Visit our Popular Forums

Kanani · 14-11-2007, 12:21

My point was not that it couldn't be done (I don't know if it could or not) but that the task would be very daunting and surely, very expensive and if made available for 1, it must surely be made available for all. Then the point becomes, when is enough too much?

My concern is that the boating community is a very small % of the general population. Our concern is certainly a "Minority" concern and the more pressure that the minority applies to the majority, the more the majority will find a way to resist the minority, especially when it comes to $..

It appears that there may be a lack of personal responsibilty here (not speaking of this individual case). The boating community seems to feel that it is the responsibilty of the general public to pay for the damages that are acrued and enjoyed by a very few. In this case, that expense could be substancial.

The general public sees taking a small boat across vast oceans as being extremely irresponsible. In some cases, I have to agree and the # of cases is ever expanding as the (apparent) ease of passage making and lack of consequences is becoming more attractive to some that can't handle the reality of it when the $&@% hits the fan.

As the # of irresponsible and incapable sailors increase, the chances of responsible and capable sailors being negatively effected also increases. The bottom line is, the more publicity that this sort of stuff gets, the shorter lived the cruising lifestyle will become. That's just a matter of doing the math.

GreyRaven · 14-11-2007, 12:28

Quote: Hellosailor

“What I'm saying is, the physical task of scanning images and saying "Is this ocean empty? Or maybe not?" is old hat. You don't have to "make it happen" on the technical level. All you need to "make it happen" is:

1-Authorize the use
2-FUND IT.”

Cool.

That is exactly what I’ve been saying. The technology exists! It just needs to be used.

Thank you for the excellent evaluation. And, of course, it is our job to ensure that we sail safe. No question about that.

Kanani · 14-11-2007, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"It is the user's fault for being where he/she is and not being able to get themselves out of trouble. ""

"Fault" might be a bit judgemental. The user made a choice to be out there (or at least, "out there" beyond their own bed on land) but after that, sometimes you have to consider the ancient saying "**** happens". Phrased in many ways by many organizations over the years, but I think the sailor's version is about the most succinct of them.

..............

Choice, yes. Freedom, yes. Fault? **** happens. The mythological "prudent mariner" deals with it as best they can.

I din't say that it is their fault for what "Happens". I said that it is their fault for being where they are and not being able to get themselves out of trouble. That is not a judgement....that's just a fact. If it happened to you or I, the fact wouldn't change. It is our choice to be there. If we weren't there, **** would not have stuck us.

**** does happen....that's for sure. It is being able to deal with it, that separates those that should be out there from those that shouldn't. Of course, there will always be the odd situation where someone has a heart attack or some other (undetected) medical emergency at sea. That could happen if the person stayed home. However, if the person were at home, the search and rescue of that person would be much less an issue. Medical conditions are not an issue of negligence. Hitting a container and not knowing how to manage the intrussion of water, may well be a matter of negligence.

Those that are out there, are ALL out there buy choice. If we die out there, it's not the Governments' fault or the Coast Guard's or the boat builder's fault or our mother's fault. It is OUR fault. That is the bottom line. This is my WHOLE issue.......accountabilty. People are becoming less and less willing to accept the consequences for their actions. It is never our "fault".........like heck.

hellosailor · 14-11-2007, 14:08

Kanani-
"My point was ...the task would be very daunting and surely, very expensive ..."

Well, not really. Remember SETI? Folks run a distributed processing program for it on their PCs when not in use, so the net cost dropped from "lots" to "zero" effectively. Now consider, if folks let their computers run SAR image processing as a distributed task--and I'd bet enough sailors and their friends would run it, if it was out there.

So the computer horsepower could be dirt cheap, unless someone wanted to task a couple of whatever the new supermachines are. Ditto a search like the one done for Fossett--where I think Amazon put up some 50,000 images with no prescreening. Prescreening ocean (instead of land) should be a far simpler task, even if it was started over from ground zero as a freeware open source project for the purpose.

The larger side of the problem (IMO) is obtaining the imagery. The commercial vendors aren't going to routinely give it away, Fossett was a unique case. (Or perhaps--just a first case?) Obtaining military imagery...uhuh. Those same images are being used for valid military purposes, tracking vessels like submerged submarines. One thing that I would NOT bet on, is that the ocean imaging is "just" surface imaging, or just visible spectrum. There's all sorts of stuff going on, and I have to admit, I understand the military point of view on this. Disclosing or sharing anything that might provide information about the imaging capabilties of the satellites--even the simple time and position of images, which in turn speaks about orbit passes and speeds--is disclosing strategic information. Far better they err on the side of "disclose nothing".

OTOH, Congress could pass a healthy tax incentive to give private imaging firms more reason to make ocean images available for free, for SAR purposes. But then again...wouldn't the next logical step be groups petitioning to protest "We don't want to be watched all the time while we are at sea!" ?

Far simpler & cheaper to allow sailors to broadcast their position & condition--when and if they choose to--and engage SAR assets when that signal fails. And that would also be a trivial technical pass, something like using the new $150 (retail) data transponders that are being sold, on the market now, but having them put out "don't worry, I'm here" chatter on an ongoing basis.

"I said that it is their fault for being where they are and not being able to get themselves out of trouble." Isn't that exactly analagous to saying "Its your own fault you were hit by a drunk driver, you had no basis taking a ride on the parkway today anyhow." ? Or "Its your own fault you were robbed, you chose to buy valuable things." ?

Kanani · 14-11-2007, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"I said that it is their fault for being where they are and not being able to get themselves out of trouble." ....

Isn't that exactly analagous to saying "Its your own fault you were hit by a drunk driver, you had no basis taking a ride on the parkway today anyhow." ? Or "Its your own fault you were robbed, you chose to buy valuable things." ?

As I stated before. Taking a ride on the parkway could be considered a perfectly "Reasonable risk" activity by most. Sailing across an ocean in a small boat would be considered a "High risk" activity that takes a high degree of skill and personal responsibility, by most. Most, in fact, would consider this an irresponsible act at best and that a person is "Taking his/her life in their own hands".

In the relm of "Reasonable" rational, I believe that my statement would hold true. I believe that your examples involve "Unreasonable" rational.

Being "robbed" isn't even a reasonable comparison and in no way relates to the issue.

hellosailor · 14-11-2007, 15:12

I guess we can agree to disagree. I'd feel way safer putting to sea than driving late at night on a holiday weekend, when all the drunks are out there.

(Both cases assuming that I've done my own homework for prepping the boat, or car, to a reasonable standard of safety.)

Therapy · 14-11-2007, 18:40

[quote=hellosailor;111311

Choice, yes. Freedom, yes. Fault? S*** happens. The mythological "prudent mariner" deals with it as best they can.[/quote]

Thank you.

Therapy · 14-11-2007, 18:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanani

It is being able to deal with it, that separates those that should be out there from those that shouldn't.
.

Who is going to decide? You? Maybe some goofy certification.

Don't get me wrong and wad your panties.

I think people are less responsible for their actions (all of them!!!) than in the past too.

This may well only be because of my age though.

I read a complaint (translated) years ago (I have since lost it) that complained of how things were getting so bad etc etc.......basically the same thing being said here..............and it was written in like 200BC.

A real hoot for me. I wish I could find it.

Oh yea.

I consider sailing from Annapolis or Florida to the Bahamas "sailing offshore".

Maybe I am wrong and a sissy though because if I thought I was going to have to jury-rig the boat with you and stay in it for 30 days with you being all macho and all, I might just turn on the EPIRB right after you fall asleep.

Kanani · 14-11-2007, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Therapy

Oh yea.

I consider sailing from Annapolis or Florida to the Bahamas "sailing offshore".

Maybe I am wrong and a sissy though because if I thought I was going to have to jury-rig the boat with you and stay in it for 30 days with you being all macho and all, I might just turn on the EPIRB right after you fall asleep.

There is nothing "Macho" about the fact that any and all sailors that do open ocean passages should be prepared to jeri-rig there boat and spend a conciderable amount of time getting to safe harbor, in the event of a failure.

That is called, "Being prepared" and/or excepting the reality of the possibilities that may have to be overcome at sea. I have seen several vessels do just that.

If any sailor would consider being under jeri-rig, at sea for 30 days a burden that he/she could not bare and would rather abandon their vessel, I would say that person should not go to sea.

Now, if you are just saying that you couldn't put up with me for 30-days under those conditions.......well.....I probably wouldn't blame you

.

Therapy · 14-11-2007, 19:40

..................

Lodesman · 15-11-2007, 14:51

Found this site, has a good representation of resolution: IMINT - Resolution - Reading License Plates and Headlines

delmarrey · 15-11-2007, 16:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Found this site, has a good representation of resolution: IMINT - Resolution - Reading License Plates and Headlines

"Updated Tuesday, December 30, 1997 10:19:25 AM "

A bit old, I would say.

**David M** · 15-11-2007, 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanani

This discussion is forgetting all about taking responsibilty for ones own actions.

Open Ocean sailing is a dangerous activity. It's a "Sport" if you will. When one engages in a dangerous sport and gets hurt doing so, how is it the government's responsibilty to bail that person out?

I'm sorry, this may be an un-popular position but every person that goes to sea, KNOWS the enherint risk. In the early 80's we had the advent of Satellite Navigation. With the elimination of the need to know celestial navigation came an onslaught of new cruisers. Then came the EPIRB. The 1st ones were OK but didn't really give a person a real level of safety and therefore made little difference in the attitude of cruisers.

Then came the later EPIRBs that would actually link with satellites from anywhere in the world and transmit the vessels ID and location. Everything changed after that. We saw an entire new breed of cruising people that didn't seem to have the same level of self-reliance and capabilities of the cruisers from before. I feel that some people think that the purchase of an EPIRB gives them some "Right" to a free rescue and that rescue is guranteed and an obligation of the gvnmt. Where did that thinking come from? It is not the sollution to a problem. It is the source of a bigger problem.

All of a sudden, open ocean sailing seemed to transform from an extreme sport to a "Normal" mode of transportation from one place to another. People seem to have the idea that because they own an EPIRB, that obligates someone else to come get them if they get in trouble.

The fact is, if you go out there, you'd darn-well better know how to get yourself back. If you go out there thinking that someone else is going to come get you in the event of a catastrophe, you may be in for a shock. Catastrophes will surely increase and deaths to rescuers have already increased. How does anyone have the right to go to sea with the knowledge that they could possibly be endangering other people's lives and the intent to do so in some rather un-extraordinary circumstances.

I have seen people be taken off of perfectly good boats, simply because they panicked and the EPIRB was an easy way out. I have also seen people get themselves to shore in sinking, broken boats that would shake the resolve of even the hardest sailor.

The reason that I bring this up, in this thread is, can you imagine if the military is now obligated to perform search and rescue for every vessel that sets off an EPIRB????? The financial implications of that are huge. I still question that it would ever be possible to spot a small boat in the open ocean and be able to distinguish it from a white-cap on the sea. However, even if it could be done, the resources involved would be huge and amount of incidents would be ever-increasing and the number of rescuers deaths would continue to climb.

What would you think about cruising vessels having to pay the expense of their own rescue? That tends to put a whole new spin on things. Having the military use satellites for search and rescue could literally cost tens of millions of dollars. I'm not putting a $ value on human life here. I'm just asking a question.....who should be held accountable for that expense? Should cruising vessels be required to have "Search & Rescue Insuranse"?

Where do you think this is all leading??? Is it the inevitable death of cruising due to costs or is it going to go to personal accountability?
Tax payers will only put up with so much of this stuff. At some point, the non-boating public (about 95% of the population) will demand some sort of accountability if costs continue to rise at the rate that they have been (both in $ and loss of life). That I can assure you.

I'm not saying cruisers should be reliant on others. I don't know how you got that out of my post.