rescue

Here's what I wrote after seeing the ABC News link on the rescue. It didn't show up in my post, although it was there in my "sent" folder. While reading this, I was thinking about the tradition of rescue at sea--its obligations, and also its expenses (in terms of both risk and money). I was also wondering if the Chilean navy might be tired of rescuing adventurers who encounter bad weather and related disaster. The rescue tradition, the obligation to go to the aid of vessels and crew in distress, makes a lot of sense when we're dealing with commerce--not because commerce involves money, really, but because commerce is related to human social activity and culture. Recreational risk-takers fall into another category. Their activity doesn't have quite the link to necessity that a tanker-load of oil, a hold-full of wheat, or other commercial cargoes have. I can understand why a government might object to spending large sums rescuing people from recreational danger. If I were in danger, I would certainly hope that somebody's navy, coast guard, or commercial shippers might come out to assist me. But I really shouldn't expect to receive that treatment as a freebie, or an entitlement. Here in the US, I support taxation to maintain a Coast Guard ready and able to protect all of us mariners, commercial and recreational alike. I think it's good policy. But for poorer countries and those with sparser populations, it does seem a bit unfair to expect them to spring to the aid of folks who are out there for a thrill. Basically, that's what we recreational folks are out there for. What do others think? Chris Campbell time to ponder when the boat's on the hard

Chris, I thought your argument was well presented, and more nuanced that most such arguments. Nevertheless, I disagree. First, as to the tradition of rescue at sea, it seems to me that this tradition is primarily concerned with saving lives, not saving cargoes. (The law of salvage deals with protection of the boat and its cargo.) Especially in the old days, the rescuing ship would not be able to take on a cargo of wheat or coal. This distinction may be blurred by the fact that the obligation originated in an era when there basically was no recreational bluewater activity. I have support the notion that one should not venture offshore without being reasonably prepared for adversity. Nor do I think that poor countries should bankrupt themselves to maintain rescue at sea capabilities. However, Chile is not a third-world country, they are going to maintain rescue capability in any event, and the costs of the occasional bailout of a recreational sailor are not significant for the vast majority of governments. As to the risk incurred by attempted rescuers, the primary obligation of a captain is to the safety of his or her own crew and vessel, and if the risk to that safety becomes unreasonably large, the rescue attempt should be abandoned or delayed. (I do not mean to show any lack of appreciation of the courage often exhibited in rescues.) Basically, I think it is against human nature to take a position of "sorry, Jack, you put yourself in that position and you can't expect any help from us." A position of "sorry, but we would like to help but it's too dangerous or we lack the means to help" would be a different matter. Harleigh Ewell Cal 31 From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Campbell Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:43 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: [Cal_Boats] rescue Here's what I wrote after seeing the ABC News link on the rescue. It didn't show up in my post, although it was there in my "sent" folder. While reading this, I was thinking about the tradition of rescue at sea--its obligations, and also its expenses (in terms of both risk and money). I was also wondering if the Chilean navy might be tired of rescuing adventurers who encounter bad weather and related disaster. The rescue tradition, the obligation to go to the aid of vessels and crew in distress, makes a lot of sense when we're dealing with commerce--not because commerce involves money, really, but because commerce is related to human social activity and culture. Recreational risk-takers fall into another category. Their activity doesn't have quite the link to necessity that a tanker-load of oil, a hold-full of wheat, or other commercial cargoes have. I can understand why a government might object to spending large sums rescuing people from recreational danger. If I were in danger, I would certainly hope that somebody's navy, coast guard, or commercial shippers might come out to assist me. But I really shouldn't expect to receive that treatment as a freebie, or an entitlement. Here in the US, I support taxation to maintain a Coast Guard ready and able to protect all of us mariners, commercial and recreational alike. I think it's good policy. But for poorer countries and those with sparser populations, it does seem a bit unfair to expect them to spring to the aid of folks who are out there for a thrill. Basically, that's what we recreational folks are out there for. What do others think? Chris Campbell time to ponder when the boat's on the hard

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@...> wrote: > > Chris, > > > > I thought your argument was well presented, and more nuanced > that most such arguments. Nevertheless, I disagree. First, as to the > tradition of rescue at sea, it seems to me that this tradition is primarily > concerned with saving lives, not saving cargoes. (The law of salvage deals > with protection of the boat and its cargo.) Especially in the old days, the > rescuing ship would not be able to take on a cargo of wheat or coal. This > distinction may be blurred by the fact that the obligation originated in an > era when there basically was no recreational bluewater activity. All true and this question was raised when Joshua Slocum took his trip. Still, he was an experienced sea captain and there was no radio to call for help. > > > > I have support the notion that one should not venture offshore > without being reasonably prepared for adversity. There is a difference between "going offshore" and many of these stunts we are beginning to see now. Going around the world alone when you are inexperienced is a stunt. > Nor do I think that poor > countries should bankrupt themselves to maintain rescue at sea capabilities. > However, Chile is not a third-world country, they are going to maintain > rescue capability in any event, and the costs of the occasional bailout of a > recreational sailor are not significant for the vast majority of > governments. However, as has happened with New Zealand, these countries may begin to insist on onerous regulations for simple cruisers who are not attempting these high risk stunts. There may be a sort of Gresham's law of sailing in which people who try risky behavior make things more difficult for those who are prudent. The New Zealand regulations, as I understand them, are quite punitive. >As to the risk incurred by attempted rescuers, the primary > obligation of a captain is to the safety of his or her own crew and vessel, > and if the risk to that safety becomes unreasonably large, the rescue > attempt should be abandoned or delayed. (I do not mean to show any lack of > appreciation of the courage often exhibited in rescues.) What happens is that rescue swimmers are put at risk and are not the type of personality to give up. Have you read "Perfect Storm" ? One of the rescue helicopters went into the water and that crew had to be rescued. > > > > Basically, I think it is against human nature to take a position > of "sorry, Jack, you put yourself in that position and you can't expect any > help from us." A position of "sorry, but we would like to help but it's too > dangerous or we lack the means to help" would be a different matter. But we are at the mercy of the stunt attempters who will create an atomsphere of frustration with all recreational sailing. I return you to the Sydney Herald article proposing a ban on the Sydney-Hobart race. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > > > Harleigh Ewell > > Cal 31 > >

Reading about Ken Barnes reminded me of my great grandfather, who was lost at sea off of the Horn circa 1900. Family lore says he was a ship's carpenter back in the day. He found himself on deck during a storm while trying to go around the Horn. A wave caught him and carried him overboard. He was with another mate at the time, who reached out to grab him. All he got was a button from his coat. Upon the mate's return to Liverpool, he went to my great grandmother's house and handed her the button. His surviving son was lost during WWII in a lifeboat after the ship he was on was sunk. I tried to picture him on deck everytime Hornblower, Bolitho, or Aubrey went around the Horn. In Arizona, those who place themselves at risk and require rescue are ordered to pay restitution to the state to recover the cost of their folly, as well as the cost to any damage they cause. I am sure the state rarely collects.

This kind of discussion inevitably boils down to an unsolvable political debate. First of all, what constitutes "well prepared" or "inexperienced"? Who will make that decision, a bean counter in a land-locked country, or a panel of marine 'experts', which among 10 persons will espouse 15 different opinions? Secondly, in America the individual reigns supreme. "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" In Saudi Arabia, family reigns supreme. In many areas of China, the collective reigns supreme. How will you recognize each cultural identity and difference in coming to a common idea of what, or whom, should be rescued? I think what is occurring now in today's oceans is proper...that is, we will attempt rescue if we have the resources and experience available. In America, we have one of the best rescue services in the world. If you get in trouble, there's a good chance you'll be saved. Not so off the coast of Somalia, or Yemen, or Liberia. People who transit off these areas are usually aware of this and try to mitigate their risk. And there are many parts of our world where an EPIRB will only transmit your epitaph.

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Stirling" <bruce@...> wrote: > > Reading about Ken Barnes reminded me of my great grandfather, who was > lost at sea off of the Horn circa 1900. Family lore says he was a > ship's carpenter back in the day. He found himself on deck during a > storm while trying to go around the Horn. A wave caught him and > carried him overboard. He was with another mate at the time, who > reached out to grab him. All he got was a button from his coat. Upon > the mate's return to Liverpool, he went to my great grandmother's > house and handed her the button. In Irving Johnson's movie, which he made in 1928 with a wind-up camera, he rounded the horn with the square rigger Peking, one of the last commercial square riggers. He shot film of seas sweeping the decks while he sat on the lowest yard of the main mast. The deck was completely covered by the sea. To get himself prepared for going to sea, he had no experience until he went on the Peking, he would climb a telephone pole and had movie film of him doing a handstand on top of the telephone pole about 20 feet in the air. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96

There is a difference between "going offshore" and many of these stunts we are beginning to see now. Going around the world alone when you are inexperienced is a stunt. Agreed. However, as has happened with New Zealand, these countries may begin to insist on onerous regulations for simple cruisers who are not attempting these high risk stunts. There may be a sort of Gresham's law of sailing in which people who try risky behavior make things more difficult for those who are prudent. The New Zealand regulations, as I understand them, are quite punitive. Agreed. There are always going to be do-gooders who want to prohibit others from doing what they do not have the nerve to attempt and politicians willing to seize on an issue for publicity. What happens is that rescue swimmers are put at risk and are not the type of personality to give up. Have you read "Perfect Storm" ? One of the rescue helicopters went into the water and that crew had to be rescued. As I recall, they ran out of fuel, with tragic results. But we are at the mercy of the stunt attempters who will create an atomsphere of frustration with all recreational sailing. I return you to the Sydney Herald article proposing a ban on the Sydney-Hobart race. Do you think that race is a stunt? If not, it's not clear how other recreational rescues have contributed to the proposed ban. Harleigh Ewell Cal 31

Even the best of the best get in trouble out there! I went on line for about 30 seconds and came up with the following: What does Toyota Marine Insurance cover? Emergency rescue and towing: We will pay up to $2,000 to get you towed back to the nearest port and up to $10,000 for rescue. One aid would be a global rescue insurance, with a few mil. in coverage. Are there any globally extended rescue coverage's available for the mariner that would reimburse the full blown rescue operation? Mark Pelican Cal 2-29 ----- Original Message ----- From: egiajack To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:19 PM Subject: [Cal_Boats] Re: rescue (Chris) This kind of discussion inevitably boils down to an unsolvable political debate. First of all, what constitutes "well prepared" or "inexperienced"? Who will make that decision, a bean counter in a land-locked country, or a panel of marine 'experts', which among 10 persons will espouse 15 different opinions? Secondly, in America the individual reigns supreme. "Give me Liberty or give me Death!" In Saudi Arabia, family reigns supreme. In many areas of China, the collective reigns supreme. How will you recognize each cultural identity and difference in coming to a common idea of what, or whom, should be rescued? I think what is occurring now in today's oceans is proper...that is, we will attempt rescue if we have the resources and experience available. In America, we have one of the best rescue services in the world. If you get in trouble, there's a good chance you'll be saved. Not so off the coast of Somalia, or Yemen, or Liberia. People who transit off these areas are usually aware of this and try to mitigate their risk. And there are many parts of our world where an EPIRB will only transmit your epitaph.

Mike, is that on dvd somewhere? Marsh mtkennedy1 wrote: >--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Stirling" <bruce@...> wrote: > > >>Reading about Ken Barnes reminded me of my great grandfather, who was >>lost at sea off of the Horn circa 1900. Family lore says he was a >>ship's carpenter back in the day. He found himself on deck during a >>storm while trying to go around the Horn. A wave caught him and >>carried him overboard. He was with another mate at the time, who >>reached out to grab him. All he got was a button from his coat. Upon >>the mate's return to Liverpool, he went to my great grandmother's >>house and handed her the button. >> >> > >In Irving Johnson's movie, which he made in 1928 with a wind-up camera, he rounded the >horn with the square rigger Peking, one of the last commercial square riggers. He shot >film of seas sweeping the decks while he sat on the lowest yard of the main mast. The >deck was completely covered by the sea. > >To get himself prepared for going to sea, he had no experience until he went on the >Peking, he would climb a telephone pole and had movie film of him doing a handstand on >top of the telephone pole about 20 feet in the air. > >Mike Kennedy >Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

Check this out for photos and histories: http://sailing-ships.oktett.net/register-alphabetic.html Also, read Tall Ships Down. \Rog Cal 29+ #1 Swiss Navy Cal 2-30 #77 St. Lori's Comet

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Marsh Wise <marsh@...> wrote: > > Mike, is that on dvd somewhere? > Marsh > > mtkennedy1 wrote: > snipped > > > >In Irving Johnson's movie, which he made in 1928 with a wind-up camera, he rounded the > >horn with the square rigger Peking, one of the last commercial square riggers. He shot > >film of seas sweeping the decks while he sat on the lowest yard of the main mast. The > >deck was completely covered by the sea. I have a VHF tape which I may have gotten at the lecture. Here is one of a number of sources that show up on a Google search: http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID5104339P3403856-Videos/Around-Cape-Horn-VHS.aspx He also had movies of the trips in the Brigantine Yankee. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Rog Jones" <rog@...> wrote: > > Check this out for photos and histories: > > > > http://sailing-ships.oktett.net/register-alphabetic.html Here is the Peking: http://sailing-ships.oktett.net/3.html MIke Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96

You're going to laugh at me, but I don't have a tape machine anymore. I've moved on to DVD's :-0 I think the wife has one in our stuf fin Cali, I'll have to ask. If so, I could order one and watch it. Come to think of it, I bet I could copy a tape onto a dvd... :-) mtkennedy1 wrote: >--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Marsh Wise <marsh@...> wrote: > > >>Mike, is that on dvd somewhere? >>Marsh >> >>mtkennedy1 wrote: >> >> >> >snipped > > > >>>In Irving Johnson's movie, which he made in 1928 with a wind-up camera, he rounded >>> >>> >the > > >>>horn with the square rigger Peking, one of the last commercial square riggers. He shot >>>film of seas sweeping the decks while he sat on the lowest yard of the main mast. The >>>deck was completely covered by the sea. >>> >>> > >I have a VHF tape which I may have gotten at the lecture. Here is one of a number of >sources that show up on a Google search: > >http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID5104339P3403856-Videos/Around-Cape-Horn-VHS.aspx > >He also had movies of the trips in the Brigantine Yankee. > >Mike Kennedy >Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > >

Mike, I found it there on DVD, just so people know :-) Thanks!!!!! http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID5104339P3403860-Videos/Around-Cape-Horn-DVD.aspx Best, Marsh

DVD here ... http://armchairsailorseattle.stores.yahoo.net/arcahowiirjo.html Kirk Cal 34 Footloose Marsh Wise wrote: > You're going to laugh at me, but I don't have a tape machine anymore. > I've moved on to DVD's :-0 I think the wife has one in our stuf fin > Cali, I'll have to ask. If so, I could order one and watch it. Come to > think of it, I bet I could copy a tape onto a dvd... :-) > > mtkennedy1 wrote: >> --- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, Marsh Wise <marsh@...> wrote: >> >>> Mike, is that on dvd somewhere? >>> Marsh >>> >>> mtkennedy1 wrote: >>> >>> >> snipped >> >> >>>> In Irving Johnson's movie, which he made in 1928 with a wind-up camera, he rounded >>>> >> the >> >>>> horn with the square rigger Peking, one of the last commercial square riggers. He shot >>>> film of seas sweeping the decks while he sat on the lowest yard of the main mast. The >>>> deck was completely covered by the sea. >>>> >> >> I have a VHF tape which I may have gotten at the lecture. Here is one of a number of >> sources that show up on a Google search: >> >> http://gallery.bcentral.com/GID5104339P3403856-Videos/Around-Cape-Horn-VHS.aspx >> >> He also had movies of the trips in the Brigantine Yankee. >> >> Mike Kennedy >> Conquest Cal 40 # 96 >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >> > -- Kirk Grier kg… [at] kirkgrier.com http://kirkgrier.com/

If I understand correctly, at least some mountain areas in Europe require mountaineers to pay for their own rescue, if needed. Insurance is available and purchased. FWIW, and the situation is different, as sailors can just show up in an area with no permits needed, whereas in populated areas such as Switzerland I presume climbers etc need to get permission from the government. Jon Brush On 1/4/07, Mark Alan Stahnke (MAS Consulting) <ma… [at] cox.net> wrote: > > Even the best of the best get in trouble out there! I went on line for > about 30 seconds and came up with the following: What does Toyota Marine > Insurance cover? > Emergency rescue and towing:* *We will pay up to $2,000 to get you towed > back to the nearest port and up to $10,000 for rescue. > ** > One aid would be a global rescue insurance, with a few mil. in coverage. > > Are there any globally extended rescue coverage's available for the > mariner that would reimburse the full blown rescue operation? > Mark > Pelican Cal 2-29 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* egiajack <jg… [at] erols.com> > *To:* Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com > *Sent:* Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:19 PM > *Subject:* [Cal_Boats] Re: rescue (Chris) > > > > This kind of discussion inevitably boils down to an unsolvable > political debate. > > First of all, what constitutes "well prepared" or "inexperienced"? > Who will make that decision, a bean counter in a land-locked country, > or a panel of marine 'experts', which among 10 persons will espouse > 15 different opinions? > > Secondly, in America the individual reigns supreme. "Give me Liberty > or give me Death!" In Saudi Arabia, family reigns supreme. In many > areas of China, the collective reigns supreme. How will you > recognize each cultural identity and difference in coming to a common > idea of what, or whom, should be rescued? > > I think what is occurring now in today's oceans is proper...that is, > we will attempt rescue if we have the resources and experience > available. In America, we have one of the best rescue services in > the world. If you get in trouble, there's a good chance you'll be > saved. Not so off the coast of Somalia, or Yemen, or Liberia. > People who transit off these areas are usually aware of this and try > to mitigate their risk. > > And there are many parts of our world where an EPIRB will only > transmit your epitaph. > > >

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@...> wrote: > > > > > > There is a difference between "going offshore" and many of these stunts we > are beginning > to see now. Going around the world alone when you are inexperienced is a > stunt. > > Agreed. snipped > But we are at the mercy of the stunt attempters who will create an > atomsphere of > frustration with all recreational sailing. I return you to the Sydney Herald > article proposing > a ban on the Sydney-Hobart race. > > > > Do you think that race is a stunt? If not, it's not clear how other > recreational rescues have contributed to the proposed ban. > No but I am concerned about very wealthy owners taking these cutting edge racers into rough conditions and then having to be rescued or having injuries in the crew. Maximus had a radical rotating mast that is fine for daysailing and overnight events but may not be safe in rough conditions. This is what happened to IOR in the 1979 Fastnet Race. There were a bunch of medium sized yachts that had extreme versions of the trend to decreased stability as a way to reduce rating. There were guys who bolted lead to the cabin tops to decrease righting moment. I put lead in the bilge of my Choate 40 to get a couple of tenths off my rating. I later took it out but never went to the extremes. In the 79 Fastnet, there were a bunch of capsizes, some of which came up very slowly as the righting moment was poor. The big boats survived that storm very well, partly becuse a lot of them got in ahead of it, and because most of them were still pretty conservative designs. Ted Turner won it in his 12 meter, for example. Now there is so much money in yachting, more than I have ever seen, that the extreme boats are much larger with bigger crews. If there had been six deaths on Maximus, there might have been some real pressure on the rules. Stan Honey said that Amro's mast was just tired and had a lot of miles on it. The girl who wrote the newspaper article is an idiot but most people who write laws know next to nothing about sailing. New Zealand actually has the largest percentage of sailors in the population in any country in the world. They just got tired of these massive rescues. A few years ago, there was a bad storm in April that caught a huge fleet of cruisers heading north. Lots of cruisers spend the summer in New Zealand and then, about April 1, head north to avoid the coming winter which is quite cold. That fleet got hit badly and a bunch of lives were lost. Most of them were too far to help. The Barnes guy is still on Fox News. Ugh! Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > > Harleigh Ewell > > Cal 31 >

Harleigh Ewell wrote: > > Chris, > > > > I thought your argument was well presented, and more > nuanced that most such arguments. Nevertheless, I disagree. First, > as to the tradition of rescue at sea, it seems to me that this > tradition is primarily concerned with saving lives, not saving > cargoes. (The law of salvage deals with protection of the boat and > its cargo.) Especially in the old days, the rescuing ship would not > be able to take on a cargo of wheat or coal. > Harleigh, What I had in mind was encouraging commercial shipping activities, not salvaging the cargo. Most commercial shipping has a larger significance that the folks who sail off to remote places to satisfy inner needs. > Basically, I think it is against human nature to take a > position of "sorry, Jack, you put yourself in that position and you > can't expect any help from us." A position of "sorry, but we would > like to help but it's too dangerous or we lack the means to help" > would be a different matter. > Here, my notion was that perhaps rescue under these circumstances should not be regarded as a right or subsidy, but as an expense to be borne by the victim. Our own CG moved in that direction when they ceased carrying gas out to the folks who had run out, or towing in those whose engines failed, leaving that to private rescue and towing services (aka pirates, from what I've read about some of their charges). The CG only rescues people when there's a threat to life. I tend to view some of these recreational offshore sailors as the ocean equivalent of the powerboaters who run out of gas. There's too much dependence on rescue. It also brings to mind the big race in England--name escapes me, but John Rousmaniere wrote a book about it--in which there were lots of people lost who abandoned ship and the boat survived. Seems to me that if you're going offshore, you should have a capable boat, and if your boat is capable, then you need to be a capable sailor who can handle the conditions your boat can handle. There has been much written lately about this phenomenon in mountain-climbing. It has become quite fashionable to climb Mt. Everest and other high peaks. Wealthy people hire supportive services of various kinds and go off on a lark. Somehow it diminishes the experience. Chris Campbell

egiajack wrote: > > This kind of discussion inevitably boils down to an unsolvable > political debate. > But it's important for us to have these debates, because they focus attention on the issues and lead to more careful thinking. This little debate in very interesting, which is what I had hoped when I kept stirring the pot. > > > First of all, what constitutes "well prepared" or "inexperienced"? > Who will make that decision, a bean counter in a land-locked country, > or a panel of marine 'experts', which among 10 persons will espouse > 15 different opinions? > > Secondly, in America the individual reigns supreme. > All the more reason for us to thrash this out, so we as individuals are better informed and can make wiser decisions for ourselves.(or can advise our friends more capably). I like the notion that I can decide to do one of these adventurous things. I very much dislike the notion that they should be undertaken on the assumption that they are risk-free, or nearly risk-free. That leads a person to undertake them on a whim, without adequate preparation or understanding of the risks involved. It diminishes the experience. It's like me deciding to sail my Cal 20 across the ocean. It could be done with the boat as-is, if I were extraordinarily lucky. Or, it has been done by sailors who have gone to great effort to prepare their vessels (and themselves) for extraordinary conditions. The latter folks are the ones who should be doing it. > "Give me Liberty > or give me Death!" > The death part is what some of the unprepared folks forget about. They want liberty but no risk of death. > > I think what is occurring now in today's oceans is proper...that is, > we will attempt rescue if we have the resources and experience > available. > Of course. But we should not encourage the unnecessary use of rescue forces because it puts other people--the rescuers--unnecessarily at risk. Chris Campbell

mtkennedy1 wrote: > > > > In Irving Johnson's movie, which he made in 1928 with a wind-up > camera, he rounded the > horn with the square rigger Peking, one of the last commercial square > riggers. He shot > film of seas sweeping the decks while he sat on the lowest yard of the > main mast. The > deck was completely covered by the sea. > And as I recall, in his commentary he discussed the fact that if you went overboard, you were gone. Somebody on that trip was lost--fell or was swept over--and that was that. The boat could not come about or wear around in time to find and rescue the crewman. It was a fact of life aboard the vessel. And I imagine, as Dr. Johnson said about hanging, that it concentrates the mind wonderfully to have that fact before you. Chris Campbell

Harleigh Ewell wrote: > > > > > > > However, as has happened with New Zealand, these countries may begin > to insist on > onerous regulations for simple cruisers who are not attempting these > high risk stunts. > There may be a sort of Gresham's law of sailing in which people who > try risky behavior > make things more difficult for those who are prudent. The New Zealand > regulations, as I > understand them, are quite punitive. > > Agreed. There are always going to be do-gooders who want to prohibit > others from doing what they do not have the nerve to attempt and > politicians willing to seize on an issue for publicity. > Well, there are other more valid motives. The New Zealanders are not a notoriously timid bunch. The politicians were responding to public concerns about the cost--human and financial--of effecting rescues of foolhardy sailors. This is a legitimate public concern. I would expect politicians to address it. Whether their solution was the appropriate one, or the best one, or a wise one, may be open to debate, but the concern was not improper. Chris Campbell

Marsh Wise wrote: > > Mike, is that on dvd somewhere? > I don't know what Mike's seen it on, but I've got it on a VHS tape I bought for my father a few years back. Chris Campbell

I suspect that such insurance, if it were available, would be prohibitively expensive for the average cruiser. Harleigh Ewell Cal 31 From: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Alan Stahnke (MAS Consulting) Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:37 PM To: Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Cal_Boats] Re: rescue (Chris) Even the best of the best get in trouble out there! I went on line for about 30 seconds and came up with the following: What does Toyota Marine Insurance cover? Emergency rescue and towing: We will pay up to $2,000 to get you towed back to the nearest port and up to $10,000 for rescue. One aid would be a global rescue insurance, with a few mil. in coverage. Are there any globally extended rescue coverage's available for the mariner that would reimburse the full blown rescue operation? Mark Pelican Cal 2-29

--- In Ca… [at] yahoogroups.com, "Harleigh Ewell" <hewell@...> wrote: > > I suspect that such insurance, if it were available, would be prohibitively > expensive for the average cruiser. Few cruisers have any insurance, let alone rescue coverage. Mike Kennedy Conquest Cal 40 # 96 > > > > Harleigh Ewell > > Cal 31 >

Rog Jones wrote: > > Check this out for photos and histories: > > > > http://sailing-ships.oktett.net/register-alphabetic.html > <http://sailing-ships.oktett.net/register-alphabetic.html> > That's a useful list. It omits Great Lakes vessels, I note. The Lakes were very busy with commerce in the age of sail. The usual figure given is that in the mid-19th century, there were 2,000 schooners on the Lakes at any given time. They had a useful life of about 14 years, although a few lasted much longer and some much less. The problem was that they lacked our preservatives and sealing/finishing products, and drydock repair facilities were few and expensive. As a result, the boats were treated like cars are today--used up and discarded, often going through a series of increasingly less prosperous owners. Maybe somebody has more precise data, but the story told in the town where I grew up (Bay City, MI) is that the Davidson yard there built the largest wooden sailing vessels ever--some over 300'. Davidson continued to build wooden steamers on spec into the 20th century. If he couldn't sell them, he'd operate them in his own fleet. Chris Campbell > > >