“Sad Coincidence” but Inexcusable
- Thread starter Hello Below
- Start date
But is the report accurate?
It says it is 80 miles from the observer to the rescue site, but the map I looked at was more like 40 miles, possibly less depending on location. Perhaps it is 80 miles driving. The 8-minute drive describe looks like three times that (it's more than 20 miles by road). Shooting off flares does not explain why he was not on the boat (it was calm at the time and did not get rough until later--taking on water or dead motor would have been more likely). Why no cell phone or radio call? He was not far out. The report did not say that the flares were missing from the boat. She said the flares were the color of fire. Is that red or white?
Coincidence, yes, but possibly not what she thinks she saw. Or possibly yes. But the story has holes.
It says it is 80 miles from the observer to the rescue site, but the map I looked at was more like 40 miles, possibly less depending on location. Perhaps it is 80 miles driving. The 8-minute drive describe looks like three times that (it's more than 20 miles by road). Shooting off flares does not explain why he was not on the boat (it was calm at the time and did not get rough until later--taking on water or dead motor would have been more likely). Why no cell phone or radio call? He was not far out. The report did not say that the flares were missing from the boat. She said the flares were the color of fire. Is that red or white?
Coincidence, yes, but possibly not what she thinks she saw. Or possibly yes. But the story has holes.
There are lessons to be learned from this sad incident. So that the sailor's death will not be in vain, let's learn from his experience.
First, I have no doubt the woman saw or believed she saw distress flares. However, I think it would be unusual for a sailor in a 14 ft boat to carry flares, especially aerial flares.
The Canadian CG does use aerial parachute flares to aid in SAR operations and training. These flares are launched at a much higher altitude than 500 feet, the maximum height of a standard flare, and burn longer than the 7 seconds that an Orion 12 ga flare burns. They are quite bright and can be seen from as much as 50 or 60 miles away. From time to time we see them on the south shore of Lake Ontario when the Canadian forces are training or engaged in a SAR operation.
We don't know how many times the CCG receives reports of flare sightings that are not accurate. Lights at night on the water can be deceiving. What may appear to be a flare in the distance may not be. The article did say other people had reported flare sightings and there were flares being used at the time in another SAR operation in the area. It is not unreasonable to assume that this sighting was something other than a report of known operations. The report of a missing sailor appears to have occurred after the flare sighting reports. If there was a report of a missing sailor before the flare sighting, then different actions may have been warranted.
After the fact, the boat is found and there is no evidence of flares being on board, or at least no mention of flares being on board. If the sailor had flares, it would be reasonable to find packing material or a case, the gun, and the empty shells.
When the woman called the CG, she called an 800 number which probably forwarded the call to a CG call center located somewhere in Canada. Its a big country, the young person who took the call (young because I doubt senior officers would be answering phones in a call center) may not have been that familiar with the areas. He no doubt had information that operations involving flares were going on in the general area, however, given that information there was no reason for him to dig out the charts and try to locate where the flares might have been launched given the imprecise information that he was given. In context, his decisions and actions were not unreasonable.
For us, the big lesson is that flares are an unreliable method to seek emergency assistance. The 12 ga aerial flares that many of us carry only burn for 7 seconds. Expecting someone to see the flare, note the location and accurately report the sighting is pretty unreasonable. They are useful when someone is looking for the boat and is in the general area, but not for notifying others of distress.
At a modest cost handheld VHFs with gps and DSC are available. These will send a distress message with GPS coordinates to the CG. A much more precise location method. The the USCG Rescue 21 will receive any DSC distress message sent within 21 miles of shore from a 1 watt radio. A far more reliable method.
Finally, we don't know how the sailor died. Did he have health issues and suffer a stroke or heart attack? Did he stumble and fall over board?
Both the woman reporting the flare sighting and the CCG response were reasonable and appropriate given the information available at the time. It was an unfortunate accident and coincidence.
First, I have no doubt the woman saw or believed she saw distress flares. However, I think it would be unusual for a sailor in a 14 ft boat to carry flares, especially aerial flares.
The Canadian CG does use aerial parachute flares to aid in SAR operations and training. These flares are launched at a much higher altitude than 500 feet, the maximum height of a standard flare, and burn longer than the 7 seconds that an Orion 12 ga flare burns. They are quite bright and can be seen from as much as 50 or 60 miles away. From time to time we see them on the south shore of Lake Ontario when the Canadian forces are training or engaged in a SAR operation.
We don't know how many times the CCG receives reports of flare sightings that are not accurate. Lights at night on the water can be deceiving. What may appear to be a flare in the distance may not be. The article did say other people had reported flare sightings and there were flares being used at the time in another SAR operation in the area. It is not unreasonable to assume that this sighting was something other than a report of known operations. The report of a missing sailor appears to have occurred after the flare sighting reports. If there was a report of a missing sailor before the flare sighting, then different actions may have been warranted.
After the fact, the boat is found and there is no evidence of flares being on board, or at least no mention of flares being on board. If the sailor had flares, it would be reasonable to find packing material or a case, the gun, and the empty shells.
When the woman called the CG, she called an 800 number which probably forwarded the call to a CG call center located somewhere in Canada. Its a big country, the young person who took the call (young because I doubt senior officers would be answering phones in a call center) may not have been that familiar with the areas. He no doubt had information that operations involving flares were going on in the general area, however, given that information there was no reason for him to dig out the charts and try to locate where the flares might have been launched given the imprecise information that he was given. In context, his decisions and actions were not unreasonable.
For us, the big lesson is that flares are an unreliable method to seek emergency assistance. The 12 ga aerial flares that many of us carry only burn for 7 seconds. Expecting someone to see the flare, note the location and accurately report the sighting is pretty unreasonable. They are useful when someone is looking for the boat and is in the general area, but not for notifying others of distress.
At a modest cost handheld VHFs with gps and DSC are available. These will send a distress message with GPS coordinates to the CG. A much more precise location method. The the USCG Rescue 21 will receive any DSC distress message sent within 21 miles of shore from a 1 watt radio. A far more reliable method.
Finally, we don't know how the sailor died. Did he have health issues and suffer a stroke or heart attack? Did he stumble and fall over board?
Both the woman reporting the flare sighting and the CCG response were reasonable and appropriate given the information available at the time. It was an unfortunate accident and coincidence.
