Countries paying teen's rescue cost defend sea law

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,326
Reaction score
45,821
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
By TANALEE SMITH, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jun 17, 8:15 am ET

ADELAIDE, Australia – The first day Abby Sunderland was stranded in the Southern Ocean, Australia's rescue agency chartered a jet to fly over the area where her emergency beacon was activated.

The 11-hour flight cost an estimated 110,000 Australian dollars (US $94,500).

The second day, after locating her, the agency sent another plane to coordinate her pickup by ships racing toward her damaged and drifting yacht.

The Australian military also deployed two Orion aircraft to wait on an Indian Ocean island in case an airdrop or further assistance was needed. An Orion costs about AU$30,000 an hour to operate.

In the meantime, the French territory of Reunion Island diverted three ships to Sunderland's location. The fishing vessel that reached her first lost at least three days of work; a commercial ship also sent to her rescue would have added three or four days of travel time to its intended destination.

Her rescue Saturday within two days of setting off the emergency call was welcomed in Australia and in her home state of California. But amid the well-wishers on online forums and news sites were many who questioned why Australia and France were footing the bill for an American teenager's solo quest.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_re_as/teen_sailor
 

Jon88

Benched
Messages
7,665
Reaction score
0
Her parents need to foot the bill. I know they have the money.
 

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y
Staff member
Messages
79,326
Reaction score
45,821
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Jon88;3435673 said:
Her parents need to foot the bill. I know they have the money.
from the article

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.
 

Jon88

Benched
Messages
7,665
Reaction score
0
WoodysGirl;3435683 said:
from the article

I skimmed through it. So they can afford the nice boat and everything for the trip but can't come up with $130,000. Ok...
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
I think any time a person is in need of rescue everything that can be done should be done regardless if the person in need or family can afford it or not.

On the ocean there are maritime laws that require ships to provide help if they are the closest to the person in need.

I do think if people want to play adventurer they should be required to purchase some form of insurance to cover the cost of a potential rescue.
 

Hostile

The Duke
Messages
119,565
Reaction score
4,544
Oh goody, we finally get to learn what the price is for a human life. What price is too high to save a life? Stay tuned.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
Hostile;3435699 said:
Oh goody, we finally get to learn what the price is for a human life. What price is too high to save a life? Stay tuned.

How much is it worth to risk a human life? TV reality show cover it?
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,194
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Hostile;3435699 said:
Oh goody, we finally get to learn what the price is for a human life. What price is too high to save a life? Stay tuned.

I weigh it against ignorance. If you get yourself in trouble due to doing something extremely ignorant and well aware of the danger you're putting yourself in, then the value of your life isn't very high to me. For instance, the article talked about Isabelle Autissier having to be rescued twice in two years. She obviously wasn't smart enough to learn the first time. If she is persistent about wanting to put her life in death's grip, by all means let her face deaths grip.

Now, if a man was trying to rescue someone else putting their life in danger for the safety of another. (fire fighter, police officer, coast guard) Then that person's life is invaluable and I would do whatever was necessary to save that person.

Just like any logical decision, having the right perspective is imperative. If your perspective is irrationally bias, then your bound to get screwed.

I'm not saying I wouldn't attempt to save her. I'm just saying I would expect her to pay for it because what she was doing was irrational. It doesn't matter if she was 16 or a 45 year old male, it's still irrational activity.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
I wouldn't say her quest was irrational. Pretty darn selfish and egotistical, yes.

This isn't like Ernest Shakleton mapping the Antartic. Just some little girl trying to prove something to the world with the reward being only for herself.

I never saw the taxpayers-ultimately-paying-for-her-journey angle. Makes the whole undertaking on her behalf look pretty petty.
 

CoCo

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
187
Jon88;3435690 said:
I skimmed through it. So they can afford the nice boat and everything for the trip but can't come up with $130,000. Ok...

Why is it so hard to believe that people live beyond their means? Look around. "Gotta have it" mentality is everywhere. Don't you know people who live in shacks for houses and yet drive a really nice car?
 

YosemiteSam

Unfriendly and Aloof!
Messages
45,858
Reaction score
22,194
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Bob Sacamano;3435756 said:
I wouldn't say her quest was irrational. Pretty darn selfish and egotistical, yes.

This isn't like Ernest Shakleton mapping the Antartic. Just some little girl who is showing the world what she can do.

I disagree. To put yourself in an extremely dangerous position solely for entertainment purposes is irrational.

Irrational is to do something without faculty of reason. Reason in this case is used in the verb sense. "To determine or conclude by logical thinking".

To put yourself in that kind of peril for enjoyment purposes only, is not a reasonable (logical) action. Therefore, the act of sailing around the world all by yourself is an irrational action.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
nyc;3435772 said:
I disagree. To put yourself in an extremely dangerous position solely for entertainment purposes is irrational.

Irrational is to do something without faculty of reason. Reason in this case is used in the verb sense. "To determine or conclude by logical thinking".

To put yourself in that kind of peril for enjoyment purposes only, is not a reasonable (logical) action. Therefore, the act of sailing around the world all by yourself is an irrational action.

I'm pretty sure she knew what she was getting into. Plus she was already an accomplished sailor. This isn't like me waking up tomorrow and deciding that I want to circumvent the globe in my dingy.
 

daschoo

Slanje Va
Messages
2,775
Reaction score
613
nyc;3435772 said:
I disagree. To put yourself in an extremely dangerous position solely for entertainment purposes is irrational.

Irrational is to do something without faculty of reason. Reason in this case is used in the verb sense. "To determine or conclude by logical thinking".

To put yourself in that kind of peril for enjoyment purposes only, is not a reasonable (logical) action. Therefore, the act of sailing around the world all by yourself is an irrational action.

if you want to get really pernickity though you could take that argument to the extent of leaving the house is irrational due to the chances of being run over, mugged, hit by falling objects etc. ;)
 

ajk23az

Through Pain Comes Clarity
Messages
7,953
Reaction score
422
$130,000 is not that much money when put in context to how much a country has. Yes, it does suck but it was a human life that was saved.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,895
Reaction score
11,620
nyc;3435772 said:
I disagree. To put yourself in an extremely dangerous position solely for entertainment purposes is irrational.

Irrational is to do something without faculty of reason. Reason in this case is used in the verb sense. "To determine or conclude by logical thinking".

To put yourself in that kind of peril for enjoyment purposes only, is not a reasonable (logical) action. Therefore, the act of sailing around the world all by yourself is an irrational action.

I don't think it's irrational.

People have long done things that are dangerous simply for the challenge and feeling of accomplishment involved.

Some people just march to a different beat.
 

Bob Sacamano

Benched
Messages
57,084
Reaction score
3
Hoofbite;3435787 said:
I don't think it's irrational.

People have long done things that are dangerous simply for the challenge and feeling of accomplishment involved.

Some people just march to a different beat.

Danger, eh? Just come visit me at my home in Compton.
 

Doomsday101

Well-Known Member
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
39,034
Hoofbite;3435787 said:
I don't think it's irrational.

People have long done things that are dangerous simply for the challenge and feeling of accomplishment involved.

Some people just march to a different beat.

Then have sponsors or investors to help foot the bill. If you choose to march to a different beat fine but others should not have to take financial risk because you want to be different.
 

Maikeru-sama

Mick Green 58
Messages
14,548
Reaction score
6
As I have noted, I think is questionable to allow a 16 year to go sailing around the world on her own.

However, as Old Otis from Martin likes to say, "keep ya draws on folks", the rescue amount is mere pennies to Australia and if Australia doesn't care, then it isn't a big deal.

Now if you are from Australia, then you have a right to whine bust most of the folks here aren't.
 
Top