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

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by Jon Eisberg

More facts ARE available in the RULE 62 case, as well... They just have
Now, I have my own ideas on that. I believe that was an incident primarily 'enabled' by modern electronic navigation, and that there was no way that guy would have attempted to enter the North Bar Channel back in the days prior to GPS and chartplotter video gaming at the helm.

Speculative, but logical. I've seen cruising boats with people in the cockpit plow directly into buoys, and it is all too clear how and why that happens: AP configured to a GPS WP...right to it. CRUNCH.

I find it useful when contemplating a tricky bit of pilotage to turn off the GPS or plotter. Then I advance. If I retreat, it's something I wouldn't have tried prior to the GPS/plotter, and I've thought better of it. Perhaps when we see AIS buoys and I install RADAR, I will be more cavalier, but I retain the instincts of someone with only a compass and a lead line.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

Speculative, but logical. I've seen cruising boats with people in the cockpit plow directly into buoys, and it is all too clear how and why that happens: AP configured to a GPS WP...right to it. CRUNCH.

Gee, that be one accurate GPS! Can you give us the brand?

[colemj]

The GPS accuracy isn't a problem - ours is regularly precise to 6' or less. The problem would be the accuracy of the actual position of the mark and the chart it is shown on.

Some people have unexamined, but treasured, beliefs and don't need any proof as to why something happened (if it actually did) - just the self-assured belief as to knowing why it happened in the absence of any facts.

Mark

[sparau]

Don't know if this has been posted elsewhere, interview transcript here Transcript | This American Life

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by weavis

I think both posters miss the point.
More facts ARE available in this case. They just have not been 'made' available yet.
Judgements are being made on personal opinion. I think most people are aware of the public reaction to certain aspects of this case.

Assessment CANNOT be made fully until ALL the particulars are on the table. Speculation and hearsay are a waste of time.

I remember one particular nasty incident I had with a lawyer.

"My clients mother has died, why is she dead?"

Me. "I dont know"

Him....... But you are a Dr! Why dont you know?! Surely you know something about this?!!"

Me. "Yes. I know Mrs xxx is dead,

Him......."You are being evasive!

Me... "No, why she is dead I have no clue. I prefer to leave the assessment based on sound medical and proven facts to the pathologist.

Him..."But you were treating her!!"

Me..... "I was part of a medical team following known protocol and proven medical procedures. Its not a guarantee for a succeful outcome in every circumstance. It is however the best available."

Him... "I want you to give a best guesstimate of why she died"

Me....."I dont want to waste my time or yours doing that. Firstly, I might well be wrong and secondly, you have no clue what do with the information I give you because you are not qualifed to assess it competently. I prefer to be sure."

Him....."but the patient is dead under your care!!!"

Me ......" we are both agreed that the patient is dead. The patient is not under my care because of that fact. The pathologist will determine why the patient could not remain under my care."

In the event, there was an underlying health condition unknown, undocumented and not detectable in any test she had ever had.

Im a firm believer that in medicine the two most revealing tests done are scans and autopsies.

So..... rather than split hairs over opinion here........ I will wait for comments from Rebel Heart to be placed on the dissection board for analysis if you dont mind.

It will be an autopsy.

I'm sure weavis will know the linked story,
(which his excellent true story reminded me of)
but it may be new to some:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1540017

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by weavis

Life law: We need to be in FULL possession of ALL the facts before we can assess ANY situation.

Hmmm... You know weavis... I can agree with most of Your post...
But...

I really feel that soldiers in Bastogne were really lucky...
Bradley and Patton didn't wait too collect ALL the facts before assessing the situation...
My life rule is: You need to act on the basis of AVAILABLE facts, making the best assessement possible in the situation

[goboatingnow]

ours is regularly precise to 6' or less

how do you know, ?


dave

[colemj]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

how do you know, ?


dave

The status page gives us the accuracy/precision, and that number changes constantly as the satellites move. But I don't "know" that it is correct.

Mark

[who_cares]

From Latitude 38 on the 16th: "May 16, 2014 – San Diego, CA
In an NPR interview last Sunday, offshore rescue survivor Eric Kaufman of Rebel Heart explained that when his sat phone stopped functioning correctly while roughly 900 miles offshore, he and his wife Charlotte lost the ability to consult with US Coast Guard personnel about their emergency situation. Thus, their options were narrowed substantially: 1) to continue on for three weeks before making landfall in the Marquesas, hoping that their one-year-old daughter's medical condition would improve; or 2) to activate their EPIRB and initiate a rescue. As was widely reported, they chose the latter, and were safely rescued via a multi-agency response. But they had to scuttle their Hans Christian 38 in the process, sending it to the bottom of the Pacific with all their possessions.
Eric explained that he found out later that the phone stopped working because the service provider had mailed out new SIM cards, and shut off the old ones shortly thereafter. This week we were alerted that the San Diego-based Alden 64 Nirvana, which is currently crossing to the Marquesas, also lost phone functionality, apparently for a similar reason. In that case, co-owner Julie Mitchell, acting as shoreside support for her husband Gary, was able to work out a solution with the sat phone provider, SatellitePhoneStore.com, and Gary's phone is fully functional again as he continues west.
We contacted the company's manager, Phil Sexton, for a comment on the SIM card controversy. He was adamant that his staff would never discontinue service without first getting voice or email confirmation from a customer that they had received a new SIM card to use. "We would never do that," he says. "These phones are used for emergency purposes by 80% of our customers. Legally, I could not do that" — even if the account were in arrears.
Needless to say, there are always at least two sides to every story. The bottom line, though, for users of sat phones, transponder devices, EPIRBs or other critical safety gear is this: Before heading offshore, always check with service providers about any planned upgrades or changes in service, and be sure to update your EPIRB and PLB (personal locater beacon) info in the official database. Especially when heading offshore, it's wise to update the "comments" section there with your trip plan and crew info. "

linky: Latitude 38 - 'Lectronic Latitude

In this case I'm inclined to believe the satphone company. It simply wouldn't be morally responsible for them to shut off someone's sat phone when most customers use them for emergency calls. Wonder if there's going to be an official statement from them. Probably they don't want to add to the shitstorm, but I think we deserve the truth, and if it turns out that the folks on Rebel Heart were at fault, they need to admit theri fault.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Troup

I'm sure weavis will know the linked story,
(which his excellent true story reminded me of)
but it may be new to some:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post1540017

Yes I was aware of that one Andrew. It always made me smile. Dealing with prosecuting lawyers is a fraught business.

[SaltyMonkey]

Originally Posted by who_cares

In this case I'm inclined to believe the satphone company. It simply wouldn't be morally responsible for them to shut off someone's sat phone when most customers use them for emergency calls. Wonder if there's going to be an official statement from them. Probably they don't want to add to the shitstorm, but I think we deserve the truth, and if it turns out that the folks on Rebel Heart were at fault, they need to admit theri fault.

I'm not inclined to believe either until we hear from other customers who experienced or didn't experience the same issue or can reflect on how they were notified etc.

[Greenhand]

I am picturing something like this:

Company sends an email to the effect of "please respond to this when you receive your SIM card." An automated out of office reply is generated. Company's computer or bored, underpaid desk jockey sees that it has received a response to the email and initiates the change over.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Greenhand

I am picturing something like this:



Company sends an email to the effect of "please respond to this when you receive your SIM card." An automated out of office reply is generated. Company's computer or bored, underpaid desk jockey sees that it has received a response to the email and initiates the change over.

I don't understand the sim changeover things. It's not like mobile phones. There is only ONE SIM provider, Iridium. The only reason you would get a new SIM is you decided to change plans or re activate which would result in a new number and hence SIM. These would all be user generated events.

Did RH initiate a plan change or something and sailed away forgetting about it ? !!

Dave

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by who_cares

..............
We contacted the company's manager, Phil Sexton, for a comment on the SIM card controversy. He was adamant that his staff would never discontinue service without first getting voice or email confirmation from a customer that they had received a new SIM card to use. "We would never do that," he says. "These phones are used for emergency purposes by 80% of our customers. Legally, I could not do that" — even if the account were in arrears.
Needless to say, there are always at least two sides to every story. ..........


In this case I'm inclined to believe the satphone company. It simply wouldn't be morally responsible for them to shut off someone's sat phone when most customers use them for emergency calls. ...........

Hmm... I find it difficult to believe a phone company that would allow an service to continue with an account in arrears.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Hmm... I find it difficult to believe a phone company that would allow an service to continue with an account in arrears.

A quote from my 100 year old coms company

" oh no, we would never disconnect you , knowing your at sea , your a good customer " . Equally of course they could just have phoned the satphone user to apraise him of the issue funny how we forget sat phones work two ways. !!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk