the basics for survival?

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Secondly, anyone who finds his posts compelling will probably be immune to an alternative viewpoint.

Interesting that you do not have sufficient self-reflection to see the same for your posts.

Your comment about not having paid enough money to cover a rescue is interesting. Do you also have no insurance of any kind on house, car, life or boat? Or any medical insurance? Do you refuse to drive on public roads, use public libraries or watch public TV? Do you eschew your local police and fire resources and don't let your kids use the public schools?

You also apparently do not realize that a rescue cost no money - that money has already been spent in acquiring equipment, constant training, organization, etc. It has been spent whether you use it or not. If the rescue organization is the US Coast Guard, then you have paid your fair share through taxes and it is a pooled resource. Like jails - which you may never use, but are a shared tax resource that serves a purpose.

BTW, resorting to ad hominem attacks and narrow descriptions of another's point of view is a sure sign of a weak argument. Nobody has said that self-reliance is delusional, nor has anyone said they had a "one true belief". That is your projection.

What people have been trying to point out, is that rescue operations work completely differently now than they did in Steve Callahan's time. And they rely on all of us to take some specific measures to ensure they work as intended. And those measures are different than in Steve Callahan's day.

As far as rescue services not available in all parts of the world, please name me one area where you may have to wait more than a week for rescue services to reach you. Please spare me things like the Northwest passage, etc - if you are talking about high adventure, high risk cruising grounds, then I agree that you should be prepared accordingly. But even cruise ships now visit Antarctica, Greenland, the Magellan straights, etc on almost daily schedules...

Mark

[Andrew Troup]

Hmm... you're talking to a person over my left shoulder, Dave.

I have not accused you of stirring things.

In saying you were "doing it again" I was referring to what I had just stated you seemed to be doing, which was pigeon-holing.

(as an aside: Pomposity is a personality trait. It's not a flaw in an argument, like pigeon-holing.
So your pigeon-holing me (giggle) as pompous seems to me to qualify as a resort to "ad hominem".
Isn't it a bit early to be running that particular white flag up to the pole?)


Here's a few examples what I mean by pigeon-holing:

There is no mention of heroism in my posts.

Bligh and Shackleton were not thinking of "their public", they were thinking of their survival, and the survival of those with them.

Heroism is your pigeonhole, not mine.

I brought their names into it for two reasons

Firstly, because in the context of oceans and dangers unchanged since their time, self reliance is a different topic from reliance on others.

Moreover, despite your intemperate ridiculing, the former is as timeless a strategy as the latter, and more universally applicable.

The two strategies can coexist and mix*, and a combination will generally trump either strategy taken as a stand-alone doctrine.


Secondly because most people are familiar with what they did and how they did it.

It's a quick way of encapsulating a lot of concepts.

Heroism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient element, and (at least for you) clearly a distraction.

The nearest anyone has come to evoking 'noble heroes' in this thread, as far as I recollect, is your evocative picture of the "exhausted" RNLI crews, forced to "go out again trying to find some idiot in trouble".

Your portrayal of them, and your pitch for funding of them, further suggests a degree of enthusiasm on your part for them to take on a nannying role, as much as anything else written in this thread about States, but I know neither of those interpretations are faithful to your intention, so I don't interpret your posts that way.

A class of reasonable concession I hope you might consider reciprocating.

*In carefully reading all my posts, you seem to have overlooked my mention of an EPIRB as the first item in my top-priority snatchpack, the one I would ALWAYS take regardless of circumstances.

[Andrew Troup]

Another couple of examples of pigeon-holing:

You will find no reference in my posts to a "nanny state" and certainly none to a "faulty EPIRB".

I am not as familiar as you seem to be with the tropes of the "Wild West" you ascribe to me. That's your stuff, again; your pigeon-hole.

I don't fear the nannying tendencies of the State, I fear their rational evaluation of their exposure to risk (of having to invest a larger proportion of the national budget in rescue), and their rational range of responses to that risk, which basically come down to limitation of our options using "one size fits all" legislation, and crowding us into a 'passive rescuee' mindset.

In the championing of that mindset, you put my future choices at risk, whereas my mindset, applied in the way and by the people it is intended for, actually reduces your future risk.

If you interpret my message as being intended, or prone, to encouraging your target client-base to further heights of what you call "idiocy", I lay that squarely at your door.

- - - -

Bullimore's rescue is an excellent example of a disproportionately high cost to the state. Thanks for bringing that up.

Long distance racers do not have the luxury of a weight budget consistent with self reliance, but at least (unlike leisure sailors) they provide a public good, in the form of mass entertainment.

Even then, the cost of that particular rescue seems to be disproportionate to the public good. And the burden on solo long distance racers of responsibility for their dilemma is, it seems to me, heavier than most.

I say that because they knowingly push the envelope further than anyone else, so that the risk of them requiring rescue is many times greater than that of a similarly competent and well-prepared non-racer.


If I've missed rebutting anything, or misunderstood any of your points, please let me know.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Hmm... you're talking to a person over my left shoulder, Dave.



I have not accused you of stirring things.



In saying you were "doing it again" I was referring to what I had just stated you seemed to be doing, which was pigeon-holing.



(as an aside: Pomposity is a personality trait. It's not a flaw in an argument, like pigeon-holing.

So your pigeon-holing me (giggle) as pompous seems to me to qualify as a resort to "ad hominem".

Isn't it a bit early to be running that particular white flag up to the pole?)





Here's a few examples what I mean by pigeon-holing:



There is no mention of heroism in my posts.



Bligh and Shackleton were not thinking of "their public", they were thinking of their survival, and the survival of those with them.



Heroism is your pigeonhole, not mine.



I brought their names into it for two reasons



Firstly, because in the context of oceans and dangers unchanged since their time, self reliance is a different topic from reliance on others.



Moreover, despite your intemperate ridiculing, the former is as timeless a strategy as the latter, and more universally applicable.



The two strategies can coexist and mix*, and a combination will generally trump either strategy taken as a stand-alone doctrine.





Secondly because most people are familiar with what they did and how they did it.



It's a quick way of encapsulating a lot of concepts.



Heroism is neither a necessary nor a sufficient element, and (at least for you) clearly a distraction.



The nearest anyone has come to 'noble heroes' in this thread, as far as I recollect, is your evocative picture of the "exhausted" RNLI crews, forced to " go out again trying to find some idiot in trouble".



Your portrayal of them, and your pitch for funding of them, further suggests a degree of enthusiasm on your part for them to take on a nannying role, as much as anything else written in this thread about States, but I know neither of those interpretations are faithful to your intention, so I don't interpret your posts that way.



A class of reasonable concession I hope you might consider reciprocating.

I don't reply to people specifically when I reply , I mentioned heroism in regards to other peoples posts , my posts ( even when I quote specifically ) tend to just be a debate from my point of view

I have virtually day to day experience of rescue activities and the reasons that they get activated. I see no nannying and I have no tolerance for those that mix their political views with the principles of rescue at sea.

GMDSS was created to basically provide worldwide rescue in about 4 days. It does that by using a whole series of strategies and communications technology. So in planning a rescue strategy, for the 21st century , it behoves a Yachtman to consider what priorities apply

From a rescue service perspective , an ability to alert , is the key issue, they can't act if they don't know you are in trouble . Hence at one and preferably several redundant SAR communications systems are a priority. These include Epirbs , gpirbs, PLBs , sat phones and even in coastal areas , mobile phones.

Next in priority is a liferaft, because , however reluctantly you abandon your yacht, you need somewhere to go.

That place is not a " sailing dinghy " , or even a life raft with sails , what you need is a place to wait for rescue as safety as possible. But I have no issue with extensive " survival " training or equipment AS long as that is not the to the detriment of being well equipped to alert and guide the rescue assets to you.

After that it's the typical contents of a SOLAS A or B pack.

Only then is it appropriate to consider other survival equipment , but the clear facts are that rescue is effected in an average of under 4 days and in many cases far less then that. Shipping abounds these days compared to the sparse populations of ships in Blyth day


I mention " heroism" because they're are those ( not you ) that expound some sort of " Wild West " self survival or self rescue mentality. As if decrying the aid of a professional ( and or state funded ) rescue service is somehow " good" . I see the effects of such nautical " machismo " several times a year, mostly unresponsive in the back of ambulances.

Those that make comparisons with Blyth or Shackleton or even Steve Callaghan, miss the point entirely , do you think any of these people would not have used a GMDSS type system if they had it. Or course they would. They did what they did because they HAD to. We, on the other hand do have better options and it's actually irresponsible not to use them

Those that postulate that, it's somehow lacking in character or an " easy way out" , just to press the red button , have obviously never scrambled up the 30 foot side of a container ship at night in a scrambling net , or been winched out of a liferaft by a helicopter. , beleive you one one goes to sea frivolously believing they can be stupid and hence rescued. ( actually most do, are stupid and don't have enough gumption to alert the authorities )

I make mention of my lifeboat crews because the biggest frustration in this day of cheap and widespread communications is searching for a person in trouble with little or a vague idea of where they are. Hours , fuel and crew energies are spent searching sea areas, where cheap simple technology could have made all the difference. Lifeboats crews hate arriving too late.

Ps Shackleton couldn't navigate his way out of a paper bag , it's was his captain , who had the foresight to save pages from the almanac that did that. In my opinion , and polar explorers are a favourite of mine , Shackleton made a lot of amateur and foolish mistakes , Amundsen shows how a real expert did it. ( Blyth on the other hand was a maths head and a bit of a nav whizz ) , I was standing on one of his harbour defences in Dublin recently. In my opinion, neither Scott nor Shackleton were " heros" , there were essentially in the mould of prewar " quixotic " British amateurs.

Again. While I may reference some things you said , my posts are not just directed at you , but at the thread debate in general

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andrew Troup]

I don't see anybody posting about many of the things about which you are getting so emotive.

"The rabbiting on about the nanny state , boil my blood, given the voluntary nature of the rescue services like the type I'm involved with. Get a life sir."

Given that nobody else on this thread has mentioned the role of the state, it's hard to take a statement like "Get a life sir" as being aimed at some nebulous mindset.

You were personalising the argument with that statement, whether you intended to or not, and if you weren't then I wish you couch your emotions in less personal terms.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

You will find no reference in my posts to a "nanny state" =

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

All this delegation of responsibility to the state just hastens the day when the states mandate the details of how, when and in what we venture onto the water.

(As a few states already do, or have attempted to do)

You are correct - you did not use the term "nanny".

Mark

[colemj]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

Given that nobody else on this thread has mentioned the role of the state

Nobody else but you, correct?

Mark

[goboatingnow]

Digital records are a curse ain't that the truth Andrew


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[colemj]

Stop pigeon-holing him Dave.

Mark

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by colemj

Stop pigeon-holing him Dave.

Mark

I was in a pigeon house ( nest, hutch or whatever they call them oh yeah , loft ) nothing looked like " holes" , it's a curious name isn't it , pigeon holes. Not even pigeons seemingly use them

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Andrew Troup]

Dave

I got ridiculed for buying a CD player, the VERY first model of portable CD player ever sold (because of my lifestyle) when Sony brought it out. It cost me $1400.

I recouped some of that by selling off my vinyls while they were still worth plenty, because most people though digital records were a flash in the pan.

(Sorry to pop out the wrong "hole", coo coo
c-chew )

I have my own white flag to haul out: I think one reason I'm allergic to someone putting so much emotion into a hobbyhorse rant, which is not actually aimed at anyone in particular, is that it's a tendency I have.

And I will go away and sit in the naughty corner for a while and try to work out some more strategies for not doing that.

One which has worked for me, when I've remembered to do it, is to hit "Copy" instead of "Post reply", quit the thread and paste my rant into a document to save to my own drive. Hopefully to come across in a more reasonable frame of mind at some future date, squirm and learn.

_ _ _ _ _

I think in fairness I should point out that what I am recommending on this thread is the addition of another strategy, which (at least in theory) increases capability, and harms nobody.

I am not denigrating those for whom the best option is a light snatchpak, delegated, passive rescuee approach; I'm saying that for some people, in some situations, it's not the only valid option.

Whereas you appear to be saying, forcefully
"There is no alternative. It's OUR way or the highway, for everyone, everywhere"

Given that your approach is prescriptive whereas mine is suggestive, I think the onus falls on you to be pretty sure it works in all situations, not just the situations you can envisage for yourself, or from your experience.

[Andrew Troup]

on pigeon holes:

[goboatingnow]

see all outside, even pigeons don't like them !!

[goboatingnow]

I am not denigrating those for whom the best option is a light snatchpak, delegated, passive rescuee approach; I'm saying that for some people, in some situations, it's not the only valid option.

Whereas you appear to be saying, forcefully
"There is no alternative. It's OUR way or the highway, for everyone, everywhere"

I think, and I see little in continuing this bilateral debate, that is a unfair characterisation of what I said, and you use pejorative words like "passive and delegated", which in my view do not apply to a person going out properly prepared in a modern rescue scenario.

as for being prescriptive , I for example said this

"But I have no issue with extensive " survival " training or equipment AS long as that is not the to the detriment of being well equipped to alert and guide the rescue assets to you. "

And I said it in different ways before.

My point was that, it behoves yachtsmen, to be equipped to properly activate and communicate in a modern GMDSS rescue system. After that, you can all the survival equipment and training and hopefully ability to self-survive. But the latter processes and equipment shouldn't be at the expense of the former.

dave

[thomm225]

I think I just got an idea for All is Lost II................