# Sailboat missing off CA coast



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

Anyone know any other details? I hate to read the part about two young kids.

Two children among four missing off coast of San Francisco - CNN.com


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

This smacks of a hoax. I hope it is.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> This smacks of a hoax. I hope it is.


I hate to say it but, in this case, I also hope it is a hoax and, if so, that the hoaxter is caught and strung up from a yard-arm. If not....I don't even want to think about it.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

There's enough specifics in this report to make me think it's not a hoax: Two adults, two children missing after abandoning sailboat off California coast - U.S. News

The hoaxes that have occurred around here are usually one non-specific "mayday" either by a kid or drunk person playing around.

I can't imagine those poor kids being put in a situation like that.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Curious why it may be a hoax? Insurance or?, lack of an EPIRB signal? The CG may be able to determine the general location of the transmission? If it is real they are in heap big trouble:

Northern California NOAA/CDIP Buoy Data

Coastal Waters Forecast for Waters from Cape Mendocino to Pt. Arena CA from 10 to 60 nm (PZZ475)

Paul T


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Iin 2 forums you guys have claimed this a hoax.

I would hate to need to get rescued if you lot were in the Coast Guard!

Just imagine a 4 year old and an 8 year old drowing while your fingers are doing the talking?

Sickning!


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

If it is not a hoax I hope they will be picked up in time. And after that I hope the authorities to persecute the fathers to endanger their children.

Going offshore in a 29ft boat in this time of the year with a warning of bad weather and without carrying an Epirp is criminal negligence in what regards the safety of the children.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Reasons why this may be a hoax:

1.- 65 miles offshore in a small boat with 2 little kids in rough conditions in the middle of winter with no EPIRB and no PFDs? Who does that?

2.- "Electronics" conveniently failing. No further response necessary on the part of the hoaxer.

3.- Nobody has reported a boat and crew overdue.

4.- The CG does not know the boat's departure point or destination.

BTW, MarkofSeaLife- for all we know the Coasties suspect this is a hoax as well. That doesn't mean they aren't going to make every effort. They are, of course. That's what they are there for.


----------



## nkamper (May 15, 2012)

I did not even think hoax when I read about this today. I thought, "What a terrible tragedy!". That water is so cold, if you're not found immediately you cannot survive. But a number of you made some good supporting arguments for a hoax. A very selfish hoax if it is.


----------



## paul323 (Mar 13, 2010)

I certainly hope it is a hoax. Last couple of days we have had some"nice" winter winds (gusting 20+); and that is inside the bay. Outside, with temperatures colder, waves bigger, gusts stronger, I would not be out in a boat that small unless I was well prepared.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Lets let it play out and the CG investigate before we rush to judgement. 

You may be proven right.......or wrong. You have a 50/50 chance when you guess. There is no prize for being right first, just for being right


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

nkamper said:


> That water is so cold, if you're not found immediately you cannot survive.


Water temp around 50°. Survival time for an adult is about 12 hours. About half that for a child. Not taking into account the rough sea state which could easily shorten those times.


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

While I too hope it's a hoax if only because if it's not, it's a potential tragedy, paragraph 3 in this article, paraphrasing Coast Guard RCC people estimating the position of the broadcast as 65 miles west of Monterey, sounds eerily like a genuine Mayday from sea:

Rescuers hunt for 4 missing boaters - SFGate

Most hoax mayday broadcasts are triangulated to somewhwere on shore, not way offshore.


----------



## paul323 (Mar 13, 2010)

4 people abandoning ship with "a life ring and a cooler to hang onto"; in that water, terrible. A very grim image. Please tell me at least they had a flare kit. Please let it be a hoax....


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

> From the AP: The U.S. Coast Guard was searching Monday for four family members, including two young children, who sent distress calls saying their sailboat was sinking near San Francisco and *they were trying to make a life raft out of a cooler and a life preserver.*


This whole thing is sickening. God be with them.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

Fstbttms said:


> Water temp around 50°. Survival time for an adult is about 12 hours. About half that for a child. Not taking into account the rough sea state which could easily shorten those times.


I would think that it would take one tough person to last 12 hours in that water. I had to go over the side of our commercial salmon troller at Point Reyes to clear a big gob of kelp from the raw water intake. When I first got in the water I couldn't breathe. By the time I got it cleared and got back into the boat I could hardly move. I was in my late 20's at the time and had done a lot of free diving for abalone, but with a wetsuit on. 12 hours without a survivor or wet suit sounds like a really long time, but I guess some people are tough.

Paul T


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

65 NM is a long way for VHF. I hope it's a hoax.


----------



## dabnis (Jul 29, 2007)

jrd22 said:


> 65 NM is a long way for VHF. I hope it's a hoax.


I have read that the CG has some very sensitive VHF antennas mounted way up high on the Coast Range mountains and can at least receive signals from a long way out. Given a long enough signal I think they can get a pretty good fix on where the transmitter is. I hope I am wrong but it doesn't sound good.

Paul T


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

jrd22 said:


> 65 NM is a long way for VHF.


I dont think its too far at all. The USCG has some pretty amazing coast stations for the AIS. I guess its the same or similar for VHF Voice.

I reckon they could pick up a 25 watt VHF at that range.

Remeber your satellite phone uses a type of VHF to talk to blobs in space. So a high tower will be in line of sight.

And the comms were broken, not clear transmitions.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

Fstbttms said:


> Water temp around 50°. Survival time for an adult is about 12 hours. About half that for a child. Not taking into account the rough sea state which could easily shorten those times.


Not sure where you got 12 hours from... from this table it could be as little as 45 minutes, with no life jacket or wet suit, and thus depending on swimming to stay afloat :

TheChilling Truth About Cold Water


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

MarkSF said:


> Not sure where you got 12 hours from...


I have no doubt it could be as little as you say. A lot depends on physical condition etc. But during a news interview this morning I heard a Coast Guard spokesman say 12 hours was the maximum for the expected conditions.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

And good for the Coast Guard, for being as hopeful as possible.... I just think that if most people realised how dangerous the water is in Northern California, they'd invest more in safety equipment... I'll certainly be thinking about it.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Distress call audio clip:

Agency releases boaters' recorded distress call - SFGate


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

The distress call does not sound distressed to me. Not like someone who is about to jump into the cold Pacific and taking along two young children. Any other impressions?

I'm on the fence about a hoax or not. If it were a hoax and the call was triangulated to the place offshore, then it seems that the USCG would have at least spotted that vessel as well.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Belisana said:


> The distress call does not sound distressed to me. Not like someone who is about to jump into the cold Pacific and taking along two young children. Any other impressions?


I have been unable to play the clip but over on Sailing Anarchy several posters echo'd your impression. One even thought the guy might be drunk.


----------



## NewportNewbie (Jul 30, 2011)

jrd22 said:


> 65 NM is a long way for VHF. I hope it's a hoax.


Not at all. I am in Newport Beach, and I regularly vessels assist calls for people in San Diego Harbor. That's about 80 miles south. This is from my boat radio. I would think the Coast Guard would have bigger antennas and stronger equipment.


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

Coast Guard searching for four missing in sailboat off California - chicagotribune.com

This link says that the folks contacted the USCG "several times". Would a prankster do that? Seems like the more you call, then the more of a chance there is that you will be found, either by the USCG looking for the distressed boat or by the call triangulation.


----------



## marcusc130 (Oct 8, 2011)

I thought you were supposed to speak slow, clear, and calm on the radio? I didn't know that if I was acting in control, and not freaking out, people would say "eh, he doesn't sound distressed, must be a hoax".


----------



## paul323 (Mar 13, 2010)

MarkSF said:


> I just think that if most people realised how dangerous the water is in Northern California, they'd invest more in safety equipment


Seconded. Those of us who sail around here know how nasty it can get - big winds, big waves, cold. I sailed a bit in the UK, and NorCal reminds me of that - can be very nasty sometimes.


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I listened to the audio clip. He did sound calm in the very short transmission. But that is precisely the demeanor I would hope to have if conveying that crucial information to my potential rescuers when making such a dire decision.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Very little chance of a hoax in my mind. If the coast guard heard the signal (as they claim) rather than "received a report" then they know where the signal came from. They have good quality radio direction finding equipment. If the call came from SF bay, or from a marina, then it would be a different story.

As to the other reasons it may be a hoax, I would say that the same person who doesn't have a raft, and doesn't have a GPS IS the same person who might also might go out in the winter (not knowing better) and might be in a boat that may not be sound.

God be with them is right. This sport can be very safe, or very dangerous, and a few key elements separate the two.

MedSailor


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

MedSailor said:


> Very little chance of a hoax in my mind. If the coast guard heard the signal (as they claim) rather than "received a report" then they know where the signal came from. They have good quality radio direction finding equipment. If the call came from SF bay, or from a marina, then it would be a different story.
> 
> As to the other reasons it may be a hoax, I would say that the same person who doesn't have a raft, and doesn't have a GPS IS the same person who might also might go out in the winter (not knowing better) and might be in a boat that may not be sound.
> 
> ...


I do apologize for bringing up the possibility that this may be a hoax. As bad as that would be, it would actually be preferable in this situation, considering the conditions out there and what little safety equipment these folks seem to have with them. Considering that no one has reported this family missing does make one wonder, especially since a member of another family (the cousin/nephew) was also on board. If they were making a longer trip, it would be more understandable since they may not be expected to arrive anywhere yet.

As for remaining calm during the radio call, I made the comment because I personally would not sound that calm when faced with getting into those seas with a cooler and a life ring and two small children. The offshore weather report for that day was seas 14-20 feet, subsiding to 9-15 feet, with a gale warning. I do admit that others may be calmer, including my husband -- who, like most good captains, keeps his head during stressful situations.

The fact that they have a bearing on the radio signal does make it seem more probable to this is unfortunately a bonafide tragedy and not a hoax. I do have a question about the bearing of the signal. Can the USCG determine the distance or just the bearing? I'm guessing only the bearing? Thanks for any clarification.


----------



## marcusc130 (Oct 8, 2011)

Distance an bearing by using more than one shore station to triangulate the signal.


----------



## jrd22 (Nov 14, 2000)

VHF must work better in CA. 15-25 NM is about the max here in the PNW with a 55' stick in open water.


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

Fyi, just spoke with a guy here, who has been involved in the search effort. They seem to think it is a hoax, as well. As they checked with all the marinas in the area and haven't been able to identify the boat. He said they have to search in the event it is not a hoax, of course. He also said, if it is a hoax, they will be trying to locate the originator, as it's costing a lot for this search.


----------



## PCP (Dec 1, 2004)

If it is a hoax giving the localization of the signal and the bad weather it will come probably from a ship or big trawler. It they have AIS maybe it is possible to nail the bastard...and I very much hope that is the case. If they get the guy and charge him the costs he is going to work the rest of his live to pay the bill


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

Yeah, they said the signal came from 45 miles out. Which didn't make sense, since none of the marinas know the boat, etc. That, and the claim they were using a cooler and a life ring to make a make-shift raft, makes it sound shady.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

Boy, if it is a hoax, they really are trying hard. The news reports say they called an hour before the mayday to tell them that they were in distress and taking on water. Now if a drunk person grabbed the mic and said some stuff, that's really really bad enough. But if they intentionally made multiple calls over at least an hour, that elevates the crime to "hoax in the first degree" which, according to Judge MedSailor carries a much higher penalty!

Either way, I predict nothing good will come of this. 

MedSailor


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

If my boat were taking on water and I didn't have a life raft I would stay with her until the cabin top was awash especially if the water is 50F. I think most people would - especially if they had their wife and 4yo offspring and another kid along. 

Now with that scenario the time would have been long past when there was any possibility of using an installed VHF radio to transmit a mayday. The batteries would be six feet underwater and shorting out through the sea water circuit and the radio would be flooded.

So a handheld VHF would be the transmit device.

A handheld is generally 5W max. In 40 years of using VHF I have never had anywhere NEAR performance that allowed comms using a handheld at 40-65 miles.

Based on this I am inclined to think that there's something "off" in the story somehow. Hoax? Perhaps.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Feeling sick about those kids.. I'd think that if it was a hoax perpetrated aboard a larger vessel the CG could pinpoint that vessel with radar or whatever..

The real improbable thing is how did a daysailor get 60+NM offshore, and if it's a truly a boat on an 'offshore' trip how could anyone take their family (and others') out there this time of year with no safety gear??


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Belisana said:


> Considering that no one has reported this family missing does make one wonder, especially since a member of another family (the cousin/nephew) was also on board. If they were making a longer trip, it would be more understandable since they may not be expected to arrive anywhere yet.


There's a whole lot about this one that just doesn't ring true. That's been the fishy aspect to this one for me, as well... Seems this story has gotten enough play in the west coast mainstream media by now, that anyone whose child - the "nephew" aboard - would have come forward to verify some aspect of this story, by now...


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

Faster said:


> Feeling sick about those kids.. I'd think that if it was a hoax perpetrated aboard a larger vessel the CG could pinpoint that vessel with radar or whatever..
> 
> The real improbable thing is how did a daysailor get 60+NM offshore, and if it's a truly a boat on an 'offshore' trip how could anyone take their family (and others') out there this time of year with no safety gear??


The thing about pinpointing it, if it were a hoax from another vessel, is that there are numerous ships off the coast of California at all times. You can check here to see what's there right now:

Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

Belisana said:


> The thing about pinpointing it, if it were a hoax from another vessel, is that there are numerous ships off the coast of California at all times. You can check here to see what's there right now:
> 
> Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions


True... Wasn't thinking about the sheer amount of traffic in that area, and "they" would be long gone by now...

Just hoping its not real....


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

Faster said:


> The real improbable thing is how did a daysailor get 60+NM offshore


This is exactly what they're wondering. Esp since we've had extremely high winds over the weekend. The guy said they just couldn't figure how they'd get that far out, while being totally unknown to local marinas.


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

Going back to the radio call, it's not necessarily the calmness of his voice that doesn't sit right with me, but the calmness of the transmission overall. There was a gale warning, with seas somewhere between 9 to 20 feet. That would be a pretty rough ride in a 29-foot sailboat. Yet his voice (not his demeanor per se) does not sound like someone trying to keep his balance while the boat is being tossed around and sinking. We only heard one small clip so there's not a whole lot to go by. 

Again, I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of the situation for those people if the call is actually real. Just thinking of what it would be like on that boat in those conditions.

(Also - it is physically exhausting to sail in rough conditions. Add in trying to save your boat from sinking, trying to piece together a makeshift liferaft, trying to secure loose objects in a gale, etc.)


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Belisana said:


> The thing about pinpointing it, if it were a hoax from another vessel, is that there are numerous ships off the coast of California at all times. You can check here to see what's there right now:
> 
> Live Ships Map - AIS - Vessel Traffic and Positions


Small vessel, no other safety gear and you think it has an AIS transciever B...highly unlikely


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Small vessel, no other safety gear and you think it has an AIS transciever B...highly unlikely


I took Belisana's point to be, that the hoax call could have been made from a commercial or other vessel in that vicinity...

You can certainly bet that the CG is conducting a very careful review of AIS tracks along that part of the coast, in an effort to determine the potential source of a hoax call...


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

I agree it's odd that no one shoreside has come forward with knowledge of these folks or the boat. That said, it is possible that they had been maintaining a secluded existence somewhere. There's plenty of people out there like that.


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

chef2sail said:


> Small vessel, no other safety gear and you think it has an AIS transciever B...highly unlikely





JonEisberg said:


> I took Belisana's point to be, that the hoax call could have been made from a commercial or other vessel in that vicinity...
> 
> You can certainly bet that the CG is conducting a very careful review of AIS tracks along that part of the coast, in an effort to determine the potential source of a hoax call...


Yes, you're correct, Jon - I was referring to Faster's comment that I quoted about a possible hoax call being placed from a larger vessel in the area.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

caberg said:


> I agree it's odd that no one shore side has come forward with knowledge of these folks or the boat. That said, it is possible that they had been maintaining a secluded existence somewhere. There's plenty of people out there like that.


Perhaps the "cousin" was an orphan with no concerned mother or father or aunt or uncles (other than the erst-while sailors of course). Or, if not an orphan, a family of semi-recluses that doesn't get news papers or listen to the radio or watch the Dumb Box and so hasn't a clue that their little darling is endangered... I Don't Think So.

This call could very easily have come from someone with a "hard on" for the CG. A fishing boat or other smaller commercial vessel that had been hassled at some point by the CG or EPA or what have you and was looking for a little "pay back" by sending them off on a wild goose chase. Ten bucks says that this is all a hoax...


----------



## caberg (Jul 26, 2012)

svHyLyte said:


> Perhaps the "cousin" was an orphan with no concerned mother or father or aunt or uncles (other than the erst-while sailors of course). Or, if not an orphan, a family of semi-recluses that doesn't get news papers or listen to the radio or watch the Dumb Box and so hasn't a clue that their little darling is endangered... I Don't Think So..


I'm sensing some sarcasm. 

Maybe in Tampa everyone walks around with iphones, updating twitter every 30 seconds, then liking stuff on facebook, while swiping debit cards at starbucks and then blogging about it. It's kinda naive to think that everyone is that plugged into society.

I have no idea if that is true here, but it's possible that this group was living on the margins of society and no one is yet missing them.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

caberg said:


> I'm sensing some sarcasm.
> 
> Maybe in Tampa everyone walks around with iphones, updating twitter every 30 seconds, then liking stuff on facebook, while swiping debit cards at starbucks and then blogging about it. It's kinda naive to think that everyone is that plugged into society.
> 
> I have no idea if that is true here, but it's possible that this group was living on the margins of society and no one is yet missing them.


?


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

*Coast Guard suspends search for missing boaters, citing possible hoax*

Coast Guard suspends search for missing boaters, citing possible hoax - CNN.com


----------



## paul323 (Mar 13, 2010)

The good news is that (assuming it was a hoax) no lives were lost; if true, it sounded like a bad situation.

But I hope they catch the guys who made the hoax call. I know that some people here have had a poor experience with the USCG, but I am sure all would agree that their rescue services are outstanding, and wasting those folk's time and resources is 'a very bad thing' (I'm kinda at a loss for polite words). I hope they find the person and make them pay the bill. Every penny.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

Good to hear no one lost life. Hopefully the CG catches the scoundrels


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

I'm glad it's not a real Mayday. And I hope they catch the b*&^%#d who thought this was a good idea. Some crewmember on some vessel with a good radio, and probably without AIS?


----------



## Belisana (Nov 20, 2010)

If the pranksters (I feel that's an understatement as it's much more than a 'prank') were on a passing ship with AIS, there's a good chance that the ship can be identified. If they had only made one call, maybe not. But they at least made two, about 50 minutes apart. A rough calculation of average distance travelled and the passing time between two calls should narrow down the possibilities, I would think. Or hope.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

If it was a hoax you kinda wonder how the call was made. CG has pretty good VHF radio direction finding equipment so you would think call did come from 65 miles out. And conditions were gale force, so who ever made the call must be an experienced seaman. Why would someone mess around making hoax calls in those conditions.

In any case, hope it was a hoax and no lives lost.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

fryewe said:


> If my boat were taking on water and I didn't have a life raft I would stay with her until the cabin top was awash especially if the water is 50F. I think most people would - especially if they had their wife and 4yo offspring and another kid along.
> 
> Now with that scenario the time would have been long past when there was any possibility of using an installed VHF radio to transmit a mayday. The batteries would be six feet underwater and shorting out through the sea water circuit and the radio would be flooded.
> 
> ...


Depending on the height of the CG receiving station on land plus the height of the antenna, in addition if they are using a directional antenna, a range up to 65 miles might be possible.


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

Coast Guard suspends search for missing sailboat, possible hoax ( link )

Coast Guard officials said they have been unable to pinpoint the location where a distress call originated reporting what was said to be a sinking sailboat in the ocean south of San Francisco.

On Tuesday, the Coast Guard suspended its search for four people, including two young children, and began investigating the possibility that the call may have been a hoax.

Searchers using aircraft and sea vessels found "no signs of distress, no signs of debris, no reports of missing people," Coast Guard spokesman Mike Lutz said.

"We are looking for additional information. We handle every situation like it's a life threatening situation unless we are 100% sure it's a hoax."​


----------



## shadowraiths (Nov 2, 2011)

From SFGate ( emphasis added, mine, link )

If authorities conclude that it was a hoax, any suspects could face criminal charges in federal court. That was the case with *Kurtis Thorsted *of Salinas, who was *convicted in 2004 and again in 2010* of making a series of fake Mayday transmissions, including one in which he claimed to be in a kayak off Santa Cruz.​
Here's the most recent court opinion regarding his 2010 conviction:

US v Kurtis Thorsted ( link )
May 13, 2011

Kurtis Thorsted made fifty-one false distress calls over a five-month period to the United States Coast Guard. He pleaded guilty to three counts of knowingly and willfully communicating false distress messages to the Coast Guard, in violation of 14 U.S.C. § 88 (c), and to three counts of making unlicensed radio transmissions, in violation of 47 U.S.C. $$ 301 and 501. Thorsted was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty months for each false distress message count and twenty-four months for each unlicensed transmission count. In calculating the guideline range, the district judge applied the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(13)(A) for conduct that "involved the conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury."​


----------



## ftldiver (Sep 9, 2002)

30 months in FL.

Man Gets 30 Months In Coast Guard Rescue Hoax - Sun Sentinel

Man Gets 30 Months In Coast Guard Rescue Hoax
October 31, 2006|By Vanessa Blum Staff Writer

It might have seemed like a harmless prank at the time.

But a federal judge in Miami said Robert Moran should have known his bogus mayday call to the U.S. Coast Guard in June would lead people to risk their lives searching for nine people reported lost at sea off Boynton Beach Inlet.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard sentenced Moran, an out-of-work tow truck driver from Boynton Beach, to 30 months in prison Monday for placing a false distress call.

She *ordered Moran, 45, to pay the government $347,015* to cover the cost of the two-day search-and-rescue operation launched in response to his June 11 call. Prosecutor Thomas Watts-FitzGerald said the search effort was particularly dangerous because of the darkness and stormy weather conditions.

Moran radioed for help just before 11 p.m. and told emergency dispatchers his 33-foot boat, a Grady White called the Blue Sheep, was taking on water, according to the Coast Guard.

He said eight other people were aboard, including four children and his wife, who he said was injured.

"This is the Blue Sheep, taking on water and sinking," Moran shouted, according to a transcript of the call.

At Monday's hearing, Coast Guard Lt. Christopher Douglas said the Coast Guard made no effort then to detect whether the call might be a hoax.

"Every call that we receive, regardless of nature, we prosecute to the fullest extent possible," Douglas said.

Seas in the search area rose as high as six feet June 12 as Tropical Storm Alberto closed in, he said. Two days later, with no sign of debris and no sightings of the Blue Sheep or its supposed passengers, the Coast Guard suspended its search.

An anonymous tipster who recognized the caller's voice from news reports led investigators to Moran, who pleaded guilty Aug. 21 to making a false distress call.

Defense lawyer Benjamin Fernandez said Moran was under the influence of alcohol and painkillers at the time and never intended to harm anyone.

"This was a crude attempt at a very foolish act that Mr. Moran has great remorse for," Fernandez said, asking for a lighter sentence of 18 to 24 months.

Lenard opted for a more severe punishment, siding with prosecutors who said Moran should have known his call would cause Coast Guard personnel and other responders to risk their lives.

Prosecutor Watts-FitzGerald did not offer a motive for Moran's hoax but said it was a "calculated effort" to elicit a government response.


----------



## sailguy40 (Feb 6, 2010)

Fstbttms said:


> Reasons why this may be a hoax:
> 
> 1.- 65 miles offshore in a small boat with 2 little kids in rough conditions in the middle of winter with no EPIRB and no PFDs? Who does that?
> 
> ...


Guess no one knows for sure, just some thoughts...

1- Rookies (it seems because the proper distress call is mayday, mayday, mayday. not cg, cg, cg. Then again the cg, cg, cg could have been because its a hoax)

2- Maybe their electronics got wet and stopped working

3- It could be that no one knew they had left since it sounds like they were not gone long

4- If they were rookies, chances are they never notified the CG

If someone done this as a hoax, shame on them and I hope they get caught. Maybe we will find out soon.


----------



## Skipper Jer (Aug 26, 2008)

The CG has a voice recording of this person. Its a simple matter of cooperation between 
the CG and a 3 letter government agency to search computer records for a voice match. Once found they have his phone number, who he has called and who has called him. Maybe the Patriot Act facilitates this sort of inter governmental agency cooperation. 
Not science fiction any longer.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

Captainmeme said:


> The CG has a voice recording of this person. Its a simple matter of cooperation between
> the CG and a 3 letter government agency to search computer records for a voice match. Once found they have his phone number, who he has called and who has called him. Maybe the Patriot Act facilitates this sort of inter governmental agency cooperation.
> Not science fiction any longer.


I've seen those things on CSI shows also. We'll see, but I have a feeling it's still science fiction. Those shows fail to take into account the loss of high frequency resolution due to VHF and/or cell phone transmission. Such "voice prints" are not nearly as clear-cut as they make it seem on TV.

In general, the CSI shows are great for getting people interested in and excited about science. The reality is that the answers almost never pop out as cleanly as they make it appear. Real science is always a lot harder than the actors make it look.


----------



## Faster (Sep 13, 2005)

TakeFive said:


> I've seen those things on CSI shows also. We'll see, but I have a feeling it's still science fiction. Those shows fail to take into account the loss of high frequency resolution due to VHF and/or cell phone transmission. Such "voice prints" are not nearly as clear-cut as they make it seem on TV.
> 
> In general, the CSI shows are great for getting people interested in and excited about science. The reality is that the answers almost never pop out as cleanly as they make it appear. Real science is always a lot harder than the actors make it look.


... and DNA tests take 5 minutes .... but we digress...


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

dabnis said:


> I have read that the CG has some very sensitive VHF antennas mounted way up high on the Coast Range mountains and can at least receive signals from a long way out. Given a long enough signal I think they can get a pretty good fix on where the transmitter is. I hope I am wrong but it doesn't sound good.
> 
> Paul T


This is from the AIS site. Although AIS signals (because they are digital probably can be "read" more easily than a voice signal can be "heard", it still gives you an idea with the range of a VHF signal (AIS and voice VHF are all transmitted on VHF):

What is the range AIS covers?
Normally, vessels with an AIS receiver connected to an external antenna placed on 15 meters above sea level, will receive AIS information within a range of 15-20 nautical miles. Base stations at a higher elevation, may extend the range up to 40-60 nm, even behind remote mountains, depending on elevation, antenna type, obstacles around antenna and weather conditions. The most important factor for better reception is the elevation of the base station antenna. The higher, the better. We have seen vessels 200 nm away, with a small portable antenna placed on an island mountain on 700 meters altitude! Our base stations cover fully a range of 40 miles and periodically receive information from some more distant vessels.


----------



## capttb (Dec 13, 2003)

To believe that the CG could get an accurate position fix from a couple short weak transmissions may be overestimating the capabilities of such systems.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

capttb said:


> To believe that the CG could get an accurate position fix from a couple short weak transmissions may be overestimating the capabilities of such systems.


Maybe maybe not. I think the CG knows more about the "hoax" than what they are letting out- for now...:

Rescue 21
Thomas A. Tansey, Rescue 21 environmental manager, travels around the United States paving the way for the new system. A former Coast Guard commandant, he is intimately familiar with the responsibilities of Coast Guard service, and speaks about Rescue 21 with the conviction of a man on a mission.

Tuesday night he presented a power point presentation (available here in pdf form) that described the features of the new system. *It will pick up a signal from a one-watt marine VHF radio and provide a line of bearing out to 20 nautical miles. The caller will only have to key the microphone for half a second.*Recounting a Coast Guard experience, Mr. Tansey said he could remember holding up a tape recorder to a radio to record a transmission. The new system provides a digital recording of every radio transmission and those signals are represented as lines on a computer display screen.

His presentation included a graphic of a screen display that showed the coast of New Jersey and a series of intersecting lines from current antennas to the position of the fishing vessel Captain Joe, which put out a Mayday call on March 12. The Coast Guard received the Mayday at 8:45 pm. Captain Joe's crew was unable to provide a position. Four Rescue 21 antennas provided lines of bearings and a Coast Guard helicopter saved the four fishermen on board.

Another feature is known as digital selective calling (DSC). All new fixed VHF radios feature a small red button that a boater can press in an emergency. If the boater has registered the radio and connected it to a GPS unit the Coast Guard will be able to identify the boater and the exact position of the boat.

The entire installation will include a new concrete shelter to house communications equipment, a new emergency generator and propane tank. The shelter site will be fully screened with trees and plantings so it will no longer be visible. The entire project is expected to cost the USCG approximately $800,000.

Dukes County and the town will continue to be able to use the tower for public safety equipment. Relocating that equipment is expected to cost the town and county less than $20,000.

From:
http://www.mvtimes.com/2008/04/24/news/coast-guard-tower.php/

Slide show:
http://www.mvtimes.com/pdfs/chilmark/coast-guard-rescue-21.pdf


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Local news has been saying that the CG only received the mayday transmissions on one mountaintop antenna and were therefore unable to get a real accurate fix on the source location.


----------



## PorFin (Sep 10, 2007)

TakeFive said:


> I've seen those things on CSI shows also. We'll see, but I have a feeling it's still science fiction. Those shows fail to take into account the loss of high frequency resolution due to VHF and/or cell phone transmission. Such "voice prints" are not nearly as clear-cut as they make it seem on TV.
> 
> In general, the CSI shows are great for getting people interested in and excited about science. The reality is that the answers almost never pop out as cleanly as they make it appear. Real science is always a lot harder than the actors make it look.


There's also the whole restriction on gathering intelligence on U.S. persons -- the only "three letter" federal organization that can do this legally is the FBI. If the NSA were to assist, they'd be in for a very long day in front of the Congressional intel oversight committees.


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

PorFin said:


> There's also the whole restriction on gathering intelligence on U.S. persons -- the only "three letter" federal organization that can do this legally is the FBI. If the NSA were to assist, they'd be in for a very long day in front of the Congressional intel oversight committees.


Isn't 65NM offshore "international waters"? 

I honestly thought this couldn't be a hoax because the transmission would have to originate offshore, and who, I mean who, would actually BE offshore and initiate a hoax like this? It was a good point brought up by someone else on this thread that it could be someone with a beef with the CG. Prior boarding that didn't go well for them perhaps...

I hope they catch them.

MedSaillor


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Beyond 200 miles is international waters.


----------



## TakeFive (Oct 22, 2009)

MedSailor said:


> Isn't 65NM offshore "international waters"?
> 
> I honestly thought this couldn't be a hoax because the transmission would have to originate offshore, and who, I mean who, would actually BE offshore and initiate a hoax like this? It was a good point brought up by someone else on this thread that it could be someone with a beef with the CG. Prior boarding that didn't go well for them perhaps...
> 
> ...


I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it could be terrorists or foreign enemies testing our capabilities. There might be someone out there who wants to know how closely the USCG can pinpoint the locations of approaching boats.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

On another forum it was mentioned that drug smugglers will sometimes make a fake mayday call to draw the CG away from their intended route.


----------



## Marcel D (Apr 15, 2012)

I am glad to hear it was a hoax. I sail in the PNW and the waters are cold. I went in one day to clear a foweled prop and after 5 minutes I needed help to get out of the water brrrr. We sail with a 4 and 6 year old and my heart sank when we started all of this. And by the way who ever is responsible should be naied to the wall for risking the lives of the coast gards men and women who were involved in the search.


----------



## bobber (Dec 15, 2009)

caberg said:


> I'm sensing some sarcasm.
> 
> Maybe in Tampa everyone walks around with iphones, updating twitter every 30 seconds, then liking stuff on facebook, while swiping debit cards at starbucks and then blogging about it. It's kinda naive to think that everyone is that plugged into society.
> 
> I have no idea if that is true here, but it's possible that this group was living on the margins of society and no one is yet missing them.


Very possible, not every boater is equipped for offshore. I know of situations where people get a real cheap boat and end up living on it, and also entertain thoughts of taking it on a long voyage. Some anchor-outs would be homeless without their boat. They may chased out of safe anchorages by authorities, and then end up on the high seas with little or no power.


----------



## sailguy40 (Feb 6, 2010)

TakeFive said:


> I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it could be terrorists or foreign enemies testing our capabilities. There might be someone out there who wants to know how closely the USCG can pinpoint the locations of approaching boats.


Excellent theory and I never thought about that. I would not be surprised if this was indeed true. So it was all confirmed a hoax?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

sailguy40 said:


> So it was all confirmed a hoax?


No. But there has been no evidence other than the radio communication to suggest that the incident actually ocurred. Coast Guard has suspended the search and is investigating the possibility of a hoax.


----------



## casey1999 (Oct 18, 2010)

Fstbttms said:


> On another forum it was mentioned that drug smugglers will sometimes make a fake mayday call to draw the CG away from their intended route.


Good point, and smugglers are using submarines now, after call, it submerged.


----------



## svHyLyte (Nov 13, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> Beyond 200 miles is international waters.


Ah... Actually not.

As defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a countries' territorial waters, or territorial sea is a belt of coastal waters extending, at most, 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the countries' sovereign territory, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. A countries' Exclusive Economic Zone extends 200 miles from it's baseline (the low water mark).


----------

