On Aug 30, 10:10*pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:36:34 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:55:38 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6593206.html

This is odd as hell.
Coast Guard had called off the search.
Something not right here.

What's not right is that they went at least 75 miles offshore without
a liferaft or an EPIRB, and in an unsuitable boat. * Other than that
everything went well.

"Unsinkable" so-called off-shore fishing boat, no wreckage found.
Flat sea conditions. Predictable currents put them where they were
found by a pleasure boater.
Coast Guard can't find them, and gives up.
You damn well better have an EPIRB or liferaft.
PLB's might be called for in some circumstances.
A sat phone in a ditch bag might be your best friend.
Looking for some clarity in state of art EPIRB versus PLB's I ran
across this:http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-m...o-plbs-one-epi...
"Just a quick note, not entirely helpful to the thread but might be
interesting: I took a tour of a Coast Guard Station last week on the
Maine coast. I was asking about response times, eperbs and such..I was
told that the Coast Guard gets so many eperb signals that they don't
do anything unless there's some other information to back it up.
Sounds like the eperb ought to be the last form of comunication in an
emergency."

those of us who do watchstanding at CG stations know this ain't the
truth. don't forget there are several things, beyond the EPIRB to be
considered: liability and careers. if someone drowns, someone's gonna
hang for it. the CG has been successfully sued for neglect for
ignoring distress calls.

Those 3 guys sitting on an upturned hull in the Gulf for a week does
NOT inspire in me much confidence in the CG.

you mean just because the CG searched an area the size of the state of
minnesota? how much should they have searched?