RESCUE OPERATION in the Southern Ocean

[Connemara]

Originally Posted by bastonjock

quite rightly so

and dont forget the efforts of the English woman who broke off from the pack in an attempt to reach yann

Let's not forget the Frenchman who was first to reach Generali and tried --with limited success -- to toss food and painkillers within reach of the injured skipper.

They were Marc Guillemot aboard Safran and Samantha Davies on Roxy.

Bravo both.

Connemara

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by bastonjock

quite rightly so

and dont forget the efforts of the English woman who broke off from the pack in an attempt to reach yann

Originally Posted by Connemara

Let's not forget the Frenchman who was first to reach Generali and tried --with limited success -- to toss food and painkillers within reach of the injured skipper.

They were Marc Guillemot aboard Safran and Samantha Davies on Roxy.

Bravo both.

Connemara

Yes and yes - and no disrespect intended in not citing them earlier

As to posts regarding vessel design and strength, don't forget that in this instance, the boat has proved tougher than the crew. Again, not saying Yann is not tough, I am sure he has already proved how tough he really is - just saying that the boat not failed in this instance.

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

"The boats are designed to very exacting standards and have to comply to all sorts of safety regulations ...."

Then obviously the standards are rubbish, these around the world boats break apart every time the race is run... keels fall off etc.

Boeing 737's fall off of runways too and they aren't built for racing.....

[Evan]

First of, there are not a lot of standards for Open 60's. The rule is about as "open" as can be. It gives some max dimensions (LOA and draft) but as a designer you can build it as light as you dare. No structural rules are imposed. No testing is done except a stability test with a crane to see if it self rights without the mast.

Sail area is unrestricted. There is a requirement for watertight bulkheads, and lots of safety equipment but that's about it. 23 pages in all. Read it here if you want: ISAF : Class Rules - IMOCA 60 (Open 60 Monohull)

These are RACE boats folks, the one that sinks as it crosses the finish line is built just right. Their skippers do have to know when to back off the throttle because they can and do break the boat's structure sometimes. They are built far stronger than any production cruising boat, because the loads they see are also far higher.

As a designer, I am more upset about the number of rigs that have come down. Structural damage hasn't been too bad this go round. As usual, canting keel ram supports are not designed well.

[Cheechako]

Yes a 737 did run off the runway! However, when one of those jets is designed, the first one is taken to a building with an apparatus that flexes the wings and fuselage to the ultimate limits continuously for months, then every part is analyzed and redesigned if necessary. If they would do that with the boats you wouldnt be seeing.. what... about a 10% failure rate? Not that this is practical. My fear is that some day, after enough at-sea disaster situations, where a lot of money is spent in the rescue, that rules will be established controlling where you can sail etc, unless you have a special certificate, rescue and environmental insurance, etc, etc....

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Yes a 737 did run off the runway! However, when one of those jets is designed, the first one is taken to a building with an apparatus that flexes the wings and fuselage to the ultimate limits continuously for months, then every part is analyzed and redesigned if necessary. If they would do that with the boats you wouldnt be seeing.. what... about a 10% failure rate? Not that this is practical. My fear is that some day, after enough at-sea disaster situations, where a lot of money is spent in the rescue, that rules will be established controlling where you can sail etc, unless you have a special certificate, rescue and environmental insurance, etc, etc....

If and WHEN that does happen, it will not be due to race boat rescues. It will be due to cruising boat rescues. There are far more of those rescues than there are racing boat rescues. Why, exactly, should tax payers pick up the tab for any of these rescues??

The tiny country of New Zealand probably spends more $ per capita than any other country in the world, rescuing people off of cruising boats. Most of those boats show up later intact.

I have been saying for years that, sooner or later, every vessel will be required to carry a registered EPIRB and that the registration will cost enough to cover rescue insurance. I happen to agree that's what should happen.

As for me, I would go without one. In fact, I did. I also went around the world twice with no EPIRB or life-raft. Life-rafts are a joke. Hardly anyone gets out of one alive. Most (that are deployed) are later found empty. IMO EPIRBS and life rafts make it too easy for panicked people to abandon a perfectly good boat because they are hurt, scared or uncomfortable.

My feeling is, if you're going to go out there, you should have to be prepared to deal with the ramifications. Either you buy rescue insurance or you take your chances. I don't think that we have the right to risk other people's money or the lives of rescuers.....It's a dangerous, extreme sport.

Sorry..... that's just the way that I feel and always have.

[Tropic Cat]

Originally Posted by Kanani

My feeling is, if you're going to go out there, you should have to be prepared to deal with the ramifications. Either you buy rescue insurance or you take your chances. I don't think that we have the right to risk other people's money or the lives of rescuers.....It's a dangerous, extreme sport.

Sorry..... that's just the way that I feel and always have.

At first read, I almost agree with you. In order to agree I first have to understand to whom you apply this litmus test. Is it for circumnavigators alone or are you including folks that just make a Gulf Stream Crossing? Are you including Ocean crossings such as the ARC, as well as an afternoon sail to Catalina Island?

I guess my point is, there is a difference. I'd like to know where you draw the line?

[orion1]

We carry an EPIRB and two dingys, one hard one soft, no life raft at present. If one is just off alone I agree with Kanani.

It is those times when we have others on board that those items become imparitive IMHO. Others who trust in us and our expierence. Others who have total faith in us and place their life in our hands. One cannot betray that trust at any cost, as they may not have the experience or knowledge to refuse to go.

I speak of children primarily.

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by Tropic Cat

At first read, I almost agree with you. In order to agree I first have to understand to whom you apply this litmus test. Is it for circumnavigators alone or are you including folks that just make a Gulf Stream Crossing? Are you including Ocean crossings such as the ARC, as well as an afternoon sail to Catalina Island?

I guess my point is, there is a difference. I'd like to know where you draw the line?

Good point. Then again, a rescue in the Catalina channel would be more like a phone call to Boats US......

[Boomp]

Originally Posted by Kanani

I have been saying for years that, sooner or later, every vessel will be required to carry a registered EPIRB and that the registration will cost enough to cover rescue insurance. I happen to agree that's what should happen.

As for me, I would go without one. In fact, I did. I also went around the world twice with no EPIRB or life-raft. Life-rafts are a joke. Hardly anyone gets out of one alive...

Sorry..... that's just the way that I feel and always have.

Am I reading this wrong? You don't want this stuff but you want it mandated for others? Its a little conflicting. I sail to be free of that. I appreciate your opinion on life rafts and epirbs but those are conclusions you drew via experience. But you can see the 'proof of the pudding' these socialistic ideals spew. Costly inefficient gov't programs that create income for the connected and rules for majority. Let people be responsible for their own actions. I would agree in charging money for rescue operations. But please don't put anymore big government on me.

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by Boomp

Am I reading this wrong? You don't want this stuff but you want it mandated for others? Its a little conflicting. I sail to be free of that. I appreciate your opinion on life rafts and epirbs but those are conclusions you drew via experience. But you can see the 'proof of the pudding' these socialistic ideals spew. Costly inefficient gov't programs that create income for the connected and rules for majority. Let people be responsible for their own actions. I would agree in charging money for rescue operations. But please don't put anymore big government on me.

What I was saying is.......if one wants to carry an EPIRB for the purpose of being rescued, one should be prepared for paying for that rescue.

I, personally, would go without. I think a lot of others would go without also. The problem is, some of those people would die at sea. Others, would be forced to fend for themselves and with no other choice, I think that most would survive a catastrophic event.

The problem is, the EPIRB has become the "EASY BUTTON" as others have stated. (I'm NOT saying that is the case in this particular rescue.)

I'm not trying to 2nd guess this particular rescue and under the circumstances it was handled 100% correctly, if I understand the facts correctly.

However, had the EPIRB not been available and those 2 sailors were able to communicate, I am convinced that they would have both survived. It would have been extremely risky and painful for the injured sailor to leave his vessel but it beats the alternative. Under the circumstances (as I understand them), the injured sailor may have bled out during any rescue attempt that required him to leave his vessel. However, I think that the healthy sailor could have gotten aboard the injured sailors vessel (although extremely risky) and abandoned his vessel, if he had no other choice.

[Randall]

strange i thought that is what they get paid for on a day to day basis. Being that they are actually called to do there job that they collect a pay check for and want to do is not so strange i dont understand that statement now or ever when its made. thats like saying you should pay for the 911 call if a cop comes out to your house. they want to do that work and they get paid for it. Maybe people who make this comment just dont like there job so they dont understand some actually enjoying there job. they also want to go out and rescue people thats why they do it. they spend the same amount of money weather they go out and save a life or just flying around doing nothing and id have rather them have actualy done it if i ever need them.
Good idea to sit around collect a pay check and never leave the ground. good idea there...

[AnchorageGuy]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

"The boats are designed to very exacting standards and have to comply to all sorts of safety regulations ...."

Then obviously the standards are rubbish, these around the world boats break apart every time the race is run... keels fall off etc.

And that is my point.

[AnchorageGuy]

You will always hear the cry that folks should pay for their rescue. It usually comes from those that never leave the docks or even own a boat. You will also find that those same folks given the circumstances will be the first to call for help and watch the indignation if some handed them a bill. The Coast Guard be they US or other countries, law enforcement and military have a job to do and aid and rescue is part of that job. So should we get rid of the Coast Guard, Police and military and give it over to private companies like Blackwater and have them bill us? That is the same logic.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Chuck Baier

... The Coast Guard be they US or other countries, law enforcement and military have a job to do and aid and rescue is part of that job ...

The United States Coast Guard is a military, multimission, maritime service within the Department of Homeland Security and one of the nation's five armed services. Its core roles are to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic and security interests in any maritime region in which those interests may be at risk, including international waters and America's coasts, ports, and inland waterways.

The Coast Guard provides unique benefits to the nation because of its distinctive blend of military, humanitarian, and civilian law-enforcement capabilities. To serve the public, the Coast Guard has five fundamental roles:

Maritime Safety: Eliminate deaths, injuries, and property damage associated with maritime transportation, fishing, and recreational boating. The Coast Guard's motto is Semper Paratus—(Always Ready), and the service is always ready to respond to calls for help at sea.

Maritime Security: Protect America's maritime borders from all intrusions by: (a) halting the flow of illegal drugs, aliens, and contraband into the United States through maritime routes; (b) preventing illegal fishing; and (c) suppressing violations of federal law in the maritime arena.

Maritime Mobility: Facilitate maritime commerce and eliminate interruptions and impediments to the efficient and economical movement of goods and people, while maximizing recreational access to and enjoyment of the water.

National Defense: Defend the nation as one of the five U.S. armed services. Enhance regional stability in support of the National Security Strategy, utilizing the Coast Guard’s unique and relevant maritime capabilities.

Protection of Natural Resources: Eliminate environmental damage and the degradation of natural resources associated with maritime transportation, fishing, and recreational boating.

Goto:
USCG: Missions