16YO trying to sail around the world, found alive with boat disabled, rescue on

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Really? Because I can pretty much guarantee that driving a car is safer than solo cirucmnavigation.

I have tried hard and I cannot find a case where a solo circumnavigation attempt resulted in death.

There are lots of articles about Abby Sunderland's rescue that say, "Others have died attempting this" but I cannot find any actual accounts of such. There was one incident where circumnavigator Edwin Arnold hit an iceberg in 2002 but he was uninjured and the boat suffered only minor damage... he continued and completed his circumnavigation.

[Buzzard]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

If everyone thought this way, we would never progress. Everyone who wants to do something risky should be punished... we would become completely stagnated and never amount to anything.

This girl wanted to do something remarkable... an amazing personal feat... that should not be something to be punished.

Not only that but I GUARANTEE that driving a car is more dangerous than solo circumnavigation simply because of the extreme precautions taken by circumnavigators.

Perhaps they should not try to rescue car accident victims. They are, afterall, much bigger dare devils than Abby Sunderland.

??

Thought what way?

If people want to participate in high risk activities requiring expensive rescue missions when they fail, they should be the ones that at least help pay for it?
We would never progress if our society was more of a user pay system?

If that's what you're saying, I disagree, and tend to think we would be much more productive.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by Buzzard

??

Thought what way?

If people want to participate in high risk activities requiring expensive rescue missions when they fail, they should be the ones that at least help pay for it?
We would never progress if our society was more of a user pay system?

If that's what you're saying, I disagree, and tend to think we would be much more productive.

We would never progress as a society if we never took risks.

Plus, the Sunderland family are US citizens who presumably pay taxes so they ARE paying for search and rescue operations of not only their daughter but everyone else in need of help as well.

[Jetsfan]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

Considering its a much more valuable skill to know how to sail, than to say, play hockey, do you think going after NHL records is "stupid"?

The taxpayer doesn't pay the bill if an NHL player dies, that is why the NHL has insurance.

This 13 year old or her family should have an insurance policy for this situation so the taxpayer doesn't have to foot the bill.

I believe two sailors from the French fishing vessel were thrown overboard during the rescue...what if they drowned?

Who would take care of their families?

[amorak]

If she were Canadian, I would be happy to see what amounts to an infinitesimal percentage of my tax dollars going towards rescuing those who chase their dreams. Good for her, good for man kind - I love to see people chasing the things they are passionate about.

[Devils'Advocate]

Are the same people here saying we should put tax dollars towards "people chasing their dreams" the same people that say we shouldn't be paying for athletes for the Olympics?

-=-=-=-=-

What pisses me off is when the billionaire balloonists crash, Joe Q. Public foots the bill to save his ass. This girl had to collect donations to get her attempt off the ground so I doubt she could pay for her rescue like those rich balloon guys.

If everyone thought this way, we would never progress. Everyone who wants to do something risky should be punished...

How about everyone that does something risky that accomplishes nothing should be punished? What in the world would change if she actually made it? What suffering would be alleviated? What contribution to mankind would be made? What of any use would come from a 16 year old sailing around the world?

[troutman]

Selfish adventures with high risk does not equal "chasing the dream" IMO. Pay for your own damn rescue costs if you want to engage in high risk sports.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

How about everyone that does something risky that accomplishes nothing should be punished? What in the world would change if she actually made it? What suffering would be alleviated? What contribution to mankind would be made? What of any use would come from a 16 year old sailing around the world?

Exactly. It's not like she was flying to Mars and advancing "science", or, to use a better comparison, sailing in an ancient vessel to prove theories about human migration, a la Thor Hejerdal...

[The Yen Man]

Maybe she wants to make contact with the new world? Oh wait, I think someone already did that about 500 years ago.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

To everyone who is saying that taxpayers picking up the tab for her rescue is ridiculous I have to ask why?

That's exactly what coat gurads, and navies of the world are for. I'm sure there are several sea rescues every day, the only reason this one made the news was becasue it was a 16 year old girl sailing around the world solo.

I don't recall hearing anyone complaining about the rescue costs when that school ship sank a while back. How was that any different?

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

To everyone who is saying that taxpayers picking up the tab for her rescue is ridiculous I have to ask why?

That's exactly what coat gurads, and navies of the world are for. I'm sure there are several sea rescues every day, the only reason this one made the news was becasue it was a 16 year old girl sailing around the world solo.

I don't recall hearing anyone complaining about the rescue costs when that school ship sank a while back. How was that any different?

I don't know anything about the school ship sinking, but I imagine it was an educational jaunt with a high education:risk ratio.

This was a purely recreational jaunt with no reward to balance out incredible risk.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

To everyone who is saying that taxpayers picking up the tab for her rescue is ridiculous I have to ask why?

That's exactly what coat gurads, and navies of the world are for. I'm sure there are several sea rescues every day, the only reason this one made the news was becasue it was a 16 year old girl sailing around the world solo.

I don't recall hearing anyone complaining about the rescue costs when that school ship sank a while back. How was that any different?

I think a lot of people just see this particular case as a very unnecessary risk and one that had a good chance of not working out. There comes a point when people need to take personal responsibility.

I actually don't care who pays for it, but I do think this whole record breaking thing was nothing more than narcissism.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

To everyone who is saying that taxpayers picking up the tab for her rescue is ridiculous I have to ask why?

That's exactly what coat gurads, and navies of the world are for. I'm sure there are several sea rescues every day, the only reason this one made the news was becasue it was a 16 year old girl sailing around the world solo.

I don't recall hearing anyone complaining about the rescue costs when that school ship sank a while back. How was that any different?

If I remember right the school ship was hit by a microburst that came along unexpectedly.

A far cry from someone navigating intentionally into crappy waters or storms.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Okay, I'd say all the arguments about adventure vs education, or risk vs reward, or even how expected the weather is are irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, we have those services for a reason. We can't just start to pick and choose who gets saved for free and who's not covered under the Adventure/Risky/Probably expecting bad weather exclusion clause.

Those kids on the school boat, were doing something that was inherantly more risky than going to a regular school. I'd be willing to bet that the school on the boat isn't the best in the world, so they were clearly going at least in part for the adventure over their education, and expected or not, bad weather conditions can strike any time. So really is that situation all that different?

What about if a cruise ship is sinking? There's clearly no redeaming value to that cruise for those people other than having a good time or an adventure, and getting on a boat is probably a lot riskier than staying in any number of resorts that offer the same ameneties in a non-floating environment. Should the coast guard refuse to save them untill they've ponied up some cash?

The point is it's pretty much impossible to draw an arbitrary line where you can say these people are worth saving, and these people will have to pay their own way to be saved.

[VladtheImpaler]

I would venture to guess, and I would gladly defer to an actual shipping industry expert, that with any cruise/merchant shipping, there is an insurance cost built into the price.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, I'd say all the arguments about adventure vs education, or risk vs reward, or even how expected the weather is are irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, we have those services for a reason. We can't just start to pick and choose who gets saved for free and who's not covered under the Adventure/Risky/Probably expecting bad weather exclusion clause.

Those kids on the school boat, were doing something that was inherantly more risky than going to a regular school. I'd be willing to bet that the school on the boat isn't the best in the world, so they were clearly going at least in part for the adventure over their education, and expected or not, bad weather conditions can strike any time. So really is that situation all that different?

What about if a cruise ship is sinking? There's clearly no redeaming value to that cruise for those people other than having a good time or an adventure, and getting on a boat is probably a lot riskier than staying in any number of resorts that offer the same ameneties in a non-floating environment. Should the coast guard refuse to save them untill they've ponied up some cash?

The point is it's pretty much impossible to draw an arbitrary line where you can say these people are worth saving, and these people will have to pay their own way to be saved.

At any one time, there are any number of people sailing the world's oceans or coastal waters as a recreation rather than an occupation.

Many would be older and well experienced with their mode of transport and in dealing with adverse conditions.

Yet, regardless of preparation and experience, there will be those who will still require rescue anyway.

I certainly disagreed with the father of this teenager comparing the risk of cruising solo around the world to that of driving a car to school. That was idiotic and speaks to his own lack of responsibility in this matter.

Yet, there's no "off limits" or "out of bounds" sign as you exit harbour or your local coastal waters, the basis by which we charge rescue costs to wayward skiers for their deliberate choices.

Until all the nations of the world agree that people should stay off the world's oceans or that only certain people are worthy of transiting them, then the traditions of the sea have to apply, as the Australian search and rescue official who dispached a plane to find this teenager so aptly noted.

Cowperson

[Traditional_Ale]

The amount of people claiming narcissim in this thread is disturbing.

Also, whatever happened to helping people when they're in danger regardless of the reason? I thought it was a Canadian thing. We have less than .05% of the world's population yet account for 10% of the world's peace keeping forces.

When a bunch of dolphins swam into some bay in Newfoundland (can't remember the name, will edit later) and got ice-locked in we sent a Navy Ice-Breaking vessel out there to get them out. What did that 'cost'? For a bunch of stupid dolphins! They sure as hell don't pay taxes! And then get this; they couldn't break the ice-block to free them. So the Navy calls it a day with their tails tucked between their legs and word of the situation makes it to the local tavern where four (drunk) fisherman take it upon themselves to go out there in their boats with chainsaws and they get it done!

If grown adults on this board feel the need to tear down this girl with comments like narcissim, 15-mins of fame, blah blah blah then I would suggest maybe starting to think about things you'd like to accomplish rather than how much money you'd like to make. Money doesn't come with you when you die, but the accomplishment of sailing around the world or whatever the case may be does come with you.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The amount of people claiming narcissim in this thread is disturbing.

Also, whatever happened to helping people when they're in danger regardless of the reason? I thought it was a Canadian thing. We have less than .05% of the world's population yet account for 10% of the world's peace keeping forces.

When a bunch of dolphins swam into some bay in Newfoundland (can't remember the name, will edit later) and got ice-locked in we sent a Navy Ice-Breaking vessel out there to get them out. What did that 'cost'? For a bunch of stupid dolphins! They sure as hell don't pay taxes! And then get this; they couldn't break the ice-block to free them. So the Navy calls it a day with their tails tucked between their legs and word of the situation makes it to the local tavern where four (drunk) fisherman take it upon themselves to go out there in their boats with chainsaws and they get it done!

If grown adults on this board feel the need to tear down this girl with comments like narcissim, 15-mins of fame, blah blah blah then I would argue that maybe starting to think about things you'd like to accomplish rather than how much money you'd like to make. Money doesn't come with you when you die, but the accomplishment of sailing around the world or whatever the case may be does come with you.

First of all, the dolphin thing sounds like a giant waste of money.

Second, people are welcome to follow their dreams all they want, but they shouldn't expect them to be funded by taxpayers.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

The amount of people claiming narcissim in this thread is disturbing.

Also, whatever happened to helping people when they're in danger regardless of the reason? I thought it was a Canadian thing. We have less than .05% of the world's population yet account for 10% of the world's peace keeping forces.

When a bunch of dolphins swam into some bay in Newfoundland (can't remember the name, will edit later) and got ice-locked in we sent a Navy Ice-Breaking vessel out there to get them out. What did that 'cost'? For a bunch of stupid dolphins! They sure as hell don't pay taxes! And then get this; they couldn't break the ice-block to free them. So the Navy calls it a day with their tails tucked between their legs and word of the situation makes it to the local tavern where four (drunk) fisherman take it upon themselves to go out there in their boats with chainsaws and they get it done!

If grown adults on this board feel the need to tear down this girl with comments like narcissim, 15-mins of fame, blah blah blah then I would suggest maybe starting to think about things you'd like to accomplish rather than how much money you'd like to make. Money doesn't come with you when you die, but the accomplishment of sailing around the world or whatever the case may be does come with you.

What is this? I never heard about this. Forget this sailing wench, I want to hear about this Dolphin expedition!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I have tried hard and I cannot find a case where a solo circumnavigation attempt resulted in death.

There are lots of articles about Abby Sunderland's rescue that say, "Others have died attempting this" but I cannot find any actual accounts of such. There was one incident where circumnavigator Edwin Arnold hit an iceberg in 2002 but he was uninjured and the boat suffered only minor damage... he continued and completed his circumnavigation.

You need to widen your search, I read a very good book about solo around the world yacht racing, its a French race (and predominantly a French 'discipline) held every year and regularly results in death, all long distance sailing has a huge risk of death below the roaring 40's.

Here's the problem I have with the parents, there is no way this is safe, regardless of age or experiance, it is always an immensly risky prospect with regular deaths of those who attempt it.

There is little that this lass will get out of this voyage she wouldn't have learnt from her already extensive sailing experiance, at 16 she should be in school, at 19 she can decide to take a year off and sail round the world and get what ever benefits this has to offer.

Of course at 19 she's just another sailor, not the youngest, so I suppose in the end it is just a stupid attempt to get a record and has nothing to do with the voyage or it's dubious 'benefits'.