Missing yacht

[Trim Stab]

Do such sailors (i.e trans-atlantic, round the world etc) carry personal liability insurance in order to cover the costs of such search and rescue operations which could

No. Even fully comprehensive insurance does not cover the cost of a rescue operation, because this is never charged to persons rescued at sea. However, the cost of salvage is - there was a case a year or so ago where a couple abandoned their yacht (also a Bendytoy) in the Pacific and were rescued by a passing ship. Unfortunately for them, their yacht washed up intact a few months later on an Australian beach. I say unfortunately because, rather than giving them their yacht back, the Australian coastguard gave them a massive bill for salvage -a nd they weren't insured.

If they don't should they (particularly in these times of 'shrinking' funds available to the military (of most nations) to undertake its primary roles)? At the end of the day someone has to foot the bill (in most cases the taxpayer). And however harsh it may sound I bet a commercial organisation is not going to want its ships diverted far from its route - perhaps a one time pass through the area but I bet they don't undertake any sort of formal search pattern (without significant compensation from .....the taxpayer???). Time is money after all...

.

Nearby vessels have an obligation to help (SOLAS Chapter V regulation 33) if they hear a distress call or are requisitioned to do so by the relevant authority.
https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4...gulation33.htm

[500N]

Lone

OK

I thought SAR was a responsibility for the country regardless of who it is
if it is in the designated area ?

What if Australia had said, "Stuff it, it's Christmas, the Navy crew are on leave and these are only
rich people playing with big boys toys, Bullimore and Dubois can sort themselves out" ???

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by 500N

Lone

I thought SAR was a responsibility for the country regardless of who it is
if it is in the designated area ?

Indeed.

Originally Posted by 500N

What if Australia had said, "Stuff it, it's Christmas, the Navy crew are on leave and these are only rich people playing with big boys toys, Bullimore and Dubois can sort themselves out" ???

Good question.

There is more here than meets the eye. I'll be interested to learn in time just what was behind the search termination decision. My guess is that the operators at the pointy end were a bit surprised to see it cut off with the hull was located.

[500N]

Lonewolf

Re "There is more here than meets the eye."

Now you say it like that, I think you might be right.


Look at the effort the US went to recently to rescue that sick baby on a yacht.

Multiple C-130 flights out there, 11 para rescue people jumped into the sea, helos fly out there using air to air refueling,
a ship sent out that could take helos so they could recover back to a ship instead of flying all the way back to land.

Big difference between the two SAR efforts.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

As a sailor, I did not 'expect' to be rescued at any distance offshore. It is a sport/hobby, I had no insurance, and long range SAR is extremely expensive. I made my own arrangements in the event of capsize. In the worst case, a pick-up would have been a bonus, not an expectation.

No other skippers I met ocean cruising 'expected' a major SAR effort either. An aircraft flyby if (and only if) the SAR guys had a 'long range SAR' training tick in the box to get, and the diversion of a nearby ship - exactly what happened in this case - would have been nice.

I always used to think of the opportunity cost - how many more heart transplants could be done for the cost of long range SAR? - oodles!

[Loerie]

Missing Beneteau 40.7 yacht and crew

Lonewolf,
Your post was indeed flippant and hurtful to family.Sorry that it came across as such and I am sure it was not intended.
Having said that you do,of course have a point with the costs associated with say the USCG looking for a ship or yacht way out of the (normal) US territorial waters.
However,the CG do rule quite large expanses or water way beyond the US territorial limits,so where do you draw the line---one way or both ways?
I cannot see that the taxpayer can be expected to pay looking for aircraft and vessels & crew in the middle of the Atlantic so who does?
Who is paying for MH370?
One can debate this back and forth for hours and days while the crew are in terrible danger and imminent loss of life.
I am sure that the correct decision will be made,the search re-searched and the guys found----but why the bulk carrier just apparently took pics----whatever their reasoning----- and went on by is beyond me----there could have been people in that upturned hull....be well and enjoy yr day.

[Trim Stab]

Here's a better picture taken from the Maersk:

http://cdn.imghack.se/images/d73859c...31bdfe55de.jpg

[4Greens]

If nothing else this is a good exercise for a country's SAR assets.

[500N]

The tax payer pays for it. Not liked but that's the way it goes.

A lot of discussion was had re the cost of the Bullimore / Dubois rescue but the Gov't just said that it is part of Australia's responsibility and that is that.

[500N]

The Maersk seems to be traveling at some speed as it went past.

[Loerie]

Missing Beneteau 40.7 yacht and crew

Thanks very much Strim Tab.....clearly lost her keel.Sea conditions look quite benign.....sad thay were unable to stop and take a look...

[Trim Stab]

Sea conditions look quite benign..

That's because they are using their freeboard to shelter the yacht.

sad thay were unable to stop and take a look...

They did everything they can. Merchant ships don't carry any diving gear or anybody trained to use it, nor even scramble netting to get up and down the freeboard, and if they did, it takes a lot of fitness to climb up scramble nets on the side of rolling ship. The only auxiliary boat they would have is their lifeboat which cannot be recovered when launched. I am sure they would have launched it if there had been somebody clinging to the hull, or if somebody had suddenly popped out from under the hull like Tony Bullimore did.

[500N]

And it takes ages to stop one and trying to stop a big container ship
next to an upturned hull of a yacht, good luck.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Loerie

Your post was indeed flippant and hurtful to family.

Some unemotional information was presented by the Coast Guard spokesman, as rendered in the Telegraph.

However,the CG do rule quite large expanses or water way beyond the US territorial limits,so where do you draw the line---one way or both ways?

Very good question. As I said to 500N, ten years ago I think the response would have been something different. The USCG spokesman pointed out that the location was at least a week to get there in terms of getting a vessel to the location of the wreckage.

I cannot see that the taxpayer can be expected to pay looking for aircraft and vessels & crew in the middle of the Atlantic so who does?

Well asked. Since we, the U.S. of A, signed on to an international agreement on SAR, we can certainly bear part of the cost of fulfilling our agreement, if not more.
That's how I see it.
In the past, I think we bore a lot more, but that seems to have changed.

Who is paying for MH370?

That is not the same case, as that is a matter of public transport. Likewise, there was communication with the troubled yacht, unlike MH-370. There is some evidence of dirty work in the MH-370 event. FDR/CVR may help solve that. Not so with the yacht.
This case seems very much an accident, with weather as a complicator/agent. See previous communications with the skipper noted above.

One can debate this back and forth for hours and days while the crew are in terrible danger and imminent loss of life.

It is unfortunate that Maersk didn't have the kit on hand to do more than take a good look at the wreck.

I am sure that the correct decision will be made,the search re-searched and the guys found----but why the bulk carrier just apparently took pics----whatever their reasoning----- and went on by is beyond me----there could have been people in that upturned hull....be well and enjoy yr day.

That was also addressed by the USCG spokesman.
They aren't equipped to do that.
Nor, I'll bet, are the crew so trained.
Something about minimum operating costs keeps the size and skill set of crews down.

You may wish to initiate formal correspondence with the shipping company and find out what they see is within their responsibilities and capabilities. The master of that vessel is a professional mariner. I suspect his decisions were in keeping with that profession.

There are a number of professional mariners who post on the forums whose comments will be of interest.

TrimStab: thanks for that link to SOLAS.

[500N]

Have never steered a big ship like that but I reckon that is a pretty good job to steer it so close to the hull without actually hitting it.

Maybe someone can comment on how easy it is to put it so close
without actually hitting it.

[biddedout]

As has been mentioned earlier, in the late 80's HMG saw for to deploy a 120 Sqn Nimrod to ASI in order or search for two missing Cessna 210 aircraft and their two Australian ferry pilots off the west coast of Africa. The aircraft with the assistance of a passing Herc tanker flew about 85 hours searching and the whole mission used up 100+ Flying hours. It was rumoured that the Aus government or the families were contributing to the cost but all in all, it was a very expensive mission and it wasn't abandoned until wreckage and a possible body was spotted. So why is it different this time? (Apart from the fact that we haven't got any long range SAR).

[GreenKnight121]

I (don't) like how several people have remarked that Bermuda (UK territory?) is closer to the yacht's position, but are still slanging on about the USCG being derelict in its duties.

Surely it is the Bermuda authorities who would be responsible for sending a boat to physically check the hull... if nothing else to place a scuttling charge on the hull to remove it as a hazard to navigation?

[rh200]

"They are sending our taxpayer's assets out there to go look for some rich fellow's play toy."

Actually its not to look for some rich fellow's toy, its to make sure their are no survivors. Personally I think there's other information behind the decision.

As we know, there have been cases where survivors have been found after a significant amount of time. There would be no shortage of sorrow if the hull was found at some later time, with someone dead inside, with some proof they had survived for a significant amount of time.

Being from a country that has a various times had to rescue people out in the middle of nowhere, I can understand the frustrations in regards to cost etc. But the fact is if there is a chance, and it isn't going to endanger the rescuers, its worth the cost.

[500N]

Re cost, it gets back to this age old argument.

If they are Coast Guard or Military assets and people, then they will be paid regardless of going out on a SAR mission.

Then it comes down to fuel, wear and tear, depreciation etc.

If it's civilian / commercial, then yes, it does cost.

If you have a SAR area that you take as yours, well, you can't complain
when you have to do SAR missions.

[Trim Stab]

I (don't) like how several people have remarked that Bermuda (UK territory?) is closer to the yacht's position, but are still slanging on about the USCG being derelict in its duties.

Surely it is the Bermuda authorities who would be responsible for sending a boat to physically check the hull... if nothing else to place a scuttling charge on the hull to remove it as a hazard to navigation?

Areas of responsibility for SAR are governed by IMO treaties: