Real Probability of Death Passaging the N. Atlantic

[Overdue]

Interesting thread. It is tempting to try Armchair Amateur Actuary/Underwriter. I have heard some owners reference limitations of coverage on insurance policies, for certain geographic areas during certain times of the year (I surmise hurricane avoidance).

Does anyone have access to insurance data or premium surcharges for ocean crossing coverage? What questions or limitations from the underwriters? Minimum 000s miles for captain/crew, only with a buddy-boat, only certain times of year etc?

Some think single-engine plane travel is risky, as they hear about accidents, but there have been many "crashes" (off-airport landings, ie. sports field, farm pasture) due to crazy pilot error, such as running out of fuel or forgetting to switch from an empty tank to a full tank. On the other hand, small aircraft actually have better glide radios than large commercial aircraft.

With automobile deaths, I think it would be prudent to remove from the data deaths from accidents involving significant driver recklessness (drunk/drug, use, excessive speeding, etc).

Many of the points mentioned in this thread sound like relevant risk factors, but I would like to hear about insurance data.

[boatman61]

LOL.. Its being priced to extinction for the masses by corporate marinas and money hungry town halls.
Its returning to its origins as a rich man's sport.
The days of the mooring for a few hundred a year are deminishing fast, anchorages are being closed and marinas and expensive mooring fields are taking over.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I did look at the USCG data but it gave me a headache. Lots of inland boating, paddleboard, waterskiing, etc. accidents to sort. What I am trying to get at is a specific estimate on ocean passaging fatality rates.

Have you looked at this database: https://bard.knightpoint.systems/Pub...e/Report1.aspx

You can zero in on cruising-level craft and look pretty closely at event data (accidents & deaths). I haven't played with it lately, but I recall it was endlessly amusing. And as I say, reveals just how low the incident rates are for boats we're talking about.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The point Kahneman is making is well known in statistics where fluctuations in small samples cause large changes in the estimate.

That's only part of his point. The more important fact is that this dynamic plays into is all sorts of unknown and uncontrollable bias. In the absence of quality data, we'll all just see what we want to, but we'll cloak our findings under the sheen of statistics.

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

But not quite applicable here as we made the data up. Both the numerator and denomenators are estimates of averages over long periods of time, i.e. 40 years and we are assuming stability in the averages.

Exactly my point. It's all just made-up. If it's just a game, then sure... "fill your boots," as mee pappy used to say. But don't pretend it is anything other than pretend.

Meanwhile, and once again, we have decent data in the USCG. Ocean passages have to be magnitudes more dangerous for your analysis to be close to true. Meanwhile, it is often noted that near-shore is where the dangers really lie. So again, it just doesn't pass the sniff test.

[JPA Cate]

Agree, Mike, it's the hard bits that kill boats: they just bob around at sea.

Ann

[Kd9truck]

The risk/reward of off shore travel is a tricky thing, I commend your pursuit even if it is just in the end to calm your own mind. So many variables that Can not be quantified. Type of vessel, condition of vessel, number of crew, experience level of captain, what time of year, what path was taken, was the fatality conditions related.

I stress a small passage 300-500 nm more than the bigger ones because I usually have to compromise weather for time.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Have you looked at this database: https://bard.knightpoint.systems/Pub...e/Report1.aspx

Mike, I initially looked at the root dataset containing this same information. It isn't possible to sort the intersection of accidents on the Atlantic and boat type.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Mike, I initially looked at the root dataset containing this same information. It isn't possible to sort the intersection of accidents on the Atlantic and boat type.

Yes, but you can zero in on vessel type, and looks specifically at the boats of concern here. It will give you incident numbers (accidents, injuries, deaths) for all waterways over 15 years, so not just the Atlantic.

I don't know how you extrapolate this data to offshore passages. Most passage cruisers say the dangers are far greater near-shore than off, but by how much I have no basis to guess at. All I would be comfortable saying is that it is going to be less offshore.

[LakeSuperior]

The near-shore zone has orders of magnitude more boat traffic with all the accompanying ways to go wrong from inexperienced boaters to the harsher penalties for bad navigation

However, there is more help available faster with the Coast Guard and nearby boaters. So it is a much different animal than offshore passaging.

It would be interesting to see what risk estimates look like to see if near-shore yachting is indeed more dangerous than off-shore sailing.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The near-shore zone has orders of magnitude more boat traffic with all the accompanying ways to go wrong from inexperienced boaters to the harsher penalties for bad navigation

However, there is more help available faster with the Coast Guard and nearby boaters. So it is a much different animal than offshore passaging.

It would be interesting to see what risk estimates look like to see if near-shore yachting is indeed more dangerous than off-shore sailing.

Agreed, they are different situations. How different is unknowable since we don't have good data for offshore. I only point to this dataset because it is somewhat credible and somewhat complete (by statute, reports must be made). As far as I've discovered, it's the best there is.

I would absolutely love to have credible data for offshore travel.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is why I keep pointing to the at least somewhat credible source: USCG data.

I don't believe the USCG includes offshore data, because it is a rollup of data collected from each state. I've spent a lot of time reading through the USCG data in the past. There are a frighteningly high number of what I would characterize as fatailities due to alcohol misuse that happen have a boating component. There are a frighteningly high number of paddlecraft fatalities. Beyond that it's hard to draw conclusions.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jammer

I don't believe the USCG includes offshore data, because it is a rollup of data collected from each state. I've spent a lot of time reading through the USCG data in the past. There are a frighteningly high number of what I would characterize as fatailities due to alcohol misuse that happen have a boating component. There are a frighteningly high number of paddlecraft fatalities. Beyond that it's hard to draw conclusions.

No, they certainly don't include offshore data.

The database I linked to allows you to separate out boat type, and examine incident causes. Alcohol is identfied as a key cause of accidents, but almost exclusively in the small boat categories. If you isolate cruising-level craft, the number drops to near zero.

[tweitz]

My take is that one cannot eliminate illness deaths from the database. Especially now that I am an old fart, one of the meaningful risks even when I day sail is the time it would take to get medical attention. Last year I was sailing with two friends when one of the wives onshore suffered a fatal heart attack. We rushed to the hospital as fast as we could make it, which means that we arrived there 2 1/2 hours after the first call we received. If someone on the boat had a heart attack or similar emergency, the time to hospital would have been about the same. There is a world of difference between reaching medical attention in 15 minutes and 3 hours. If at sea, crossing the Atlantic, the time to medical attention will often be measured in days. And that is a risk of sailing across the Atlantic that should be factored in. It doesn't stop me from sailing, or single handing, where there might be no obvious way to get medical attention, it is just a risk I understand.

[leboyd]

Originally Posted by Overdue

Does anyone have access to insurance data or premium surcharges for ocean crossing coverage?

As a life insurance guy, this isn’t necessarily the best way to decide if something is life threatening. When purchasing a LI policy, there are a lot of questions about health and several questions about activities. I am not aware of a single Li company that asks if you sail across oceans or even if you cruise along the shore. They do ask if you participate in rodeos (bull riding, etc.), scuba diving, of course air pilot and a number of other activities.

The reason an activity may not have a question is either it’s statistically safe or there’s just not enough people involved to warrant a question. I’m not sure why rodeo activities are questioned and sailing is not. Anecdotally, I would think both have few participants and sailing has more. If sailing does have more, then one may conclude that sailing is not life threatening, including sailing across oceans.

Or maybe it is and sailors don’t buy life insurance, so the insurance companies don’t have enough interest in asking.

So in my opinion, it’s not possible to conclude the safety of sailing by using LI application process.

[Drunkonwatch]

Originally Posted by boatman61

LOL.. Its being priced to extinction for the masses by corporate marinas and money hungry town halls.
Its returning to its origins as a rich man's sport.
The days of the mooring for a few hundred a year are deminishing fast, anchorages are being closed and marinas and expensive mooring fields are taking over.

So seriously it’s hard to read the constant bickering and copy paste on this forum. You really want to compare the costs and compare buying a engine one certified to fly and one for a boat and say sailing has gone the same way. Seems you guys need an argument and a complaint more than you need to boat.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Drunkonwatch

So seriously it’s hard to read the constant bickering and copy paste on this forum. You really want to compare the costs and compare buying a engine one certified to fly and one for a boat and say sailing has gone the same way. Seems you guys need an argument and a complaint more than you need to boat.

I am talking about people managing to keep sailing.. an eco friendly sport/pastime..
You however are rabbiting on about how tough it is to fly..
Grapefruit to grapes..
Wanna bitch how tough it is fly go to another forum to moan and groan.. on here it's about how grass roots sailors are being squeezed out of the scene.
Now, enough of your thread drift and back to how big the chance of dying at sea.