Put it on my tab

[rsn48]

License - don't fine

In Canada, they've brought in a pathetically simple test and license that is being graduated in and as of 2009 every boater will be required to have this mickey mouse license. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of the license, but lets make it a little harder than it presently is. I told my son not to bother studying for it, and just go take it, the odds are high he will pass. Naturally I want him to know more than "almost nothing" but I'll send him to a power squadron course that my dad forced me to take when I was sixteen living in Madison Wisconsin.Evey boater should have to be licensed and pass at least a written exam and that license should be revokable by a doctor. My mother was blind in one eye and had 90% tunnel vision and was 79 years of age before the doctor revoked her drivers license; the same should hold for anyone on the water - drivers license revoked, out goes the boaters license.The boater should be requered to retake the exam at least every 10 years. This person can take the exam at the motor vehicles license on their computerized system. By the way, I think people hiking in the back country should be licensed as well; minimally they should know what the 10 essentials mean.Half of the proceeds from the licensing fee would go to the agencies in charge of search and rescue, such as the coast guard. This would give them much needed money and improve the "average" incompetency on the water, to a higher level of skill; minimally they'd learn to use a chart rather than a road map for coastal navigation.Courses taken should be registered at the Coast Guard so that one can reference them for insurance purposes, legal battles, etc. For example, I took my first power squadron course at 16, followed by my Canadian Navy watch keeping certificate in 74 -75, then a sailing course through the "Jib set" (now defunct) and a heavy weather sailing course through them; none of this I can prove, and I should be able to. Of course there would be a $10 - $15 mandatory registration fee that the Coast Guard would charge.There should also be a stepped licensing program for licensing - without the proper license you are legally liable for rescue cost. For example, there should be at least a coastal cruising license and off shore license. The equipment required to be carried for blue water sailing should include life raft, Epirb with GPS, and a manual desalinator, along with a hand held VHR radio.

 

[Herb Parsons]

Fines and Colregs

I wasn't speaking of fines for violation of Colregs. Rather a new set of "rules" would have to be established, or possibly an extension of the colregs.I know there's no existing regulations for such a thing, but regulations are subjec to change, and this could pretty easily be added. They don't even have to be very specific.For instance, if I'm driving my car in a 45 zone, going 40 mph, and rear-end a car, my citation is "failure to control speed", even though I'm within the posted speed limit.Hope that's a little clearer.I also hope you understand, I have no illusions this is going to pass, but we're posting "what ifs" here.

 

[Spencer]

We should pay!

As boaters we should be responsable for our own safety. Proper planning and training assures that 99% of boaters, or is it 60% of boaters operate safely on the water. We are responsable for the preparation of our vessels, our crew and ourselves. We should be held responsable for our rescue also. Freedom = Personal responsability.This is completely different from the NOAA issue. We need that info to plan correctly. That is in the public domain. Idiot insurance is not.

 

[Donald6441]

after reading all your responses I have changed

My mind, a little. Here are a few things I have reasoned:If the govt started charging for rescues, then people would start buying rescue insurance. I think it would cause a situation where people would then think a rescue is owed to them since they have paid for the insurance, sort of like tow insurance, but we all know it isn’t, but try telling a yuppie that.The cost of a rescue can wipe a person's dream of sailing out, and can intimidate many people from entering the sport. BUT, Needless rescues, while they really don’t put additional fiscal stress on the USCG, they do place risk of personal, and therefore we should discourage it as much as possible in unneeded situations.A statutory fee of around $3000 per person USD adjusted for inflation should be assessed for a rescue, and may be waved by a finding of no-fault by an independent marine time court.

 

[RichH]

Bayard --- The 'usage stickers'

that all boats had in the late 80s and early 90s were withdrawn when people stopped buying boats and over 40000 boat yard workers permanently lost their jobs as a result. The 'boat tax' was a self destructing mistake in the vain and totally misguided attempt to 'tax the rich' that utterly failed, drove most smaller USA boatbuilders out of business, didnt return one dime to boaters - simply went into the general tax fund. The net effect was LESS tax revenues generated than if the greedy legislators would have left well enough alone and didnt attempt such 'transfer payments' from all those fabulously rich boat owners to their impoverished constituents. Just another failed attempt into socialism. You want another 'taxation disaster' like that one?

 

[patrick]

Fixed and variable costs are not BS

Fuel is a variable cost which some have suggested is THE major cost of a search. I will say that that is a very uninformed if not completely wrong assertion. Fuel may or may not be THE biggest variable cost for a particular search but that depends on many other considerations, perspective being the most likely one here.Helicopters as well as fixed wing aircraft are very very expensive to purchase as well as to maintain. The training to become a qualified pilot is extremely expensive. Just ask one sometime. To become a mission qualified pilot is even more. All of these are fixed costs which will not go away just because we do not think about them when a rescue happens.There are search rules too and the CG will not send out an unqualified pilot and they will need training other than on the job training (OJT). OJT is valuable but no pilot gets to ever even go on an actual mission without a lot of practice and training. People are killed every year in training accidents, too. I knew some of them here.I do not know where the "4000 lives saved" number comes from but a "save" is very different from a "find". Those terms have some actual meaning in the context of search and rescue. It might help if the statistic mentioned would be more clearly referenced.There are a lot of "guy-in-a-bar" thoeries proposed in this thread. As an aircrew member who does this stuff regularly, I probably have a different attitude than most. I have spent over 400 flight hours doing actual missions and that makes me just an amateur beginner. Training time is probably ten times that - mostly at my own expense as I am a volunteer.Maybe a public awareness program would be a good idea. We have to listen to endless nagging crap about smoking, seat belts, etc. now on the tube. Why not a "stop an idiot boater" campaign? If we hear of some guy who wants to drop his anchor without setting it and drift that way at sea while he sleeps, maybe we could educate him. Oh that's right, we have that now....How about a "take the war politics and Texas bashing to the political forum" campaign? I guess there are some people who just won't follow rules no matter what. Lets all just follow the rules we make ourselves so long as we like them.My own opinion is that the system is not in need of fixing. We do not need licenses or new fees or new laws or taxes or insurance. The only thing lacking is more genuine appreciation for the folks who regularly risk their lives protecting all of us when the need arises and I do not mean me.

 

[Franklin]

Patrick

You clearly missed my point: I guess because I didn't clearly state it. I was not suggesting the pilot learns how to perform rescue operations on the job, but the re-inforcement training that the government is so high on. If the pilot is doing 5 rescue missions a month, then they will not schedule any re-inforcement training. Now if the pilot is doing 1 a month, you better believe they will be spending that unused time and fuel on training excersizes.

 

[Timbo3]

The USCG

is an awsome branch of our military. They will take the time to inspect our boats to make sure they are safe and compliant. They are full of volunteers who patrol, protect, and rescue. They welcome our help when we we can. My point is that the USCG is a part of the benefit of being a paying citzen of this country. And they, like the fire department, army, etc. are supported with our tax dollars. Would you expect to pay the fire department if your house burned to the ground on Sunday night?By the way, the fuel for the USCG is mosty a fixed cost per flight hour. They have the option of participating in DESC (Defense Energy Supply Contract) fuel. That fuel is offered to a branch, squadron, etc. at a cost that can be budgeted throughout the year.Now, I don't know that much about the system, but wouldn't the USCG have the opportunity to charge for a rescue if they or a court deemed the cause of rescue negligent or reckless? I believe that mountain rescue operations charge if they find that the people being rescued have clearly and intentionally broken the rules.

 

[patrick]

Franklin, you said

"Cost is mostly BS" I say it is not."The only real cost of a rescue is the fuel." I say that is not true. The actual cost is far more than that. If you look at the total expense, the cost of fuel is probably a minor part of the total."The pay of the workers is going to be paid if they are rescuing or not." Many are volunteers with no pay involved. There are incalculable risks and personal costs which you never see. If I am called at 2000 on Sunday night to go find an epirb or elt, I usually do not get home until 0400 Monday morning. We may fly four hours in the wee hours of the morning at low altitudes with minimal ground support. It is tiring and risky. It is a personal cost to me that affects how I spend the rest of my week, not just Monday.Most emergency transmitters are set off accidentally. Should we not go search for them? Should the owner be charged the costs for an accident or a mistake? I do not think so unless it is a malicious action on the part of someone.There are strict limits on how much time an aircrew can fly in a day. That is called flight duty restriction. Other crews take over if one crew exceeds those limits and it becomes much more complicated and expensive."The equipment used is going to be in inventory weather used or not." Maintenance is directly related to use and so is the cost. Besides that, you do not seem to recognize that you cannot just park a helo and have no expense. You cannot just expect to tie up your boat and do no periodic maintenance like bottom painting, zinc replacement, etc. Aircraft are far more expensive in this regard."Now the CG may have to do more rescues then is necessary but that can be seen as on the job training." The CG does not do more rescues than necessary. A rescue sortie may count towards crew currency training but that is not necessarily so. It is a minor gain if it does."After all, if they aren't getting enough rescue work, then they are just going to be wasting that fuel on training excersizes." Training exercises are definitely not a waste of fuel. Ask someone who does this stuff. That is a telling comment on your level of subject familiarity. Join the auxiliary, participate a while, and see if you still think that way.Another factor which has been missed here is that there are lots of agencies and organizations besides the CG that participate in searches.The CG and other SAR entities do a lot more than search and rescue and those other duties suffer when a search starts. A county sheriff who is out searching the bay for a few days looking for a body is not performing his land duties. A county sheriff is not necessarily going to benefit from some federal boat tax imposed for SAR purposes.I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Find some way to thank those who do this stuff, get them some funds and new equipment, join them, or else stop whining about how they do it.

 

[Franklin]

Once again

You totally missed the point. I give up!

 

[NeoSailor]

Thanks Patrick!

I've read through most of these comments, and while I do agree that unprepared idiots should have to bear some responsibility (financially speaking), I am very grateful that people like Patrick are around. All of us are subject to human error and the possibility of making wrong decisions. I hope that if I do something stupid, that endangers me and my passengers, or other boaters, that someone like Patrick is available to remedy my mistake. That's assuming, too, that I cannot remedy the situation myself!It's amazing how easy it is for us to find fault with other people, when you consider that living in a free society includes giving everyone the benefit of the doubt concerning the freedom to do as we please. I'm always amazed how many incompetent drivers there are on the roads, the number of people who get lost in the woods, completely unprepared for the weather, and the "idiot" sailors that end up needing rescued.It doesn't change the fact that these same people have only to pass minimal tests to become licensed drivers and boaters. I'm a newbie to sailing, so I'm sure I'll make mistakes. On the other hand, I am gathering as much information from other's experiences in order to avoid duplicating their mistakes. Unfortunately, we cannot mandate intelligence or common sense or weed out the absurdly incompetent.So...like it or not, we have to watch out for the "human" hazards out there, no matter what we're doing. I'm just grateful that we have the Coast Guard and people willing to risk their lives for the sake of our luckless, unfortunate, and often, simply stupid fellow citizens.

 

[Fred Ficarra]

And sailors like me don't carry all that 'call for

help' stuff. I have radios but that's for communicating. Only a near-death experience will ever force me, if even then, to call for help. I make the choice to go out there. I'll be damned if I'll call somebody to bail me out!

 

[Rich]

Bad public policy

This "user fee" concept proves to be bad public policy that makes more problems than it solves. When applied to ambulance services it discourages people of modest means from calling for ambulances when they need them, which is not what we want; when applied to police services we wind up punishing the people who call for help, which is not what we want; when applied to fire services (which is how it was done it the 19th century cities) people will die because others are afraid to call for help.No, we must resist that neverending tendency instilled in the American character by our (okay, your) Puritan forebears to ascribe guilt to the victims (most often when they happen to cost us money or embarass us!). Emergency services require the trust of the public if the public is to be willing to do its duty to report need, so we mustn't sow the seeds of distrust or fear with punitive fees. Even yachtsmen can't afford the cost of a Coast Guard rescue, nor should we expect that insurance companies will offer coverage options on policies. There should be no fees exacted for sea rescue unless a clear hoax or deception is involved. I'm sure what we, our Coast Guard, and our insurance companies all want is better training for all boaters, which should cut down emergency calls if they're gettting to be too numerous.The contention that many frivolous aerial rescures are going on was made without any evidence. I'm not sure anecdote is a good basis for serious discussion about political policy. BoatUS magazine is a good source of objective information about these matters and I don't recall them ever even discussing Coast Guard rescue as though there were a growing problem...

 

[Liam]

Got to be fair

The "let the users pay for it" concept is flawed in that it is not fair for all.I don't have kids but I have to pay thousands of dollars in taxes every year to the public schools. We all pay for lots of things that we do not use.Also, saving stupid boaters is not the only thing that the CoastGuard does. I believe that their original intended mission was to guard the coast. So if they are out there patrolling anyway why shouldn't they help out if needed? If you saw someone by the side of the road who had ran out of gas and you gave them a ride to the gas station, would you charge them for your time?We the people are getting "nickled and dimed" while our government is squandering BILLIONS of dollars that we gave them!Where does it end.

 

[r.w.landau]

Double down on Fred....

I agree with Fred that if you are going out there, you need confidence and experience behind you. You can't just choose to sail with no idea of reality and expect someone else to put their life in danger to save you. However, for major sailing events that are scheduled for a given period of time, I beleive that arrangements should be made to monitor the race. If an authority believes that this should be paid for, make it so. If they are willing to underwrite with acknowledged backup, many thanks.r.w.landau

 

[Clyde]

It's free on the federal level! ;D

The United States is a member of the international treaty on "Search and Rescue" (SAR). As a member nation to the international treaty on SAR, the USA can not charge or expect to be reimbursed for a rescue at sea. The USA has also adopted a federal policy on SAR for rescue within the borders of the country in 1999 called the "National Search and Rescue Plan" which states that:“The Participants agree that SAR services that they provide to persons in danger or distress will be without subsequent cost-recovery from the person(s) assisted.” Every once in awhile this topic crops up about who should pay for the cost of the rescue at sea. Providing aid and rescue at sea regardless of nationality, politics, or expectation of being reimbursed has been a maritime tradition. Most of the countries of the world have signed the international treaty on SAR. The 1999 National SAR Plan extends the international treaty agreement on the federal level. The plan is only on the federal level and does not extend to the state, city, or county level which can charge for SAR services.Fair Winds,Clyde http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nsarc/nsp.htm

 

[r.w.landau]

Clyde, IT'S FREE!

is still no excuse for someone to put themself in danger under the fact that someone else must put their life in danger to rescue you.Again if this is a race that is internationally know and all parties agree due to scheduling. so be it.r.w.landau

 

[Clyde]

So an international race is OK? *o

In 1997-1998 a bunch of "Millionaires" had scheduled a Balloon Race Around the world. They had everything planned. They would contact the different SARs in the countries they flew over in case the balloon got in trouble. From the PBS NOVA website:"At the same time, we'll be running a search and rescue operation that will take the form of what we call a moving haven. I regard a balloon like this as an emergency from the moment it's taken off. These balloons are very unpredictable and it's a very dangerous project so we shall eschew that they are going to need rescuing from anywhere directly below them. In order to do that, we will be alerting the search and rescue agencies downwind of the balloons and as they pass over that search and rescue territory, that agency territory, we'll be alerting the next one so we'll have an active search and rescue program in front of them and behind them. And that will carry on all the way around the world, so they'll be bracketed, if you like, with search and rescue."It was in that "Around the World Balloon Race" that Steve Fossett's balloon fell into the ocean in the South Pacific. Both the French and Australian Navies sent rescue planes to drop emergency supplies and fly overhead until a ship arrived. I don't remember reading that Fossett or the "Around-The-World Balloon" race committee paid for the SAR services they used. The international treaty doesn't care if the sailor in distress at sea is in a race or not. And it doesn't matter if you are in an international race which has taken every safety precaution or some idiot with more money than brains, if human life is in jeopardy an international SAR unit will try and rescue you.Fair Winds,ClydePBS NOVA Balloon Racehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/balloon/team/kendrick.htmlCNN Steve Fossetthttp://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9808/16/balloon.fossett.03/

 

[rsn48]

Godforsaken Sea - book - and thoughts

I just finished reading the book "Godforsaken Sea" by Derek Lundy and what an incredible book it is. I think it is the best "nautical" read I have experienced and one that I had a hard time putting down. It is written so that a novice nautical sailor can be involved in the race and understand the forces of nature at work in the Southern Ocean to make any kind of cruising or racing highly dangerous.The book is about one of the Vendee Globe races, 96 - 97 I believe - a solo race. The story is one of daring racing, bordering on the insane, an incredible rescue, of undebatable heroism, of men and women pushed to their limits of endurance and beyound. I have added a link below to a review of the book, even the review is a good read.Now on to my point. One of the racers in the 96/97 Vendee Globe race did not bring a manual desalinator along because he didn't want the extra 12 pounds on his 60 foot boot. If you know the race, this competition is won not in seconds or minutes, but in hours, days and weeks. A competitor can be 1500 miles behind another racer. It is ludicrous not to carry a manual desalinator on these races for obvious reasons. And of course the chap who didn't bring his, lost almost all his drinking water early on in the race. It should be noted that this race goes on for months in the most treacherous ocean region any where in the world. It is basically a race that circumnavigates the south pole and passes all three "horns."In extreme sailboat racing, certain equipment should be mandated, and some equipment is mandated in the Vendee Globe race. There is a certain seamanship obligation that the racer, or cruiser for that matter, should be properly equipped for their endeavour. To leave critical equipment behind may seem bravado early on, but insane latter when conditions become critical.Interestingly, the one of the last chapters of the book discusses whether an extreme racer can display good seamanship in terms of standing a continual vidual with a properly manned helm. The solo racer is forced below in horrendous conditions and so the boat is left to sail itself in ocean conditions that any one would be hesitant to go out in.

 

[kendall]

license

I don't htink that a license is the real solution, I see too many people on the highway who have licenses and are still clueless, Stupid people are stupid people and aren't always stupid enough to fail a test. all you have to d0 is sit back and watch traffic for a while and you'll see that stupid people outnumber intelligent operators 2:1 on average. (cynic side showing huh?)  also, if you give someone the chance to assign blame and pass on the costs, then you will see people paying the costs because their boats don't meet the letter of the law even if the root cause of the incident had nothing to do with the boat itself. If it can be passed on, it WILL be passed on. When enough people start paying, insurance will start going up because of it. Auto insurance used to be cheap, now it's mandatory, and there's nothing cheap about it, everybody has to have it, so there's no incentive to keep the costs down. I can't stand detroit, it's a dirty smelly city with tons of crime, wouldn't live there if I got a house for free, and yet I pay an extra $85. so people who choose to live there can have cheaper insurance. Same type thing will happen to your boat insurance, it's the nature of the beast.  ken.