Rebel Heart Lawsuit

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by sugarbaby-dot-c

If a sat-phone worked free for 911 or 0 around here i would buy one for 299 from Boat US or whatever.Perhaps this lawsuit will cause most carriers to provide free 911 access and that is a good thing.

Therein lies the conundrum for me. I can second guess a lot about the journey and preparedness as we all can.

I think there is almost universal agreement we (sailors) should not "rely" on one solution - Eric didn't. He had VHF, SSB, satphone and EPIRB.

He escalated his communication choices until he hit the EPIRB - The comm plan ultimately worked.

- The information gathered says that a new SIM was mailed to address of record 12 days before departure
- The SIM card was turned off on the "due" date for (presumably) all subscribers.

I think there is a higher expectation for Satphone providers. The "reason" to get a Satphone is for when one goes off the grid. Suspension of service for whatever reason could put all manner of adventurers at risk.

Himalayan mountain climbers, relief workers in Africa etc. etc. all have an expectation that their Satphone will work. There are obvious gaps in expectation versus service provided by Whenever.

- Is 12 days notice sufficient?
- Should there have been notification by email? (Was there)
- Should a Satphone at least be able to call customer service regardless of account billing status or SIM card status?
- Shuould a SatPhone with an assigned SIM card always be able to contact 911 or some other emergency services in country of issuance?

I hope the suit gets some legs under it if only to answer these questions.

I still will never hold that the phone was a causal factor in the boat loss.

But there was an expectation the phone could be used to administer aid to the sick crew person. Forget the boat damage for the moment. In fact forget this instance.

Imagine an instance one has trekked 2 weeks into nowhere and medical treatment consult is needed. IF the satphone is down "for a voluntary action of the phone company{ and with insufficient notice of a change, I can see liability there.

There should be no expectation from the phone company that Eric would have any other backup comms such as SSB/HF. He paid for a Satphone service. If the boat had been sound and the only problem was a sick crew medical advice may have made evacuation unnecessary.

This is the wrong case to test this liability, however as the boat was lost the moment it got knocked down. They wouldn't have made it to any port without power, fuel & water.

[JPA Cate]

Ex Cal:

"This is the wrong case to test this liability, however as the boat was lost the moment it got knocked down. They wouldn't have made it to any port without power, fuel & water."" Actually, had they not headed back towards land, it might have made it to Hawaii, and we'll never know anyway. Eric chose to abandon and to support his family. Furthermore, I think second guessing that decision is scurrilous.

It may be the wrong case, but it's the one you started us all on.

I don't think the boat was lost the moment it got knocked down. What I think is sadder than that. I think that Eric looked on the problems with his plywood decked elderly HC and did not understand exactly what the ramifications of that could be. Furthermore, I think most cruisers have that kind of ignorance. Do you look on that seeping little leak by the keel bolt and understand what is needed in the way of repairs the first time you see it? OF COURSE NOT! Because we learn as we go along, and what Eric learned about his boat as he went along may have been too much to acknowledge--even to himself, let alone others. I know stating this makes me open to charges of speculation, but I think Eric and Charlotte may have had extremely difficult epiphanies on this voyage, and I would not expect them to be healed yet from the trauma.

Ann

[beneteau-500]

i have to admit have found this topic very amusing , we have heard really only one side of an argument , and we have not heard from the other ie sat phone provider so how we can all come to a conclusion of who is right or wrong which some people have so far is wrong to do so .

but one fact alone that i find interesting is what RH stated on here CF on i think on 13/3/2014 was that he would not have a sat phone as it was to expensive He only had it work work related Issues to make work related calls and emails and i think this statement will come back to bite them as we truly i believe dont know what the service agreement was between Eric and phone provider ,

And My inkling is that may be just maybe that on the origanal sim and service contract may of been canceled due to non payment yes i am only guessing thats what happened and on realising this Eric rectified the error but by the time the new sim had been posted or what ever they had set sail

we can all post speculation on what may or may not of been so let it go to court see the result then discuss the out come

[Ex-Calif]

Well - Here is the first shot back that I can see from Whenever.

They are gonna blame someone else apparently...

In the legal wrangling this could be a head fake or a desire to up the complexity of the case.

Phone company denies blame for lost boat | UTSanDiego.com

(came across this while looking for a copy of the filing)

[goboatingnow]

I can't see how a global service provider like Iridium can offer a 911 service. Firstly there is no requirement to have a "country SIM". hence what number should be used.

Maybe they could allow you one programmable number, but then that would probably be your "partner" and get abused.


I think elevating a sat phone to an mission critical " or life critical" equipment status, is simply not appropriate.



dave

[beneteau-500]

Ex -calif , your last post made for some interesting reading and i hadn't even seen the the news release by the sat phone provider lawyers statement

[Warby12]

Aww! I've just discovered this thread, now I have to go back in time and read the whole thing? Is it simply that the claimant had trouble because their satellite phone account was cancelled without warning? Or are there deeper nuances? Please ignore my questions if I am skating over a deep lake of troubles. But if you go to sea and depend on (electronics + a commercial enterprise) to keep you safe... you may be disappointed. I agree, it would be ideal if this system guaranteed emergency calls and if this controversy achieves that we all win but there is no liability here.

[goboatingnow]

I agree, it would be ideal if this system guaranteed emergency calls and if this controversy achieves that we all win but their there is no liability here.

Again, for a global product used in very different ways, who would be the emergency responder. All that could be asked for is that Iridium itself maintained a 24/7 call centre emergencies, I suppose.


dave

[Ex-Calif]

Well I spent 7 bucks and downloaded the complaint.

Short and sweet.

The schedule shows only a case management hearing scheduled for march next year!

The wheels of justice grind slowly.

Win or lose there isn't gonna be much action for a while methinks...

[beneteau-500]

i wonder how this action is also being funded by Eric ? it wont be cheap i would imagine in the states how does the system work there like this

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Ex-Calif

Well I spent 7 bucks and downloaded the complaint.

Short and sweet.

The schedule shows only a case management hearing scheduled for march next year!

The wheels of justice grind slowly.

Win or lose there isn't gonna be much action for a while methinks...

Bloody hell! Almost the cost of a Singapore Sling!

[Sandero]

I find that suing various companies who provide products or services and isolated their product or service as the sole cause of a disaster rather odd. It seems sailors should know that they have a very complex system in an offshore boat... and can't possibly have redundancy for every component or service and this means that there is an element of risk that they assume when heading off shore. Complex systems fail in runaway fashion and this incident seems to be an example of it. Add to this the nature of the environment and the physical condition of the crew... and it seems that attempting to put liability of one node or element in the complex system is wrong headed. This doesn't feel to me like a clear cut case of "product (service) liability... as much trying to pin liability of one of the many nodes of the system which failed. It feels as if the skipper should not have relied on any particular component to insure life safety matters... and should have planned for or expected that some would / could fail.

So what are the lessons here for all sailors?

[Warby12]

"Again, for a global product used in very different ways, who would be the emergency responder. All that could be asked for is that Iridium itself maintained a 24/7 call centre emergencies, I suppose. " Dave

And if Iridium did do this, boy that would open up liability for them.

Sometimes bad things happen. apportioning blame is a sometimes instinctive reaction but it doesn't fix it.

Goodnight all

[beneteau-500]

item 11, of the compliant statement is what will bite them he did not purchase sat phone for safety reasons and to have as a back up for other safety comunications systems on RH it was is work phone

[Mark1977]

Originally Posted by smj

What info could be useful? What can we as cruisers learn from the actions of Rebel Heart? I'll stop there as this subject disgusts me.

We don't always learn from people who do things right, sometimes we have to look at the ones who screw up. We then will know what not to do.