Captain's Log, April 30, 2014 from the Rebel Heart Blog

[Scottuk]

Regardless of the conspiracy theorists Blue Crab, the search that is ongoing would have the goal as I described above whether it is a fool's errand or not.

[rebel heart]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I mostly agree. Did you read the referenced article about the Kaufmans? It's about lifestyle choices, not about seamanship or the actual events. Charlotte is a bit hard on people who make "traditional" choices. Seems to me that's just going to stoke the fire, not put it out.

I'd rather know what actually happened, but it appears they'd prefer to reserve those details, at least for now.

I went on an international radio program and spent hours answering questions. I did a full multi-hour debrief with the 129th rescue wing. I've talked to the commander of the navy's third fleet, the captain of the vandegrift, and spent two days on here answering questions.

The threads on here long ago left specific questions and sober attempt to educate, and went into rhetoric, entertainment, and a bit of good old fashioned Internet trolling.

This thread has most of my replies in it:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ed-125942.html

From a time management prospective, I'm not going to sit around wading through speculation to cherry pick out legitimate questions on multiple Internet forums. If there's something I can help answer, please PM me and if you want a public answer I'll put it in the above thread.

As I've stated on numerous other occasions I think there is a lot of value in learning from mishaps and maritime incidents in general. But if you want to sit around and talk about my wife's attitude in an article, or whether or not I'm humble enough, you guys can feel free to have that discussion by yourselves if you don't mind.

[Empty Pockets]

I truly don't understand the obsession with analyzing/criticizing this poor family's misfortune. We're all sailors/cruisers here, some armchair, some otherwise. So, I don't get it.
Losing ones home and possessions would be tough for most of us. Losing ones hopes and dreams along with it all would be a different thing.
Losing either or both with a family along would be even more traumatic. The same with the whole world watching would seem devastating.
Yet, the majority seem intent on interrogating them, or calling them idiots, or worse...
Why?

[deckofficer]

Originally Posted by rebel heart

I went on an international radio program and spent hours answering questions. I did a full multi-hour debrief with the 129th rescue wing. I've talked to the commander of the navy's third fleet, the captain of the vandegrift, and spent two days on here answering questions.

The threads on here long ago left specific questions and sober attempt to educate, and went into rhetoric, entertainment, and a bit of good old fashioned Internet trolling.

This thread has most of my replies in it:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ed-125942.html

From a time management prospective, I'm not going to sit around wading through speculation to cherry pick out legitimate questions on multiple Internet forums. If there's something I can help answer, please PM me and if you want a public answer I'll put it in the above thread.

As I've stated on numerous other occasions I think there is a lot of value in learning from mishaps and maritime incidents in general. But if you want to sit around and talk about my wife's attitude in an article, or whether or not I'm humble enough, you guys can feel free to have that discussion by yourselves if you don't mind.

Eric,
If you have the time I asked a question on that other thread.

Thanks

[Rustic Charm]

Thanks Eric.

Unfortunately a forum of this nature gives some the encouragement to be exceptionally personal. I don't even know you but have found a number of responses to be quite heartless and even offensive so I'm not surprised if you have felt that. I'm even a little surprised they were permitted to be posted, but I suppose that's some people's ideas of free speech.

My suspicion is you have a dean site more support on this forum and well wishers than distractors, so hang in there and don't be put off too much from being an active member of this community.

[Scottuk]

Quote:
And NO, just because someone needs rescuing and it costs $ ,does not mean you are entitled to an explanation!
Can you explain why?

Still waiting for a response tedsherrin.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

Not so sure, Mate. The referenced "conspiracy" theory ties up some loose ends in a somewhat reasonable way. Obviously many would disagree with that assessment but something unusual happened out there, I suspect.

And with all the eyes in the skies, somebody is certain to know the location of the plane as it "left" radar/lazer/lens/whateverelsewegot coverage.

Now, back to Days of Other People's Lives. Over

Certainly is difficult to believe that the Diego Garcia Military Base did not have eyes in the sky tracking of the plane.

Tend to agree with your conspiracy theory. There are a few others also that link

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Scottuk

Still waiting for a response tedsherrin.

As 'down under' suggested you need to get over it! But i suspect your motive is you just want something else to continue to pursue. In any case the answer is self explanatory. Just because public monies are used on a rescue does not mean YOU, or the public are entitled to some explanation from those being rescued, anymore than an unfortunate family the victim of a fire owes you an explanation for the fire brigade turning out. When public monies are spent, the public service that expended the funds provide an explanation and justification for the expenditure. That's the sum total of what YOU are entitled to. Nothing more. Certainly nothing from the unfortunate persons who needed the service and who are entitled and quite often protected (case in Australia) in law to their privacy.

That's my response, not the slightest bit interested in your come back.

[Scottuk]

That's my response, not the slightest bit interested in your come back.

Given the tone of your responses towards my posts you appear to want to hold people to a different standard then yourself but I will respond anyway.

Just because public monies are used on a rescue does not mean YOU, or the public are entitled to some explanation from those being rescued, anymore than an unfortunate family the victim of a fire owes you an explanation for the fire brigade turning out.

Given your example the victims usually give an explanation to either the fire services or the police then is typically disseminated to the general public via a news source. It is in the public's interest to do so. It is my contention there should be an accounting for all public monies spent leading to a more efficient allocation of resources. It is a cornerstone of an open and democratic society.

In the instance of RH I am not sure the rescue services they availed themselves to should be doing the dessemination. The reason is that it could impact the future caller's decision to make the call in the first place. On the the other hand if the callers for these services are held accountable would it not make them better consider their preparation? I, and it would appear a lot of others, believe this debate is worthy of consideration.

As pretty much everyone on here knows RH has publicly expressed their thoughts, views and opinions in a multitude of forms. I don't see why anyone can't respond in any way they see fit. If RH does not like how some people respond they can just stop publishing and walk away. It is their own decision and is a two way street.

Lastly as for the comment by you and downunder about telling me 'to get over it', why does it seem a lot of the defenders (I have defended some of their actions/choices too) like yourselves have a need to stifle debate? Why do you feel you should have the power to tell somebody what to do? I guess I will never understand this type of behaviour

[downunder]

I believe you can debate all you like and the rescue services will remain free of charge to those rescued as part of the international SAR system. You seem to disagree. That's fine.

We have often seen criticism of the costs of rescues, nothing new as it makes good copy for the media.

An example in Australia was the rescue of Tony Bullimore in the southern ocean and also some other cases of French sailors.

From the archive: Tony Bullimore rescued after four days stranded at sea 10/1/1997 | Special reports | guardian.co.uk

The example of RH is another example of media seeking copy. I simply do not think the USA SAR will debate the cost of its international maritime SAR obligation. This example of dropping medics by parachutein a medical emergency was a fantastic example of their capability

"Australia's defence minister last night dismissed any criticism of the cost. Ian McLachlan said the experience gained was something money could not buy. 'We're not going to duplicate those hours. They would probably have been run up anyway, probably practising somewhere else.

'We have an international legal obligation. We have a moral obligation obviously to go and rescue people, whether in bushfires, cyclones or at sea."'

Australia mandates the carrying of EPIRBS which has proven very helpful in quickly locating vessels in distress and thus helping contain costs of rescues. Perhaps that could be a good response to managing the cost of rescues in the Americas. Certainly EPIRB helped in the RH situation.

Scottuk, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

I mostly agree. Did you read the referenced article about the Kaufmans? It's about lifestyle choices, not about seamanship or the actual events. Charlotte is a bit hard on people who make "traditional" choices. Seems to me that's just going to stoke the fire, not put it out.

I'd rather know what actually happened, but it appears they'd prefer to reserve those details, at least for now.

Well.. being controversial and evasive is a better money spinner than "I stuffed up... lost my bottle.. I vant to be Alone"....
And there's plenty on here keeping their wagon rolling..

[Scottuk]

I believe you can debate all you like and the rescue services will remain free of charge to those rescued as part of the international SAR system. You seem to disagree. That's fine.

That is not my position at all. I am happy with the services and have expressed my agreement with RH pushing the button given the situation they found themselves to be in. What I would like is a full determination of the event so it can educate the public - that is the point about the money. If I am paying money I should be able to know all the reasons and I don't think that is too much to expect. I would also not be happy with exploiting the event for personal gain.

The example of RH is another example of media seeking copy.

I agree it was generally the case due to their lifestyle choice (yet another point I agree on). I do question and disagree with some of the decisions RH made and would like to have more information on other aspects of the event. I think a lot of people in the boating community hold similar positions.

[Blue Crab]

I really don't get what all the fuss is about. So they write a book. So what? It will sell or not on its merits. There's nothing in this story for most of us. In a perfect world long distance cruisers would assume the risks involved.

The bottom line here is the sick kid. The condition of the baby called the shots here. There were some early posts grumbling about abandoning the boat but I doubt there's a reader among us who would have carried on, further risking the kiddo's life. And it would take some tuff sumbich to send the wife and kids on their-not-so-merry-way and carry on the voyage. A circumnavigation doesn't have quite the same cachet these days.

It's easy to suggest some other motivations but I think we have no choice but to take the parents at their word. And not pay too much attention to the borrowed philosophy and callowness of youth.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by boatman61

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]
But.. I still think he made some maritime cock-ups..

I've spent the time to go over the posts and on the other closed thread. I'm curious to know 'what maritime cockups' do you believe they made? And please don't respond with the ages of the children, that's hardly 'maritime'.

[who_cares]

Originally Posted by tedsherrin

I've spent the time to go over the posts and on the other closed thread. I'm curious to know 'what maritime cockups' do you believe they made? And please don't respond with the ages of the children, that's hardly 'maritime'.

Well in the interview he said that he had a substantial leak that came through and shorted the SSB. Pretty sure that's not supposed to happen, and nothing I've read said that they went through a storm of any significance, just that they had some rough seas, heavier weather, and got knocked around a bit. If that's the case and they still developed the leak, then it's a symptom of bad preparation, which I would call a "maritime cockup". I think that trying to sail across the Pacific without having a significant offshore voyage under your belt with your family and your home is irresponsible. Coastal cruising is one thing, but I don't think they did any multi-night passages before they left, at least not any with 2 kids.