Bravo for Abby Sunderland's Parents

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the wind on a large sail can create an absurd amount of force and part of being an expert sailor is trimming your sails or striking them as needed to control the force on the mast. If you do a search for "broken mast" you get lots of hits and examples.

Readers in online forums and on news sites have questioned the enormous costs of rescuing one teenager who chose to set off alone in winter into a dangerous ocean.

But the countries involved in the rescue effort have brushed off questions about the cost of the rescue and have no plans to seek recompense. Rescues at sea are a no-cost agreement under international conventions regarding maritime search and rescue operations.

"That's not the way the law works," Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters on the weekend. "The Australian taxpayer at the end of the day makes a contribution. But we have to put this in context. If there was an Australian lost at sea we would want ... every effort to be made to save that person."

In France, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told an online briefing that Abby's rescue was an international obligation to help those in distress at sea.

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea was first adopted in 1914 in response to the Titanic disaster. Along with mandating the number of lifeboats and the notification of a ship's routes, it also dictates that any ship in the area of a distress call will divert to assist that ship.

Sunderland's ship foundered right on the border of the French and Australian search and rescue regions, thousands of miles from any land. Australia had the resources to send out surveillance aircraft, while Reunion Island had ships close enough to reach Abby within 48 hours. Her rescue was relatively simple because her emergency signal was still working. But the great distances for the journeys by sea and air can add up in fuel, manpower and loss of business costs.

"The simple problem involved is that if you have troubles in the Northern Hemisphere, there's plenty of first-world countries that are all close together and can rescue you," said Neil James, executive director of the Australian Defence Association. "But if you run into trouble in the Southern Hemisphere, you're essentially a problem that belongs to South Africa, France, Australia, Chile and Argentina, and there are enormous distances involved."

Australia's search-and-rescue region encompasses 52.8 million square kilometers — 10 percent of the earth's surface.

It wasn't the first time Australia has coordinated — and paid for — a dramatic sea rescue. The hype surrounding Sunderland's rescue recalled a few other expensive operations by Australia's maritime services.

In 1997, Australia spent $6 million to rescue British sailor Tony Bullimore and Frenchman Thierry Dubois, who both went missing while competing in a solo yacht race known as the Vendee Globe. Bullimore survived for several days inside the hull of his overturned yacht, surviving on bits of chocolate and losing two toes to frostbite before being rescued by the Australian Navy just 500 miles (805 kilometers) from Antarctica.

A few years earlier, Frenchwoman Isabelle Autissier was rescued — twice in two years — at a cost of $5.8 million, causing outrage among Australians who saw their taxes paying for frivolous, selfish pursuits.

But this time, there has been little comment on the price tag of the rescue outside of a few online forums. The uproar has instead focused on Sunderland's age — 16 — and the wisdom of sailing into the unpredictable swells of the Southern Ocean in winter.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans did say last week, however, that the risk of one person's adventure could be too costly to the public.

"Clearly, it will be very expensive," Evans said. "Obviously when someone is at risk you have to respond. But I personally have a view that we should be more careful about what we allow people to do in these circumstances."

Even the U.S. Sailing Association refused to sponsor Sunderland's bid, considering it too dangerous. She did not have insurance for her trip, and her mother has said there is no way the family could pay the rescuers even if asked.
But obviously there is no alternative to the safety at sea regulations.

"These rescues are not at all an efficient use of our military and civilian resources," James said. "But the problem is, what happens if you don't do it? There's some real moral dilemmas involved in this. You can't just say, 'Well, you're a stupid idiot,' and let them drown. It would be pretty hard to justify that."

A forced stop in Cape Town gave her an opportunity to abandon the trip, but her mother defended her choice to proceed given that Abby had the backing of several renowned sailors and racing competitors.

Speculation has arisen over whether it was a publicity stunt to tackle these conditions after news came about of her father signing a deal with a reality TV program called the Adventures of Sunderland.

Given Jessica Watson's highly organised team, thorough preparation and preferable sailing conditions, it seems the two girls' epic voyages were poles apart.

Another production company, Magnetic Entertainment, rejected a TV project with the family. They believed neither the sailing vessel nor Abby were prepared for the task of tackling the turbulent oceans, especially so late in the season.

Given the potential risks and the problems already encountered, you would think that team Sunderland would have encouraged the young captain to halt the voyage when she had the chance.

She ended up becoming stranded in the Indian Ocean, forcing a multinational rescue operation spearheaded by Australia. The estimated cost of the rescue has been placed at about $300,000, a bill us taxpayers have to foot according to international maritime laws.

There is no questioning whether Abby Sunderland is courageous and inspirational. But is this giving the wrong idea to her young generation that it's OK to put yourself at adverse risk?

On the flipside, Jessica Watson - despite her own little challenges and criticisms - is a fantastic role model, having done her research and being well prepared and supported throughout her trip.

As both these girls were under the age of eighteen, I believe responsibility lies in part with the parents.

Was Abby propelled to continue her ill-fated voyage by her parents chasing financial gain and notoriety, or was it her own teenage dream of circumnavigating the world that spurred her on?

Either way the decision to continue raises some very serious questions and also sends the wrong message to other aspiring young adventurers.

What we can learn is that measured risk is fine, however when other lives are put in danger, a line needs to be drawn.

What we can learn is that measured risk is fine, however when other lives are put in danger, a line needs to be drawn.

During a press conference in Marina del Rey, Calif., Sunderland also defended her parents, who had been criticized for allowing their daughter to undertake such a dangerous voyage.

"It's hurtful to read and hear all the things that have been said about my parents," she says. "It made me sad to see it. I can't believe people would say things like that."

She insists that her family has no plans to make a reality TV show or a documentary, although she is contemplating writing a book.

Sunderland also says that, despite her age, she was fully prepared for her five-month-long sailing odyssey. "I sailed 12,000 miles by myself, crossed two oceans and sailed around Cape Horn," she says. "Questions of my age should have been over a long time ago. My trip didn't end because of anything I did wrong."

She says it'll probably be "a few years" before trying another solo voyage. In the meantime, she's getting her driver's license. "Roads are more dangerous than sailing," she jokes. "So I think I'm going to be more nervous driving than I was sailing."

The planned sail route was to begin from Marina del Rey, thence to Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Cape Leeuwin and back to Marina del Rey.

Sail-World noted of Sunderland's departure timing: "While ... she will round the Horn in the height of summer when conditions should be the best they can be, her delayed departure ... means that by the time she sails south of Australia, the weather will be approaching autumn, and the weather will be deteriorating."
Sunderland's yacht Wild Eyes was a 40-foot sloop built in 2001 by A.S.A. Yachts PTY, Australia, designed by Jutson Yacht specifically for sailing single-handed through the Southern Ocean. Under its earlier name BTC Velocity the vessel finished second in the Class 3 category of the Around Alone 2002 race.

Answer: Around May 24 a line got stuck near the top of her mast. Sunderland tried to climb the mast but found it too dangerous in the near gale conditions and full darkness, so she sailed throughout that night with too much sail area

Sunderland wrote that "one long wave" had brought about the dismasting of her sail boat Wild Eyes, which was abandoned to the ocean.

It had just gotten dark and Abby Sunderland was down below working on her engine when her boat got slammed broadside by an enormous wave. The wave came on the back of a dying storm. She was slammed around the cabin, but wasn’t injured in any major way other than she hit her head and “things went black for a second.”

- I was hit by a rogue wave, once the storm was already dying down. The boat rolled fast — I didn’t really have a lot of warning, she told the media.
Wild Eyes was not rolled 360 degrees. When the boat got back on her keel Abby went in to the cockpit to check the damage. The mast was over the side. This is usually a life-threatening situation for a sailor, as the mast will often try to punch holes in the boat in the motion created by the waves. But Abby was luck. In her case the mast acted as a sea anchor and was not a threat to the hull.

- The first thought was to jury rig. But I did only have a one-inch stub left sticking out of the deck. The boom had snapped in half so I couldn’t us that either, she said

“We don’t expect or even ask for everyone to agree with our decision to allow Abby to follow her dream. But we do ask others to respect our decisions as parents just as we respect other parents who may make decisions for their children that we may not for ours. We support Abby, and as parents we will guard her as best we can, recognizing that parenting isn’t always easy for any of us. We stand by her in whatever she decides for her life in the future.”

Australian and French taxpayers bore some of the expenses for Sunderland's rescue and the government confirmed that by law, her family cannot be billed for the expenses. It has been reported the Qantas plane used to spot her costs AU$10,000 an hour to operate. The total cost of the international rescue is estimated to be AU$300,000. According to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, any ship of any nation in the vicinity of a distress call is required to render assistance at no cost.

Don't hate. If you needed rescuing I promise we will come.