11
   

Bravo for Abby Sunderland's Parents

 
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
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.
djjd62
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:45 am
listening to my fave radio guys yesterday, and they were talking about her parents saying that if they were made to pay the rescue fees they could never come up with that kind of money, and while life boat rescue organizations and coast guards/militaries around the world perform these rescues for free, he commented that their attitude was a little bit like driving across country and making no provision for financing any complications that might arise (towing charges, repairs etc)

i think that anyone engaged in a pursuit that is a personal goal, not connected with any kind of scientific research or commercial endeavour should be charged a percentage if not the entire cost of a rescue (especially dummies that ignore warnings, like all those ski idiots who go into avalanche zones)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:54 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
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.
Y not build masts with greater strengths
than any conceivable wind pressures ?


Is it a safety measure
to avoid capsizing the boat in hi wind ?

Does anyone know ?





David
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 12:51 pm
@djjd62,
some comments from those that had to foot the bill :

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-teen-sailor,0,6379334.story

Quote:
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."

hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:02 pm
@hamburgboy,
and some additional comments :

http://www.watoday.com.au/sport/blogs/sally-stands-up/risky-business-on-the-high-seas/20100616-yfzr.html

Quote:
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.
[/color]

did jessica watson's team do adequate research ?
i - at least - have to wonder ... ...
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:19 pm
@hamburgboy,
Quote:
What we can learn is that measured risk is fine, however when other lives are put in danger, a line needs to be drawn.
so what is this saying? That no one should sail the seas? That no one should do it solo? That one should past a standardized test first? That we have a magic age were it is ok to do this kind of adventure?

Come to think about it....maybe none of us should ever do anything at all, this seems to be the only way to never put anyone else at risk.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:28 pm
@hawkeye10,
there should be consequences for actions, if you want to endeavour to do something strictly for personal gain, then you should have to take some responsibility for costs of a rescue

if you have sponsors they should accept some of the responsibility, especially when relying on a foreign country to foot the entire bill for a rescue

i absolutely think you should pay the entire cost if you deliberately put your self in danger (not saying abby did this), as i satted earlier with skiers who travel into clearly marked avalanche zones (this happens a lot in BC, and this year was especially deadly for snowmobilers)
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 01:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
a few points :

- winter at cape of good hope ( summer in the north atlantic ) is the wrong time to attempt to round the cape - in a small sailboat ,
- the insurance companies must have felt that there was simply too much risk - so they refused to insure the venture ,
- the american sailing association did not encourge abby's parents to have their daughter go round the cape in the winter ,
- some experienced sailors did not think that the boat was built well enough for the trip ( i lost the reference - but may find it again ) .

to make it simple : what research did team sunderland - and her parents - undertake to assure a trip " as-safe-as-possible " ( i think it's agreed that risk can NEVER be eliminated ) .

( i'd compare it to a canadian cross-country car trip in the middle of the winter without snowtires and spare tire - not recommended - but some do it anyway , wind up in a ditch and have to pay the towing costs - no FREE towing as far as i know .
the police will say : " we'll call a towtruck " - and wash their hands off it ) .

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

and i don't think it has much to do with age - but much with experience , planning and back-up plans .
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 04:33 pm
@hamburgboy,
the question of why this trip was made this time of year, and what was the basis for thinking that she would be fine, does need to be addressed. Remember that she had boat trouble right out of the gate, and had to go to port for repairs. I dont know how long she was delayed, and if this put her in worse weather than was expected in the original plan. I dont sense any feelings on her part though that this weather was not expected.

The parents say that she continued after the repair because she wanted to do it, that the parents did not encourage her to do so. This I would like to see confirmed.

I DO have nagging questions about how this trip was planned, but based upon what I know I dont see any negligence on the parents part, I find confidence in their kid, and letting a smart and talented kid (though most of you know I don't believe 16 year olds are kids or should treated as kids) make her own choices with parental oversight. This I applaud.
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I tried to locate her route online with no luck. (maybe for a good reason,she doesn't want strangers to know her route.)
So I assumed she went down, around Africa.
That's why I asked "how low do Somali's go??"
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 11:44 pm
The whole idea of an emergency rescue is that it is an emergency. Can't wait around for a certain certain somebody to do the rescue. Whoever is in the area is the closest and morally does the rescue. Nobody wants to wonder as they travel the world , what if I need a rescue and nobody comes. Rescue is just mandatory when a rescue is possible. Anyone has the human right to be rescued, remember SOS. If they had to sit and wait for someone to ensure payment no one would be saved.

om sig,
capsizing a boat in any weather is dangerous to the boat and the sailors. It is not something that is done on purpose.
Masts are known to break every now and then. Sometimes boats are left stranded due to a whale! attack.

When she is finished with her solo circumnavigation then we will start seeing her route on the internet, I hope.

Someone posted the boat and all probably cost a million dollars. That is too far off an amount. It would be quite cheaper than that. I am not sure what kind of boat she has.
Is there a good link about her boat and equipment?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 04:20 pm
Quote:
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."
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20398022,00.html?hpt=C2

still refusing to knuckle under....very nice to see.
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 05:17 pm
I am enjoying the feedback on this topic.
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 10:43 am
So far this is all I can find about her route.
Quote:
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.
Cape Leeuwin(lu win) is the most south-westerly point of Australia, in the state of Western Australia. The Cape is considered the point where the Indian Ocean meets the Southern Ocean.
Her older brother has had a successful solocircumnavigation before he was 18yo.
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd284/Philis37/Lighthouses/350px-Cape_Leeuwin_From_North.jpg


0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:39 am
Quote:
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.
If the damn sloop was built for southern ocean sailing why the H*** did the mast breakNeutral
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.
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd284/Philis37/MAPs/220px-Abby_Sunderland_map1_svg.png
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 11:13 pm
@Philis,
Quote:
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
YIKES! this is a 2x4 upside my argument.....Obviously if she did not realize that the rigging was bad until she was full in a gale something got missed....Thinking here she was overly aggressive, took her nap as the storm came in with the sail out, and did not realize until she got up and tried to take it down that it was messed up. At that point it was too late for a fix.

Obviously more details are needed.
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:37 am
@hawkeye10,
This is the link where I was reading the story in wikipedia.
Arrow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Sunderland
On the page scroll down where it says second attempt in bold. See what you can get out of it.
Seems to be a discrepency. May 24th a line got stuck but then later is states, Thursday, June 10, Sunderland was sailing in high winds
Quote:
Sunderland wrote that "one long wave" had brought about the dismasting of her sail boat Wild Eyes, which was abandoned to the ocean.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 12:55 am
@Butrflynet,
We're getting sick of ALL lone sailors in some ways....old men, young girls, and a whole bunch in between.

They all seem to end up in our waters....and it's very costly and, in the case of a couple of the round the world yacht race guys and women, extremely dangerous to the poor bastards doing the rescue.

It's not like anyone's going to stop doing it, but this stuff is at someone else's expense when it comes to grief.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:01 am
@Philis,
Quote:
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
http://explorersweb.com/oceans/news.php?id=19475

nothing about any rigging problems, just the previously mentioned wave...

I like this a lot...this is something that I would say word for word:

Quote:
“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.”
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 03:17 pm
@dlowan,
You only get the ones that land in your area.Rolling Eyes Are you in AU.
Quote:
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.


Quote:
Don't hate. If you needed rescuing I promise we will come.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

My daughter - Discussion by Seed
Optical illusion, kids vs adults - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Nebraska Safe Haven Law - Discussion by Diest TKO
How fearful were you as a child? - Question by dlowan
Im white . - Discussion by shewolfnm
Excessive Public Affection to Small Children - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Imaginary Friends - Discussion by Joe Nation
Artwork by the grandkids - Discussion by edgarblythe
What does this dream mean? - Question by morphiedith
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/06/2020 at 04:19:40