What's new
By:

Abby Sunderland Missing

moevillini said:
She's SIXTEEN. Her parents said she's been dreaming of doing this since she was THIRTEEN. That doesn't seem just a tad over-indulgent to you?

Maybe if she was in her 20's, I'd give her dream some credence, but this is utterly ridiculous. And people complain about the spoiled youth of today...
those complainers just better not be among those who think this was a good idea, no matter how qualified and/or well-prepared she is.

by the way, she did have GPS, they knew where she was, it was just a remote and difficult area to get to, esp. in stormy seas.
GPS doesn't solve everything.
Click to expand...

At 13, I dreamt of being a professional athlete. Except I was 5'1", 98 pounds and could benchpress 90 pounds. This girl was 13, going on 16, and has logged twice as many hours at sea as those deemed Master Sailors by those in the "industry" or some ****. Her brother sailed around the world at 17. Her parents were sailing studs.

This isn't some self-indulgent girl looking to fulfill some dream that's unrealistic. It's a girl, who from everything I can tell is as about as prepared as she'll ever be, who wants to do something she seems totally able to do and who has parents who are experts on the field and who I'd doubt would throw her to the wolves to "see if she can do it." I'm sure they feel she can do it. Let me re-phrase that. I'm sure they know she will do it. So why not? Her age?

When she's 18, she'll be so much more learned about life and skilled at her "craft"? Give me a break. It's an arbitrary number. And the girl's ahead of the curve by decades. It's a thing of beauty to me to release your young into the "wild" to succeed, fail, and experience what we call life. And to withhold her from dream that she's in my opinion totally prepared for, is a crime.
 
an update - - interesting dilemma this presents, and it's good to read about the actual costs of the rescue
(the article also describes costs of some other rescues, including one sailor who had to be rescued twice in 2 years at a cost of

https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_re_as/teen_sailor

The first day Abby Sunderland was stranded in the Southern Ocean, Australia's rescue agency chartered a jet to fly over the area where her emergency beacon was activated.

The 11-hour flight cost an estimated 110,000 Australian dollars (US $94,500).

The second day, after locating her, the agency sent another plane to coordinate her pickup by ships racing toward her damaged and drifting yacht.

The Australian military also deployed two Orion aircraft to wait on an Indian Ocean island in case an airdrop or further assistance was needed. An Orion costs about AU$30,000 an hour to operate. In the meantime, the French territory of Reunion Island diverted three ships to Sunderland's location. The fishing vessel that reached her first lost at least three days of work; a commercial ship also sent to her rescue would have added three or four days of travel time to its intended destination....

...Immigration Minister Chris Evans did say last week, however, that the risk of one person's adventure could be too costly to the public....

...Even the U.S. Sailing Association refused to sponsor Sunderland's bid, considering it too dangerous. She did not have insurance for her trip, and her mother has said there is no way the family could pay the rescuers even if asked.

But obviously there is no alternative to the safety at sea regulations.

"These rescues are not at all an efficient use of our military and civilian resources," James said. "But the problem is, what happens if you don't do it? There's some real moral dilemmas involved in this. You can't just say, 'Well, you're a stupid idiot,' and let them drown. It would be pretty hard to justify that."...
Click to expand...

well, anyone think maybe we should let them take their chances with a firing squad?

j/k

well, I for one am very glad she failed in her attempt to set the record as the youngest person to do this - glad she was rescued, but I certainly hope the family is required to post some sort of insurance bond before they try something like this again.
 
Why are you glad she failed, Moe? Because it would encourage an even younger kid to try?
 
Personally, I don't get bothered by the cost. In general its good real world training for the Navy and good domestic publicity which could help with the current Naval recruiting problem.

Australia benefits greatly from its size and remoteness, having a large search and rescue area is a small price to play in the scheme of things.
 
I wonder about the cost figures they provide. Is this really an amount of money spent that otherwise would not have been spent? Or are they attributing normal salary and equipment costs, that would have been paid anyway, to this event? For instance, the Navy and Cost Guard pay each and every member a salary that is the same no matter if they are sitting pier-side or at sea. Just because they spent their day at sea conducting a rescue (a big part of the reason they exist in the first place) doesn't mean the cost of their salary for the day is a result of the rescue. Does that makes sense?

EDIT: The military does pay things like Sea Pay, Family Separation Pay, Hazardous Duty Pay, and so on, but in order to be deployed to this search they most likely would have already been at-sea and getting those allowances anyway. The Navy has a "Forward Presence" and "Force projection" strategy that involves keeping ships deployed around the world constantly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems you are talking about the USN, this is the RAN.

In the case of Bullimore and the French bloke the warships were not already at sea but had to make their way to the rescue area at high speed.

I haven't read much about the girl in this case but I think it was just aircraft as far as Australia's contribution goes.
 
Gameface said:
Why are you glad she failed, Moe?
Click to expand...
because I'm an old curmudgeon?

...Because it would encourage an even younger kid to try?
Click to expand...
yeah, that's definitely part of it. I see this as child exploitation of a sort - I think she and her family were hoping to cash in on fame and notoriety of a successful attempt. In a way, I see as as somewhat similar to the situation with that six year old Iowa boy who supposedly "accidentally" went up in the weather balloon. Though as I recall, he really wasn't actually ever in any real danger, was he?

I mean really, unless we know the family on an intimate, personal level, there's no real way to tell how much of this was Abby's dream and how much might have been her parents vicariously living a dream of their own through her. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it was as much their dream as hers, of course that is speculation on my part.

moevillini said:
an update - - interesting dilemma this presents, and it's good to read about the actual costs of the rescue https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_re_as/teen_sailor

glad she was rescued, but I certainly hope the family is required to post some sort of insurance bond before they try something like this again.
Click to expand...

the fact that the sailing federation refused to sanction this attempt because they felt it was too dangerous is also an element in my disdain for the parents, and the fact that they had no insurance (according to the article) makes them seem rather irresponsible to me. Contrary to the sentiments expressed by some other posters, I don't think she and her family were really all that prepared in the variety of ways necessary for this mission to be successful. I think there's a likelihood they rushed things in their eagerness for her to set a record as the "youngest" to complete this type of voyage.

Not to mention the danger that the rescuers potentially were facing - what if some of them had lost their lives? As was mentioned, this was perhaps a good training exercise for those involved, so that's a small benefit perhaps - but I'm sure they do regular simulated rescues as part of their routine training anyhow.

Gameface said:
I wonder about the cost figures they provide. Is this really an amount of money spent that otherwise would not have been spent? Or are they attributing normal salary and equipment costs, that would have been paid anyway, to this event...
Click to expand...

I think the costs are those directly attributable to this rescue above and beyond their normal pay for that time frame - costs such as fuel that would not have otherwise been incurred, and the days of lost work for the fishermen involved in the rescue, who is making up those costs?

As I expressed originally, I think this is just an over-indulgent family. Maybe I'm completely wrong, I don't know. I just think there are more productive ways for parents to encourage their children to follow their dreams, and I also think this was as much the parents' dream as the child's.

Now maybe she was collecting some sort of important scientific data as part of her voyage, or maybe they'll sell their story and donate a chunk of the funds to some beneficial cause, if so, that would ameliorate some of the scorn I have for this situation.
 
And just like the story about "Balloon Boy" and his father, guess what?
Yep, Abby's father had negotiated a deal for a reality series.

Why should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for these kind of rescues? IMO, if you're undertaking a highly dangerous adventure, whether that be sailing solo around the world, hiking or snowmobiling in a remote location, etc. you should have to pay for a rescue if needed. If that were the law, I'm sure there would be insurance policies available for purchase before you set out.

Safe drivers pay less. Risky drivers have to pay more. Those who recreate in public parks, designated campgronds and follow rules don't need rescues (unless it's an act of God like a flash flood). But higher-risk people should have to pay a premium instead of expecting the rest of us to bail them out - and pay for it - when needed.
 
GlassEater said:
And just like the story about "Balloon Boy" and his father, guess what?
Yep, Abby's father had negotiated a deal for a reality series.

Why should the taxpayer have to foot the bill for these kind of rescues? IMO, if you're undertaking a highly dangerous adventure, whether that be sailing solo around the world, hiking or snowmobiling in a remote location, etc. you should have to pay for a rescue if needed. If that were the law, I'm sure there would be insurance policies available for purchase before you set out.

Safe drivers pay less. Risky drivers have to pay more. Those who recreate in public parks, designated campgronds and follow rules don't need rescues (unless it's an act of God like a flash flood). But higher-risk people should have to pay a premium instead of expecting the rest of us to bail them out - and pay for it - when needed.
Click to expand...

I disagree in a way. If you go on a dangerous adventure like this then there shouldn't even be a rescue attempt unless someone pays for it in advance, possibly via an insurance policy. You can't spend an unlimited amount as a Navy or so fourth and then lay the bill on the family. If they are financially responsible then they have a say in the nature and extent of the rescue effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top