt get out of the situation with the equipment given.

Its all fine to say everyone going off shore should have X equipment, but this wasnt... This was a liveaboard, permanent achor, never move type boat going somewhere cheaper to work on. (I may well be wrong but thats how i read it). In that circumstance, and with a father who is battling to make ends meet for his 3 teens, he would not have the spare cash to outfit a boat for such a short passage. He may not even have had the bus fare for the kids, perhaps he had to take them?
Its one of those where you just go for it hoping you have picked a nice day. Unfortunately it was not. Nor were the tides favorable either through bad planning or bad luck.

No amount of legislation will save all.


Mark

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"Ideal world" seriously

It's not an ideal world to take basic safety precautions, it's common sense I know there in short supply over your way at the moment, but it's still 'common' sense. You don't take unreasonable, negligent risks, especially with other people on board, and especially with your children on board.

sorry guys, my two little 'bang head' thingy's made my post look in a worse tone than I intended it to be. My apologies.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

As usual, I've been unclear.

'This family wanted to get their boat from one place to another place less than a hundred miles away with the resources they had at the time. They didn't have an EPIRB or a radio. The only difference a law making those mandatory would have made is that by making the trip they would have been committing an illegal act.'

For them, the 'common sense' (apparently, or they wouldn't have made the trip) was, "This is a good day to make the trip to Ft. Myers." I doubt very seriously that they went out in search of 'Victory at Sea' conditions, nor that they expected anything more than a fun day on the water, with the added benefit of getting the vessel to a yard to make repairs (or vice versa).

You're right, I don't take unreasonable, negligent risks (at least that I know of, but that opens a whole 'nuther [though relevant] can of worms) with or without children or anyone else onboard; in fact, I won't go out on a vessel that I feel is unsafe or has a known unsafe operator. My point is that, unfortunately, for this family the risks appeared to them to be neither unreasonable nor their preparations negligent.

Again, put another way, ideally everyone could agree what constitutes these 'risky behaviors' and try to limit them as best they could, but in the real (not ideal) world, good luck with that... Or are you suggesting we somehow legislate common sense?

In this part of the world, we have these things called 'cars' and 'roads'. You have to learn to operate the cars and then learn the rules to do what they call 'drive' them on the roads. You have to pass a test to get a license to drive them, and there are penalties if you get caught breaking the rules, but not only do most people regularly break the rules, they also impede, and often injure and kill, themselves and others by lack of foresight and the taking of unreasonable, negligent and counterproductive risks. There are also many passive and manually operated safety devices in place, stipulated by the government, yet something on the order of 40000 deaths a year here are caused by this activity. Surely in the land of common sense where you live this is not the case?

Believe the appropriate old saw is 'you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'.

Just proves that --contrary to the trite expression-- ignorance is rarely bliss.

I do think it's possible to legislate for common sense things, yes

But I'm also conscious that in many parts of the world, that's seen as a nanny state thing. Well, it's worked and worked well in our part of the world, both in boats and in cars. In boats we even made laws that life jackets must be worn in smaller boats. Yes, a few picked up a fuss, but the sky didn't fall in and now it's not considered such a big deal. Just common sense.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by ThomasWeiss

Just out of curiosity how do you know the boat was unseaworthy, the family was destitute, and that he was any worse at forecasting weather than anyone else (including the meteorologists)? I'm not trying to pick a fight but I'm wondering if that's opinion or based in fact..


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

I was out there probably within 20 miles of them on the day they went down, Wx wasn't that bad, not weather that should sink a 29' boat at all, but it sank, obviously, so therefore I assume it wasn't seaworthy, cause if it was, they would have arrived.
An old seacock can break and sink a boat fast on a windless, calm day for instance, they could have run aground, or maybe lightning, although I don't remember lightning. I don't think weather sank her, maybe aggravated an existing condition?

It was a day that you could have easily laid a hull, not a storm tactic I would use, but Wx, waves just weren't that bad.

Truly tragic

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

But I'm also conscious that in many parts of the world, that's seen as a nanny state thing. Well, it's worked and worked well in our part of the world, both in boats and in cars. In boats we even made laws that life jackets must be worn in smaller boats. Yes, a few picked up a fuss, but the sky didn't fall in and now it's not considered such a big deal. Just common sense.

Boats are getting larger and equipment is getting better. The reliability of engines has improved enormously, for example, as has the development of safety equipment like EPIRBs PLBs, AIS, even anchors etc, etc. So I would hope that the accident and in particular the fatality rate is getting better, but is tougher legislation actually making a significant difference?

This was the only information I could find for Australia. It looks to me like the fatality rate per 100,000 registered boats is rising! This is in a period when progressively tougher licensing and equipment legislation have been introduced. Even the 0.05 boating blood alcohol limit (which I would have expected to have a very significant impact) does not seem to have had the enormous difference I would expect if we project the graph backwards.

Note the nice grey line drawn to shown the fatality rate is falling. Is it just me or does anyone else think the best fit line does not seem to fit the data over the last 10 years? . The let out is that the graph includes data from as far back as 92, but this raw data was not shown.

Personally, I think there is lot to be said for the UK approach of education and very little legislation. Talk to boat owners in counties like France and you will understand what a pain in the butt compliance with boating legislation has become.

For those praising authorities for introducing legislation, be careful what you wish for .

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

So, please tell us.... Over here in Europe, "which side is red and which is green?"

Classic....at least I remember something from my USCG Capts license test...

[jackdale]

I perused the thread. I am surprised that GMDSS has not been discussed.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[robert sailor]

This story is tragic, a Father and children lost at sea, very sad.
It wasn't that many years ago that no one had modern safety gear and everyone I knew arrived safely at their destinations so I suspect it was more about good seamanship and bad luck than anything. These days some folks actually believe that the new safety gear will save them but the reality is that if you are well offshore you really are on your own or at the very least you should be thinking that way rather than relying on big brother.

[RTB]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I perused the thread. I am surprised that GMDSS has not been discussed.

Sent from my SM-T705W using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Good info here. Thanks for the heads up. Note - Before you purchase anything else, make sure you have a VHF marine radio. A VHF marine radio is the single most important radio system you should buy.

http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=mtBoater

Note, mentioned in the link....An FCC ship station radio license is no longer required for any vessel travelling in U.S. waters which uses a VHF marine radio, radar or EPIRB, and which is not required to carry radio equipment.

Ralph

[ThomasWeiss]

Originally Posted by Nick Stephens

How do you not know this? Have you seen any of the posts referencing these issues?

I haven't been following the story that close Nick maybe I missed something.


Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[SV THIRD DAY]

Why and what info do we have that the Boat was in poor condition?
Is that just a made up "chat room fact" to go along with the story?

Brand new boat sink due to equipment failures...cruising boats thought to be in good condition sink do to equipment failures. Not every boat that has an ACCIDENT is in poor condition. Of course we like to use that line as a way to make ourselves feel better in the false meme that an ACCIDENT could never happen to us. Good luck with that...

Carry on...don't let the facts (or lack there of) of the situation stand in anyone's way.