A sad day indeed. Glad to hear everyone is safe and hope Joe is able
to find Red Cloud and bring her home safely.


One of the news articles said that the USCG had put a tracking device
aboard to make here easy to find. With any luck at all, Joe is out
there now towing her back.


OzOne wrote:
Yes, sad...though I'd respectfully suggest that if Red Cloud manages
to stay afloat unmanned then she was abandoned way to quickly.


Well, the problem is not that she was sinking (although apparently
taking on water thru broken elements of the superstructure) but that
one of the crew was injured. Changes the equation entirely, and the
USCG will not evacuate one person of the crew. It's either all or none
(a policy that I can see the reason for, but don't agree with).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

wrote in message
news:9bb0fa09-162d-41ab-b835-

Well, the problem is not that she was sinking (although
apparently
taking on water thru broken elements of the
superstructure) but that
one of the crew was injured. Changes the equation
entirely, and the
USCG will not evacuate one person of the crew. It's either
all or none
(a policy that I can see the reason for, but don't agree
with).


What would they do if you sent the injured up first and then
refused to go? I'm guessing they'll arrest you when you get
back to port?

SBV

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:34:52 -0500, Scotty wrote:


What would they do if you sent the injured up first and then refused to
go? I'm guessing they'll arrest you when you get back to port?

SBV

I don't know about arrest, but they surely could pull Joe's license and
ship's documentation. The Satori, of Perfect Storm fame, was a similar
situation.

http://www.westsail.org/satori.html

wrote in message
...
A sad day indeed. Glad to hear everyone is safe and hope Joe is able
to find Red Cloud and bring her home safely.


One of the news articles said that the USCG had put a tracking device
aboard to make here easy to find. With any luck at all, Joe is out
there now towing her back.


OzOne wrote:
Yes, sad...though I'd respectfully suggest that if Red Cloud manages
to stay afloat unmanned then she was abandoned way to quickly.


Well, the problem is not that she was sinking (although apparently
taking on water thru broken elements of the superstructure) but that
one of the crew was injured. Changes the equation entirely, and the
USCG will not evacuate one person of the crew. It's either all or none
(a policy that I can see the reason for, but don't agree with).

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Surely that depends on what message Joe called in ? I cannot believe that
the USCG would insist on bringing everybody off if Joe had simply asked for
an injured crewmember to be taken off.. Surely a Captain does not relinquish
his rights and responsibilities and has to accept orders from USCG just
because he asked for an injured person to be taken off? I do not believe
that any coastguard service in Europe has such powers. I understand that
Joe wanted to stay aboard and the price for wanting his injured wife to be
helped is that he has possibly lost his ship.

On 4 Jan 2008 16:01:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:17:35 +0100, "Edgar" said:

Surely a Captain does not relinquish
his rights and responsibilities and has to accept orders from USCG just
because he asked for an injured person to be taken off?

What is the basis for that conclusion? What is the source of those "rights"
you cite? Near as I can tell there isn't any right to specify to the Coast
Guard how they'll conduct a rescue you have asked for. There may, perhaps,
be a right to say "oh, never mind."

It's not a conclusion...IT'S a QUESTION!!!!!




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

On 4 Jan 2008 17:05:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:29:18 +1100, OzOne said:

Surely a Captain does not relinquish
his rights and responsibilities and has to accept orders from USCG just
because he asked for an injured person to be taken off?

What is the basis for that conclusion? What is the source of those "rights"
you cite? Near as I can tell there isn't any right to specify to the Coast
Guard how they'll conduct a rescue you have asked for. There may, perhaps,
be a right to say "oh, never mind."

It's not a conclusion...IT'S a QUESTION!!!!!

Do you start questions with the word "Surely?" I don't.

Surely you noticed the question mark?





OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

On 4 Jan 2008 18:37:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:35:17 +1100, OzOne said:

On 4 Jan 2008 17:05:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:29:18 +1100, OzOne said:

Surely a Captain does not relinquish
his rights and responsibilities and has to accept orders from USCG just
because he asked for an injured person to be taken off?

What is the basis for that conclusion? What is the source of those "rights"
you cite? Near as I can tell there isn't any right to specify to the Coast
Guard how they'll conduct a rescue you have asked for. There may, perhaps,
be a right to say "oh, never mind."

It's not a conclusion...IT'S a QUESTION!!!!!

Do you start questions with the word "Surely?" I don't.

Surely you noticed the question mark?

I did indeed. I attributed it to the author's lack of familiarity with the
English grammar.

Surely you don't regard that language you speak as English?




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

On 4 Jan 2008 19:15:02 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:43:18 +1100, OzOne said:

Surely you don't regard that language you speak as English?

LOL. This from an Aussie?

Surely you jest?

from an Ozzie with an understanding of Enlish as it's supposed to be
written...with 's's not zeeee's.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

Dave wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:43:18 +1100, OzOne said:

Surely you don't regard that language you speak as English?

LOL. This from an Aussie?


Certainly, I also read Edgar's question as just that.

Cheers
Marty