Would You Allow this . . . ?

[ssullivan]

These threads grow more and more disturbing every time I see a new one.

As far as I'm concerned, we ought to have *only* coastal rescue for day sailors who get in trouble "X" amount of miles from shore. It's cheap, they usually just need a tow, and it's inexpensive and they can be babysat by the nanny state.

In this modern day of EPIRBS and satellite phones, people are too reliant on rescue services and are doing nothing but encouraging the nanny state by RELYING ON THIS VERY SAME NANNY should a storm cause them to "chicken out."

To be completely honest, if I couldn't get my boat together and left so unprepared as to not be able to limp back in a case such as that Ken Barnes guy had, I would deserve to go down with the ship. I know that sounds extreme, but personally, I make sure I will never need rescue. It's called redundancy.

If you *do* lose your boat to the sea and you are truly sinking or floating around in a liferaft, ok... call for help. But even then, it's at the expense of the nanny state, who you just became more and more controlled and indebted to.

This is a real problem. Maybe we (as sailors) should be prepared to die if we are unable to cope with what the sea dishes out. Seriously. This *should be* the nature of traveling offshore.

[Morgan Paul]

As far as I'm concerned, we ought to have *only* coastal rescue for day sailors who get in trouble "X" amount of miles from shore. It's cheap, they usually just need a tow, and it's inexpensive and they can be babysat by the nanny state.

Sean you are dead on with your last post. And that "X" distance
is a great idea.

[stevelxls]

Interesting to see so much early approval of the event (90+%). Will it continue?


Events like the 'Jester' should be heartedly embraced lest they disappear into the all enveloping swamp of regulation. It is so reassuring to see the virtues good seamanship and self responsibility at sea still going strong.

Originally Posted by ssullivan

Maybe we (as sailors) should be prepared to die if we are unable to cope with what the sea dishes out. Seriously. This *should be* the nature of traveling offshore.

One of the '06 'Jesters' was the experienced sailor Roger Taylor. He has VERY STRONG and DEFINITE views on issues at sea and (most unusually for me) I find myself in utter agreeance with all his viewpoints I have seen to date.

Whether a minimalist sailor or a user of all the latest equipment, if you haven't already done so I would strongly recommend having a look at Roger's website Introduction to the junk-rigged Corribee Mingming and particularly the last item (Safety At Sea - A Radical Approach) on the 'Articles' page:
Articles about sailing by junk-rigged Corribee Mingming's skipper Roger Taylor.

Whatever your viewpoint, a very interesting and informative read with clear reasoning behind his thoughts.





NB
A very experienced solo-sailor, RT chooses to sail w/out the likes of engine, epirb, long-range comms., etc. but with the likes of a jury rig, emergency steering and (in theory) an unsinkable boat. If he gets in the mire, his remit is to sort it out himself, not just press the help button.

[stevelxls]

Quoted from the website thesimplesailor . com , one of the Jester participants.

"An assumption of the right to be rescued is a poor starting point for the ocean sailor. It is my view that much of modern so-called 'safety' equipment, in particular the Emergency Position Indicating Rescue Beacon - the EPIRB - insidiously militates against the proper preparation of yachts and their crews for ocean sailing. Its unspoken message is that at the press of a button help will be on its way. It is the ultimate safety net. It should not be. The ultimate safety net should be the uncompromising preparation and seaworthiness of the yacht to be sailed, and the proper mental attitude of its crew."


"To assume rescue as of right and therefore to compromise on proper and rigorous preparation for every eventuality, is an abdication of real personal responsibility. It is too glib. It is too easy. It smacks of selfishness. If preparation is not uncompromising and thorough, then sea-going becomes a gamble. That is fine, as long the sailor who gambles is fully prepared to face the consequences of losing that gamble. There should be no last-minute reprieve on the back of someone else's forced risk-taking."


In full agreeance with SS re. coastal rescue for 'x' miles, thereafter you're on your own should you choose to go.
A bit like choosing between the busy beach with lifeguards, or the isolated one without. The choice is yours, so why not the consequences.

[hellosailor]

No doubt someone out there thinks we should attain government "ocean swimmer certification" before being allowed to SWIM off the beaches, as well?

It is bad enough that many public beaches prohibit swimming unless a lifeguard is on duty. I'd rather see a sign that says "If you go swimming when there is no lifeguard on duty, we're going to let you drown. Really."

And the same way, there should be a way for rescue services to say "You know, if you really want to go to sea in that thing, that's your choice, but we're not going to come and get you. Sign here to acknowledge your release, would you?"

See View All Demotivators® at Despair.com



it's always nice to know there's been SOME purpose to your day.<G>

[Kanani]

The entire concept of the race is being a minimalist. The more regulations that you impose on the racers, the more you detract from the very nature of the race.

This is the same reason that I don't own a house in a "Gated community". I'm not having someone comming up to me and telling me that I can't park my car in the driveway or paint my front door blue if I want to.

We have "Rules of the Road" for the protection of others. There are also "Rules of the Road" at sea. As long as a sailor obeys those rules, I can't see anyone telling him that he must have a life-raft, electric bilge pump, water-tight bulkhead, radio or life-lines 30" off the deck or that he can't paint his front door blue.

[stuartcnz]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

As far as I'm concerned, we ought to have *only* coastal rescue for day sailors who get in trouble "X" amount of miles from shore. It's cheap, they usually just need a tow, and it's inexpensive and they can be babysat by the nanny state.

In theory I agree with this idea, however in practice I think it becomes much more complicated. How is the arbitrary "X" amount of miles set? Surely different coastal situations would call for different distances to be relevant.

What happens if someone gets into trouble within "X" number of miles, but is swept out beyond that boundry before a rescue can get to them? are they then left to fend for themselves? What if they get into trouble half a mile further out, but didn't realise they had crossed the rescue limit? These may seem like pedantic questions, but they do need to be answered thoroughly before this kind of system can be set up.

[Kanani]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

And the same way, there should be a way for rescue services to say "You know, if you really want to go to sea in that thing, that's your choice, but we're not going to come and get you. Sign here to acknowledge your release, would you?"

When we entered South Africa, bound for the Cape of Good hope, the customs officer told us that Chris Bonnette holds a class teaching sailors how to travel around the Cape. He said, if we take that class (which is not mandentory) and we get in trouble enroute, the Coast Guard will come to our aid in any conditions. If we do not take that class and find ourselves in trouble, the Coast guard will not come to our aid. BTW.....the class was free.

Out of the 13 boats that made the transition that year, one boat did not take the class. He ended up running aground between Durbin and East London. He the skipper and crew walked to the nearest highway and got a ride into town. To my knowledge, that vessel was never recovered.

I video taped the class. It was very informative and made a real pleasure out of that passage. We stopped in places that I wouldn't have stopped (like Nysna), had we not recieved knowledge from that class.

[senormechanico]

This subject should extend to idiots who go hiking or skiing into the back country of our state after purposely going past signs which prohibit such acts. They get into trouble, have no clue where they are, but the taxpayers have to fund huge rescue efforts. I see this stuff on the news all year, but especially in the winter.
I'm with the majority here. Let Darwin claim them.
Grrr!!

Steve B.

[stevelxls]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

I'm with the majority here. Let Darwin claim them.
Grrr!!

Steve B.

Are you saying you wouldn't let it go ahead if you had the final say?
The vast majority so far have said they would.

[senormechanico]

I'm saying let the games begin, but when people go off on extreme type things, don't come crying to the taxpayers to save them.

To quote a favorite line from the movie "Airplane" where the Point/Counterpoint guys were arguing about the plane in trouble
one of the debaters said,
"They knew what they were getting into when they bought their tickets.
I say, 'Let 'em crash' ".

Steve B.

[Ex-Calif]

Live Free or Die...

-or-

Live Free and Die...


Don't confuse the ability to do something with the cost of failing to do so. I'll post in the Coast Guard thread about "user fees" for rescue and other gov't services.

And Captain Hook - While I appreciate your sentiment, I don't see how one wanker can put the others at risk. He might be able to put himself at risk but not the other boats, unless I am missing something.

[hellosailor]

Dan-
The "will endanger others" train of thought has some validity to it. (Some.) The argument is that if boat #1 gets in trouble, boat #2 may endanger itself by "doing the right thing" and responding, i.e. by coming about and challenging the seas in order to reach the boat in danger, instead of running off in whatever direction provides maximum safety during a storm. Etcetera.
Well...they're all still volunteers. There's something to be said for "Hey guys, anyone want to come out and play?" without asking about knee pads and mouthguards and whether the playground has had proper antibacterial rubberized matting installed.
How did we ever survive when playgrounds were just paved, and we skinned out knees, got hell for tearing our pants, and yes, some kids even fell off the monkeybars and out of trees. (That's a rhetorical question.)

[Ex-Calif]

Hellosailor - I'm with you on that.

We had a cat go turtle in the channel a couple of weeks ago. We get lots of shipping. We dropped sail and motored up. My crew was all about, let's tow him out of the channel, etc., etc.

I was all about taking the crew on-board if need be.

As it turned out they needed a righting line. We tossed them a 50 footer and stood off while they took forever to right the boat.

Afterwards I had to make the point to one of my crew that, we are not a tow boat, we are not very maneuverable and could have caused damage to the other boat if we tried to get close and effect a tow.

However taking people off who are at risk of being run down by a tanker is a no-brainer.

[zcfd02]

Years ago I hiked a LOT of back country. At one point I registered a hike in a designated wilderness area - off the maintained trails, following a route I had worked out on USGS satellite photos.

The Park Ranger said you can do it, but if you are not back when you say you should be, we are not risking resources looking for you.

In other words, if I got hurt I was bear (or cougar) meat. That's the way it should be. Should you venture more than, say, 20 miles offshore, you are on your own or you can pay for an ocean going tug to come get you.

That hike was the among the most amazing 10 days of my life. Doubt if it would be allowed these days.

I agree that folks at sea need to be self reliant, and travelling in a pack like this should allow all but tail end charlie to have fellow sailors to lend a hand in case of trouble. A good reason to not be the slowest boat in the event.

Here is a question: Would I oppose efforts by control freaks to stop this event? Hell, Yes!

Would I get a guilt trip if someone dies in the event? Hell, No. We all die, doing something you love, that is a challenge, that you volunteered to do? There are lots of worse ways to go. In a condo in a city comes to mind.

I understand the original Hogsbreath died of litigation. Keel haul the Lawyers, say I!