Seaworthiness ?
 

"Peter Wiley" wrote:

All we really need to do is restrict EPIRB's to people with insurance
sufficient to cover the cost of SAR and the whole problem would go
away.

That sounds like a good idea.

I like the international col regs and some of the other international
maritime law.
I don't mind rules regulating the security of crew and passegers on
comercial wessels, but:
Amateur sailors should be able to sail as they wish and should take the
responsibillity for their own actions. To me this is a bacic human need.
Sailboats are in general not dangerus for other people (unlike cars in the
city), so free us from all the rules and expences that restrict the freedom
to sail and bear the consequences of our own actions.

I don't have figures, but I belive that actualy very little monney is spend
on saving crasy people crossing oceans in small open boats from their own
folly.
I think much more monney is spend saving people with ekspencive boats,
wellequiped with electronic gadgets and safetyfeatures, but who fail to
understand the dangers and risks, because they are lulled into a false sense
of security with all the gadgets and all the rules they comply to.

All the regulations might becomme a sleepingpill that make people unable to
grasp that life is risky, and sailing is risky, and you have to protect
yourself against your own and otherpeoples stupidity and not just "let you
leed to the slaughterbench because you are told to by gowernment or other
people".

Peter S/Y Anicula

Seaworthiness ?
 

To me, the freedom of being able to sail as I please, would be worth more,
than the value of a possible rescue by a expensive rescue service.
So the idea of making it voluntary to subscribe to advanced and expensive
rescue service really appeals to me.

I do realise, that if I were swimming around in the middle of the ocean
after the boat sunk, I might take a different view, but in that situation I
would probably also try to pray.

Peter S/Y Anicula

"Peter Wiley" skrev i en meddelelse
. ..

You're a complete idiot. You have no idea how big Australia's SAR zone
is. Some of it is so far away that the Navy has to take a fleet oiler
with them, or charter a deep ocean fishing boat. The fuel costs alone
exceed any collection of individuals' contributions.

As I said, if EPIRB's were restricted to people with insurance against
rescue costs and the rest of us took our chances, problem solved.

PDW

In article , Simple Simon
wrote:

And, now we come to the crux of the matter - money.

Don't any of you realize that rescue services were traditionally
supported and are still supported in some places (England, for
example) by donations and workers who actually volunteer.
It is sad that the rescue service in most places nowadays has
become a commercial enterprise that can write its own paycheck.
Who pays but the taxpayer but, as usual, the taxpayer has no
say in how his money is spent.

In the meantime rescue services grow and grow with more
highly trained people on the staff and more expensive
hardware. Rescue services become a self-fulfilling prophesy
and a bloated bureaucracy with the ability to pass silly
laws requiring inspections of yachts before they are
allowed to navigate. Ask yourself what kind of a business
is in the business of limiting their business? Answer - none!

What's hidden away is all this rescue business is to start
something and then grow it but grow it in a more profitable
way. There can be just as many rescuers on the staff and
just as much expensive hardware waiting around to rescue
two or three boats a season as opposed to two or three
dozen boats a year. However an extra layer of inspectors
and enforcers can be added to bloat the payroll even more
and no cuts in the rescuers themselves need ever be made.

Payroll gets larger, equipment expenses get larger. Next
comes taxes being raised or fees being imposed and then
more bureaucracy is hired because nobody wants to speak
up against a noble pursuit such a saving lives. Where does
it stop? Answer: it doesn't stop. Think about it and just
say no to rescuers unless they work on donations with
volunteers like traditional rescue services.

S.Simon


"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Have you ANY idea what a rescue operation in the Southern Ocean costs?

Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

Donals Dilemma wrote in message
...


Umm it's a country that prefers to spent its taxpayers money on
hospitals and education NOT huge resources to rush to the aid of
idiots who set to sea in unseaworthy boats and with little or no
skills.



Are you SOOO politically correct that you are unable to see that
checking
everybody's boat would cost far more than the occasional rescue?

What kind of world do we live in?



Regards


Donal
--

Seaworthiness ?
 

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Does that include antarctica?


If you go sailing to Antartica, then I suspect that you have accepted that
you are on your own.


This thread demonstrates how modern man has no sense of responsibility for
his actions.

The boat must meet government standards, the gas installation must be
certified, the waters must be under the supervision of some rescue agency
and sailors must have a qualification.

The EPIRB must be serviced, as must the liferaft. The flares must not be
out of date, and the lifejacket must be capable of supporting 150
somethings!


Is it any wonder that any idiot who has the money feels that he can safely
take a boat out in any conditions?? ... and if anything goes wrong, he can
sue somebody!



Regards


Donal
--

Seaworthiness ?
 

In article , Peter S/Y
Anicula wrote:

"Peter Wiley" wrote:

All we really need to do is restrict EPIRB's to people with insurance
sufficient to cover the cost of SAR and the whole problem would go
away.

That sounds like a good idea.

I like the international col regs and some of the other international
maritime law.
I don't mind rules regulating the security of crew and passegers on
comercial wessels, but:
Amateur sailors should be able to sail as they wish and should take the
responsibillity for their own actions. To me this is a bacic human need.
Sailboats are in general not dangerus for other people (unlike cars in the
city), so free us from all the rules and expences that restrict the freedom
to sail and bear the consequences of our own actions.

I don't have figures, but I belive that actualy very little monney is spend
on saving crasy people crossing oceans in small open boats from their own
folly.
I think much more monney is spend saving people with ekspencive boats,
wellequiped with electronic gadgets and safetyfeatures, but who fail to
understand the dangers and risks, because they are lulled into a false sense
of security with all the gadgets and all the rules they comply to.

Unfortunately true. I am reminded of a couple who got themselves
'rescued' from a quite seaworthy vessel because it got knocked down in
a storm. When rescued they had a working engine, an intact rig and the
storm had passed. Bruises but no broken bones or internal injuries.
They got off onto a freighter and the newspaper reported that they had
a hard time getting their yacht to go fast enough to match the
freighter's minimum speed for maintaining steerage.

Complacency followed by panic.

I note that Navvie, having started this thread, has now abandoned it
when nobody thinks his Govt's approach has any merit. Pity because I
was wondering about whether Tilman's boat would have passed NZ's
seaworthiness test. Kinda doubt it..... which would have been really
funny.

Peter Wiley