# Another East Coast Rescue- Moonshine



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Off Block Island in a snow storm!

BOSTON - The Coast Guard rescued four people aboard a storm-ravaged sailboat Friday, about 7 miles south of Block Island, R.I. The crew of the 45-foot Moonshine left East Greenwich, R.I., Friday morning, bound for Puerto Rico, when they were caught in an offshore storm, which ripped their sails and disabled their propulsion. They activated their emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB). The Coast Guard received the signal and tracked their position.
The First District Command Center in Boston, launched a 47-foot motor lifeboat crew from Station Point Judith, R.I. and a helicopter crew from Air Station Cape Cod. Both crews arrived at about 1 a.m., at the last position the EPIRB indicated, but because of the 30-40 knot winds, the sailboat was drifting out of position faster than the beacon could transmit. Visibility was less than one mile, and the seas were 8-12 feet.
The crew of the Moonshine shot off a flare, and the rescue crews located the disabled sailboat and determined no one was injured.
The motor lifeboat crew took the Moonshine in tow. After a nearly seven-hour transit, they arrived near Montauk, N.Y., and transferred the tow to a Station Montauk lifeboat crew who took the Moonshine and crew safely to Montauk at about 9 a.m., today.
"If they didn't have the EPIRB or flares, it would have been extremely hard to find them out there in the snow," said Lt. j.g. Ben O'Loughlin, the watchstander at the command center in Boston.
Air temperature was 39 degrees and the water, 42 degrees.








CapeCodToday Blog Chowder


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

Cam,

That looks like a cutter rig. Why would they have both forward sails up in that wind?


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

the genoa could have come unraveled in the wind


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Again, what were they thinking? Winter storm warning went up Thur night and they started out Friday morning.


----------



## steelboat (Dec 28, 2007)

Got to agree, what could they possibly have been thinking? I live south of Boston; we've known since at least last Wednesday that a winter storm was going to hit us around mid day Friday, and it did... was down at the harbor at 4 pm yesterday, 30 knot gusts and vis about 100 yards in blowing snow... we looked at the water and I said to my wife "sure am glad we're not out there now". What were they thinking? Bob S/V Restless


----------



## AlanBrown (Dec 20, 2007)

The Lord generally protects fools and small children. I guess this also holds for foolish sailors. Wanna bet they had a schedule to meet?

The two most important lessons I have learned since I started cruising are:

1. Pay attention to the weather. If conditions don't look right, stay where you are until they look better.

2. Don't put yourself on a schedule. If you have to ask "why not", you shouldn't be cruising.

Another potential tragedy at sea that could have been avoided. Thank you USCG!


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

*Hey, let's go sailing!*

Hey Everyone,

Let's go sailing! Just because it's December in the North East, and the temperature is below freezing and the wind is in the 30's and there is a storm here and it's blowing snow and ice and freezing rain, it will be fun!

For the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would willingly leave the dock in this weather. Maybe if you were in a 100' powerboat with a full crew, the trip would be just uncomfortable, but leaving in a 45' sailboat is just pure stupidity.

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I would really like to ask the skipper what he thought would happen when he left the dock.

Some people!

Barry


----------



## CalebD (Jan 11, 2008)

Hoo boy! Sounds like fun (Not)! 
They are so lucky that the coasties were able to save their silly a$$es AND tow their sailboat back into Montauk with all that canvas flogging itself to death.
Perhaps they will try again in a month or so once the boat has new sails or perhaps they will hire a delivery captain.
I'm not sure why they did not come through the East River where they would have had at least a few places to hide if needs be. Most likely as others have suggested they wanted to make Bermuda by such and such. We will have to wait and see if more light can be shed on what they were thinking and why.
Thanks for the alert George.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Ya know - not that I'm keeping track or anything...but why do all these rescue stories keep coming from the Easties?


----------



## Giulietta (Nov 14, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Ya know - not that I'm keeping track or anything...but why do all these rescue stories keep coming from the Easties?


I think mainly because of the allure of the Caribbean...many more sail down south to the caribbean (in the East), than on the West coast to Mexico.

Just what I thought


----------



## denby (Feb 21, 2007)

After reading this story and having time to thinking about it, I wonder if I have made a bad decisions. This past July a friend of mine ( an accomplished sailor ) and I sailed from Cutty Hunk Island in Buzzards Bay west to Newport Rhode Island. We knew a tropical storm was coming, 20 to 25 kt winds with gust of 40 + coming from the south west. Seas 8 to 10 ft swells from the south, 10 to 14 second intervals. We had one blow down at the first squall, recovered quickly and the rest of the trip was uneventful. Made good time and got quite wet.
I thought it was just another day at sea, or did I push my luck?


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

camaraderie said:


> ...crews arrived at about 1 a.m., at the last position the EPIRB indicated, but because of the 30-40 knot winds, the sailboat was drifting out of position faster than the beacon could transmit. Visibility was less than one mile, and the seas were 8-12 feet.
> The crew of the Moonshine shot off a flare, and the rescue crews located the disabled sailboat and determined no one was injured....


Didn't the rescue boats have radar?


----------



## sailaway21 (Sep 4, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Didn't the rescue boats have radar?


Sailboats don't show up to well on radar, especially in a seaway.


----------



## Joesaila (May 19, 2007)

*Kid smart*

I can imagine how that unraveled. Q ETOH "If we dress warm and sail south we can get out of this nasty winter weather, in few days it'l be warmer..." 
I was speaking w my 10 yo grandson yesterday during a snowstorm. We were going to take a ride and see how the boat cover was holding up. I jokingly remarked about sailing south and he asked 'why anyone would ever go to sea while its snowing?' 
When I use to deliver injured and imbibed patients to ER's I would point to a little 'Q ETOH' and that would alert the staff of likely complications. I would imagine either the crew of that sailboat were young and adventurous or Q ETOH, or both, I'll bet. Just my guess...


----------



## EagleSailtwo (Jul 28, 2006)

This boat left our dock in East Greenwich, RI. mid day on Friday. I never met them, they appeared on our dock a month or so ago, hailing port is Brooklyn Maine. The young crew have been preparing this boat for a month or longer here. I never noticed a radar reflector, but just last week was fitted with a new dodger, and headsails and main appeared newly installed too, but the boat is old and tired looking. I'd question the standing rigging, but I do not know any details. The dock talk a month ago was that they were planning a trip to Bermuda shortly, we thought they were nuts! When I saw them Friday morning making last minute preparations ahead of the storm, and leaving shortly after noon, I thought they were incredibly stupid! I thought they had maybe enough time only to get as far as Dutch Island which is nestled between connanicut Island, and into it's lee, and wait it out there for a few days, of course this doesn't make any sense either, but they actually continued on and into the dark, into a storm....maybe they were on drugs, or suicidal?


----------



## Bene505 (Jul 31, 2008)

Q Etoh ??


----------



## bubb2 (Nov 9, 2002)

Bene505 said:


> Didn't the rescue boats have radar?


I have been on boats with radar in rain storms and the screen just goes white with clutter. I have never been caught out in a snow storm, I would guess maybe the same happens!


----------



## WanderingStar (Nov 12, 2008)

Also, there are many more people in the NE than in the NW. I'd guess more in NYC than in Washington and Oregon states combined. There are probably more people on LI than in Oregon. While SoCal has a large population, they don't have to go south for the winter, they're already there. I also think the North Atlantic in winter is very dangerous.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 16, 2006)

Bene505 said:


> Q Etoh ??


something along the lines of, using alcohol


----------



## Valiente (Jun 16, 2006)

smackdaddy said:


> Ya know - not that I'm keeping track or anything...but why do all these rescue stories keep coming from the Easties?


Because the West coast is a lee shore and boats aren't rescued there so much as beached?

The real reason probably has to do with the desire to get a boat to the BVIs or some other hot islands for Christmas without acknowledging the realities of December in the Northeast.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

Here's the vessel info now that we have a hailing port:


Vessel Name:*MOONSHINE* USCG Doc. No.:*959615*Vessel Service:RECREATIONALIMO Number:* Trade Indicator:RecreationalCall Sign:* Hull Material:FRP (FIBERGLASS)Hull Number:SJK003121188 Ship Builder:STARRATT YACHT COMPANYYear Built:1989  

Length (ft.):45 Hailing Port:BROOKLIN MEHull Depth (ft.):10 Owner:JACOB FREEDMAN 
352 HARRIMAN POINT RD 
BROOKLIN, ME 04616Hull Breadth (ft.):11 Gross Tonnage:18 Net Tonnage:16 Documentation Issuance Date:November 06, 2008Documentation Expiration Date:November 30, 2009 


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

These four sailors should have earned themselves a Darwin award. Given the winter storm warning and the storm that we had on Friday, the unseasonably cold temperatures and all, they were very lucky to have been rescued. 

Never mind that they did leave on a Friday, which is traditionally a really bad idea. 

BTW, I've sailed when it was snowing, but it was light flurries, and I was sailing in relatively protected waters. The storm we had on Friday was not light flurries... and anyone of average intelligence or better should have known better. It isn't as if this storm hadn't been talked about for at least the four or five previous days...


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Probably depends on how wet and heavy the snow fall is. The light, Colorado powder probably isn't too bad, the wet New England stuff probably sucks.


bubb2 said:


> I have been on boats with radar in rain storms and the screen just goes white with clutter. I have never been caught out in a snow storm, I would guess maybe the same happens!


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

hope this isn't a repeat post, I was drafting one and hit enter and it disappeared. 
Anyway, my post wanted to address how the EPIRB has seemed to abdicate self sufficiency and personal responsibility. 
I don't want to judge this crew b/c I don't know all the circumstances, but unless the crew was injured or the boat completely disabled it seems incredible to me that if you have half a clue about what you are doing there would be no reason to waste tens of thousands of dollars for this "rescue". 
The article indicated that the boats propulsion system was diabled. They were not out all too long from East Greenwich, did they lose all of their sails? Did their engine die or did they wrap the prop? What efforts were made by the crew to get moving again?
It seems to me (doing my best to imitate Andy Rooney) that the CG should have some mechanism in place to charge sailors for rescues where they themselves have created or placed themselves in peril. My .02 but quite frankly I am getting tired of reading about these captains who, again without knowing all the facts, are being "rescued" either b/c they make stupid decisons to leave facing storm conditons or are not capable of handling situations that you should be expected to deal with if you take your boat offshore. Sorry in advance for the rant.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

But what is the solution? Do you need to get permission to leave port?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

xort said:


> But what is the solution? Do you need to get permission to leave port?


I hope that is not the solution. Sailing might be the last frontier as far as being able to go out on an adventure and being self sufficient. It just seems to me (Andy Rooney, again) that more and more people who have little experience are going off shore and cruising. One only need to read the sailing mags and see that complete novices go offshore and get into trouble b/c they have so little experience. I was shocked to see one of the largest sailing schools running an ad last year showing a young family that was going on a circumnavigation. Their total experience was a one week "offshore" sailing course. I don't know about you but that is one boat I would rather not be on. Experience doesn't mean you are immune from doing dumb things. I was on a delivery last month and almost got my hand chewed up by a winch, b/c i was too lazy to bring the boat off the wind before releasing a sheet that was under enormous load. My point I guess is one of responsibility. We can't nor should we regulate stupidity but we should be sure that people who put themselves at risk be repsonsible for their actions and the costs that go along with it.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

steelboat said:


> Got to agree, what could they possibly have been thinking? I live south of Boston; we've known since at least last Wednesday that a winter storm was going to hit us around mid day Friday, and it did... was down at the harbor at 4 pm yesterday, 30 knot gusts and vis about 100 yards in blowing snow... we looked at the water and I said to my wife "sure am glad we're not out there now". What were they thinking? Bob S/V Restless


I live in RI and they began posting storm warning signals on Route 95 on Wednesday. There's no way they didn't know.


----------



## mdidriksen (Aug 16, 2008)

EagleSailtwo said:


> but the boat is old and tired looking. I'd question the standing rigging, but I do not know any details.


I purchased a boat that was docked just down the way from this boat, so I walked past it several times in October. There was something about it that was more than "old and tired" to me. Design wise it almost looked like a one-off design by an amateur. One of the oddest looking boats I've seen in quite a while. Doesn't mean it isn't seaworthy, but it certainly was strange looking.


----------



## mazzy (Mar 11, 2006)

Googled Starratt Yacht Company and came up with a few on yachtworld. It's an "offspring of Morris Yachts" whatever that's worth. Another ad describes the boat as a "heavily built offshore cruiser"
Mike


----------



## EagleSailtwo (Jul 28, 2006)

mazzy said:


> Googled Starratt Yacht Company and came up with a few on yachtworld. It's an "offspring of Morris Yachts" whatever that's worth. Another ad describes the boat as a "heavily built offshore cruiser"
> Mike


Well there it is, "heavily built offshore cruiser" The Moonshine skipper probably read the same thing, believing his boat could endure any seas!


----------



## rayncyn51 (Aug 8, 2008)

Agree that too many inexperienced people are on the water. How does USCG decide who to bill? That's a dilemma that, in the USA, would have to be solved case by case by attorneys. USCG would spend more to defend that to rescue. At the risk of having my keyboard taken away  I would guess that this is why other countries are implementing various forms of licencing/resistration for pleasure yacht skippers.


----------



## CharlieCobra (May 23, 2006)

denby said:


> After reading this story and having time to thinking about it, I wonder if I have made a bad decisions. This past July a friend of mine ( an accomplished sailor ) and I sailed from Cutty Hunk Island in Buzzards Bay west to Newport Rhode Island. We knew a tropical storm was coming, 20 to 25 kt winds with gust of 40 + coming from the south west. Seas 8 to 10 ft swells from the south, 10 to 14 second intervals. We had one blow down at the first squall, recovered quickly and the rest of the trip was uneventful. Made good time and got quite wet.
> I thought it was just another day at sea, or did I push my luck?


That sounds like a normal day at sea for me too, maybe a bit exciting but nothing too crazy. I probably wouldn't try it in a blizzard though, too cold and the visibility would suck.

I wouldn't have made the trip these folks made. 35-45 knots of breeze, meh, not real fun but doable. That combined with snow and sub zero wind chill? Nope, too many factors to deal with. Ya add something unexpected to that mix and you're suddenly over your head.


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

In today's Providence Journal:

*



Storm leaves sails, voyage to Puerto Rico in tatters

Click to expand...





09:36 AM EST on Tuesday, December 23, 2008


By Lisa Vernon-Sparks

Journal Staff Writer








Little is left of the headsail of the 45-foot sloop Moonshine, docked at the Coast Guard station in Montauk, N.Y., on Saturday.

> U.S. Coast Guard photo

The wind howled at nearly 40 knots, and snow fell on the waters off Narragansett Friday evening. In the fury, a distress call came in to the Coast Guard from south of Block Island. A sailboat was in trouble. 
At 7:45 p.m., the Coast Guard's command center in Boston launched a crew from Point Judith. 
"We knew with the conditions, it would be challenging," Boatswain's Mate 2nd Class Timothy J. Burns recalled yesterday from the Coast Guard station at Point Judith. 
Burns and three other Guardsmen suited up and headed south in their 47-foot motor vessel. For hours the crew searched the waters, each time reaching a place where the sailboat's emergency radio said it should have been, but it wasn't there. 
"Each time we got to a signal, it was further south and further west," Burns said. 
A helicopter from the Coast Guard's Air Station on Cape Cod thwacked above. At about 1 a.m. Saturday, its crew spotted a flare, then another. 
"They proceeded toward the flares and we tried to follow them," Burns recalled. 
Underneath the helicopter, the 45-foot sloop Moonshine rocked in the turbulent 42-degree water. Its sails had been shredded and the auxiliary engine had shut down. 
Jacob A. Freedman, 27, of East Greenwich, the owner, was the skipper. Also on board were his dad, Michael Freedman, 57, and two others. The group had set sail for Puerto Rico from a marina in East Greenwich Friday morning. 
Jacob had planned the trip months ago, his mother, Linda Freedman, said yesterday. She said her son is an archaeologist and supervises digs for Gray & Pape, cultural resource consultants, which has offices in Providence. He wanted to take the trip after hurricane season, which formally ended Nov. 30. 
But the crew ran into an offshore storm and into trouble, according to a Coast Guard report released yesterday. The storm's 30-to-40-knot winds and 12-foot waves were an overwhelming opponent. 
The sailboat's emergency radio beacon let the Coast Guard know what kind of vessel it was and to whom it was registered. Jacob Freedman, had listed Brooklin, Maine, where his mother lives, as its home port. 
The Coast Guard called Linda Freedman, in Brooklin, at about 8 p.m. Friday. 
"The Coast Guard said they couldn't find them," Linda Freedman said. "They were drifting away at a high speed." 
As the search crews combed the waters around Block Island and family members in Maine and Connecticut traded telephone calls, Jacob and Michael Freedman repeatedly called 911 on their cell phones, Linda Freedman said. 
At about 11 p.m., a 911 call was received at the East Hampton Village Police Department, on New York's Long Island. 
The voice of the caller, using a cell phone, sounded broken up. All anyone at the Police Department understood was "Coast Guard," according to a police report. 
The call may have been garbled, but as far as Linda Freedman was concerned, it was the stroke of luck that helped pinpoint the location of her son's sailboat. When the police did not get an answer back on the cell phone, the department traced the number back to Linda Freedman. She told the police that her son and his father were on a boat. 
"Luckily their cell phones really pulled through at the top of the wave," Linda Freedman said. "They were getting a signal out and the police heard their voices. It was recorded at the station. They each got 911 calls off their cell phones." 
Freedman also launched flares from his boat. The Coast Guard spotted the Moonshine about seven miles south of Block Island. Burns' rescue crew towed the Moonshine for nearly seven hours until it was near Montauk, N.Y., at the eastern tip of Long Island, where another crew brought it to the harbor. 
Linda Freedman said yesterday that her son, who has been sailing since he was 15, told her that the boat was never at risk. She said he told her that his father and their two sailing companions, a college friend and older friend of his friend, had gotten seasick. 
"It was so rough, they didn't have the strength to help him," Linda Freedman said. 
Yesterday, she said, the men were still in Montauk. 
"They are making plans to haul (the boat) out of the water Wednesday" she said. "It's not seaworthy."

Click to expand...

*


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

I find at least two curious things in that report, and one overriding sad thing.

I find it curious that there's no mention of the No. 1 safety device for communications when near the coast: the ship's VHF radio. Several of the crew were apparently able to make contact via cellphones. The VHF, if they had one properly installed with an antenna atop the mast, would be expected to have a much longer range than the cellphones. Further, with Coast Guard helos and the 47-footer in the vicinity, both of these rescue vessels could have homed on the VHF signal.

I find it curious also that both the genoa and the staysail were shredded. If conditions were so bad, why were both sails up? Why not just one, presumably the staysail?

And were the conditions really horrible? While 30-40 knot winds offshore and 12' seas are no picnic, IMO any well-found offshore vessel should be able to withstand these conditions rather handily.

The auxiliary engine probably quit because of dirty fuel. This often happens to vessels which have done mostly/only inshore sailing. When they go offshore, the gunk in the tank gets stirred up, sucked into the filters, and the engine quits...usually at an inopportune time.

Finally, as others have commented, I find it sad that we read so often of vessels getting into difficulty offshore in conditions which are not at all unusual, and for which their crews should have foreseen and been better prepared. Particularly where there were early warning signs which apparently were ignored, misunderstood, or....in the curious words of our outgoing President..."misunderestimated".

Someone always pays in such situations. The Coast Guard, the Navy, a merchant ship which must divert/delay, etc. They sometimes put their own vessels and lives at risk trying to help the unfortunate vessel.

And, of course, the cost in dollars is usually borne by the taxpayer, with no adequate provision to recoop the costs.

Guess that's just the way it is, but I find it a very sad commentary on the current art of ocean voyaging.

Bill


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

What I also really resent is the state of basic journalism in this country. She makes them sound like GOOD sailors caught out in circumstances beyond their control by an act of God. 
The reality is that they are BAD sailors caught out by circumstances of their own making by a well predicted and forecast act of God in a place no sane sailors would be at this time of year.
Way to dig hard for that story ms. vernon-sparks.


----------



## Sapperwhite (Oct 21, 2006)

btrayfors said:


> I find at least two curious things in that report, and one overriding sad thing.
> 
> I find it curious that there's no mention of the No. 1 safety device for communications when near the coast: the ship's VHF radio. Several of the crew were apparently able to make contact via cellphones. The VHF, if they had one properly installed with an antenna atop the mast, would be expected to have a much longer range than the cellphones. Further, with Coast Guard helos and the 47-footer in the vicinity, both of these rescue vessels could have homed on the VHF signal.
> 
> ...


Ditto on the comms issue. There was no mention of VHF at all . They had the good sense to get an EPIRB, but no VHF. This is confusing. Chalk another one up for EPIRBs and Coasties, without that these guys asses were grass.

As far as the sails go, maybe they blew out the staysail, then decided to pull a little genny out and ended up blowing that too. Just from looking at the pics, it looks like the genny was partially furled.

Maybe they just didn't have much of a clue and they had everything up? Who knows.


----------



## travler37 (Mar 30, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> Ya know - not that I'm keeping track or anything...but why do all these rescue stories keep coming from the Easties?


 No comment on the EASTIES...Just come here and you can figure it out in a short time...

sorry,made a comment
Mark


----------



## travler37 (Mar 30, 2007)

mdidriksen said:


> I purchased a boat that was docked just down the way from this boat, so I walked past it several times in October. There was something about it that was more than "old and tired" to me. Design wise it almost looked like a one-off design by an amateur. One of the oddest looking boats I've seen in quite a while. Doesn't mean it isn't seaworthy, but it certainly was strange looking.


 it was TOWED back to a port so was seaworthy 
Mark


----------



## travler37 (Mar 30, 2007)

camaraderie said:


> What I also really resent is the state of basic journalism in this country. She makes them sound like GOOD sailors caught out in circumstances beyond their control by an act of God.
> The reality is that they are BAD sailors caught out by circumstances of their own making by a well predicted and forecast act of God in a place no sane sailors would be at this time of year.
> Way to dig hard for that story ms. vernon-sparks.


 Cam,
These supposid sailors screwed up.That is a given.

Can you say you have never done the same?Maybe not to the point of pushing the MOMEY switch but..... You honestly have not sailed just to test yourself and your boat?

As to the way it was covered i agree..There are few news men left!!!!Just 3 minutes on ALL THE NEWS 24 HOURS..........

As to the billing.I seriously think that the GUARD should bill like the LEGAL system apoints lawers.All should get a bill depending on what they can afford for someone saving there{edited because that has sexual con}.......I further think that said ass savers should get a portion of it!!!!

My Thoughts
Mark


----------



## T37SOLARE (Feb 1, 2008)

So, USCG rescues crew off boat in storm.

Boat is now abandoned, and USCG can claim salvage.

USCG finds in a court that the owner was negligent by endangering the safety of his crew.

USCG auctions off vessel to recoup cost of rescue.

That should teach them to call SeaTow next time


----------



## EagleSailtwo (Jul 28, 2006)

I posted this in another forum............It does not surprise me that the boat is "not seaworthy" as it was reported that the transmission did not appear to function properly leaving the dock on Friday nearly wiping out their solar panels when things got out of control as a result. Seasoned, or not, they left port not ahead of the storm, but into the storm and if they are experienced sailors, they used extremely poor judgement here, everyone here at the marina questioned their sanity before they departed the marina on Friday, but what are you going to say to them? I'd be willing to bet that the fuel filters clogged, the reason for lost power, and I would also bet that the integrity of the rest of this boat is questionable.... in my opinion..


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

travler37 said:


> Cam,
> 
> Can you say you have never done the same?Maybe not to the point of pushing the MOMEY switch but..... You honestly have not sailed just to test yourself and your boat?


Mark... We all make mistakes and especially while we are early in our learning we may do things others consider stupid. True. We all need to jump out of our comfort zone to push our skills forward. TRUE. 
But NEVER have I done anything approaching this level of idiocy. Sorry...I am rarely this blunt but these guys really take the cake.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Stepping out of your comfort zone is one thing... this wasn't stepping... it was taking suicidal leap out of the comfort zone into the stupid zone. *They left on a FRIDAY into the teeth of a well-predicted and well-announced New England storm... *


----------



## sailordave (Jun 26, 2001)

I read this elsewhere and just shook my head. Leaving this late in the December is pretty iffy in the first place. Leaving into a KNOWN storm is just plain stupid. 
And 30-40 knots/12' seas is uncomfortable, but not something a true blue water 45' boat couldn't handle. And yes, I've been in worse, sustained for days.
Don't think licensing will solve this problem nor will bills from the USCG. At the risk of starting a real argument, it's like the death penalty debate. Do we REALLY think it deters people from killing people? No.

There will always be fools and when they engage in activities that have the potential to be fatal, there will be some incredibly stupid exits from this mortal life. 
The real question is... What is this doofus going to do next? Fix the boat and set out again? 

As an aside whatever became of the guy w/ the homemade Al. trimaran in CA?


----------



## BarryL (Aug 21, 2003)

*Coast Guard and Costs*

Hello,

A recurring thread seems to be that the CG should be able to recover the cost of the rescue. I wonder what the cost is.

If the CG guys don't do anything at all, they still get paid. The boat still needs to be maintained, they still need to train. I guess the boat might have burned some more fuel, and maybe the helo would have just sat on the deck. But doesn't the crew need to practice for these things? So maybe now they do 1 less practice.

Anyway, what was the cost of going out and towing the boat back in as compared to going out, looking around, and coming back in?

Barry


----------



## CBinRI (May 17, 2004)

*



They left on a FRIDAY into the teeth of a well-predicted and well-announced New England storm... 

Click to expand...

*While maybe both aspects are dumb, I would put the Friday issue a distant second.


----------



## camaraderie (May 22, 2002)

sailordave said:


> As an aside whatever became of the guy w/ the homemade Al. trimaran in CA?


David Vann's tri is still on the hard where he left it and in much deteriorated condition from the original deteriorated condition!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Captain Tin Can headed back to SFO after his defective, rather stupid, design, failed in 6-8' seas and 15-20 knots of wind IIRC. He's supposed to try again....but I doubt he will. The ama design on that POS was about the stupidest I've seen.

By making the akas or crossbeams, x-shaped as viewed from above, he gave the amas extremely great leverage, on the order of at least 10:1 on the attachment points on the main hull... and the cross beams failed exactly where I expected they would-where they attach to the main hull. Almost every crossbeam design on every trimaran I've seen uses parallel crossbeams roughly perpendicular to the long axis of the hulls-or a very broad wing deck-like the Newick designs.


sailordave said:


> As an aside whatever became of the guy w/ the homemade Al. trimaran in CA?


----------



## EagleSailtwo (Jul 28, 2006)

Easy come....

Leaving Narragansett bay.......straight for Bermuda.....more than approx. 1000 miles under sail, or 700 miles under power....leaving in a winter storm......WE SAILORS WOULD NOT DO SUCH......as has been illustrated here and on 4 other forums.....

This is not normal......and we are all getting upset....there is more going on here than we know! No, I haven't heard anymore than here............no VHF as well? 

My gut is...they were trying to accommodate a schedule irregardless of the weather....Rich people here...... instant gratification because they are used to that, their nature!


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

If you're on a sailboat, you probably shouldn't be trying to keep to a rigorous schedule.


----------



## AdamLein (Nov 6, 2007)

BarryL said:


> A recurring thread seems to be that the CG should be able to recover the cost of the rescue. I wonder what the cost is.


I suspect that a big portion of the cost is insurance. The CG boats and crews take big risks every time they go out on this sort of rescue. Then there's hazard pay, and the amortized costs of heavy-weather-boat-and-heli equipment (i.e. the cost of satisfying their own standards).

Also, boats and helis that go out in these conditions probably experience significantly more wear and tear than average, so maintenance is probably much more expensive.

Time spent rescuing is time not spent... well, guarding the coasts. Maybe the reported costs include the extra resources required to run rescue missions, rather than just inspection and that sort of thing.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

AdamLein said:


> I suspect that a big portion of the cost is insurance. The CG boats and crews take big risks every time they go out on this sort of rescue. Then there's hazard pay, and the amortized costs of heavy-weather-boat-and-heli equipment (i.e. the cost of satisfying their own standards).
> 
> Also, boats and helis that go out in these conditions probably experience significantly more wear and tear than average, so maintenance is probably much more expensive.
> 
> Time spent rescuing is time not spent... well, guarding the coasts. Maybe the reported costs include the extra resources required to run rescue missions, rather than just inspection and that sort of thing.


I've always been curious about this issue...

I don't want to sound naive, and I certainly don't condone the actions of the sailors in question, but what 'additional' cost by the CG would there be (short of fuel)?

This is the CG, a loose extension of the military and the hazzards to go with it. These guys (and their equipment) don't charge by the hour. They are at the ready 24/7 regardless.

Am I missing sumthin' here?


----------



## TSOJOURNER (Dec 16, 1999)

I monitor the CG New fairly regularly and on a number of occasions they will publish the cost of SAR's especially when it is connected with a false alarm. Usually the cost estimate is in the 15-20K range. I must admit that I have no idea what they base that on.
To pile on, no question these guys were total morons and the boat had to be quite the piece of work if being in 10-12 foot seas for less than 6 hours caused this debacle.


----------



## hertfordnc (Sep 10, 2007)

DavidZ said:


> I monitor the CG New fairly regularly and on a number of occasions they will publish the cost of SAR's especially when it is connected with a false alarm. Usually the cost estimate is in the 15-20K range. I must admit that I have no idea what they base that on.


About the Coasties- This work is dangerous. two months ago we lost a crew in good conditions on a hoist training operation off Hawaii. A few weeks ago a rescue swimmer was injured trying to get a survivor in a basket.

As for the cost- about ten years ago, after the CG rescued Branson off Hawaii in his failed balloon flight, this was brought up again. In the end there is no practical way to do it. Using Sea-tow for non-emergencies relieves the taxpayer of a HUGE burden but beyond that there is no good way to recover the cost without creating a situation where mariners will avoid calling for help for fear of high costs.

At the time (I was a CG public affairs guy) we took the total SAR budget divided by rescues and I came up with about $60,000 per life saved. It was easier to figure out before 9/11. Now there is so much law enforcement embedded everybody's job it's hard to break down.

$60K is a bargain. I'm sure there is a lot more govt. funded health care money spent sustaining the lives of people who make bad choices.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

hertfordnc said:


> ...As for the cost- about ten years ago, after the CG rescued Branson off Hawaii in his failed balloon flight, this was brought up again. In the end there is no practical way to do it. Using Sea-tow for non-emergencies *relieves the taxpayer of a HUGE burden* but beyond that there is no good way to recover the cost without creating a situation where mariners will avoid calling for help for fear of high costs...


Again, I must be missing something here (see my previous post)...

CG employees are government employees, much like, if not exactly like, soldiers in our Military; They get paid whether they're rescuing a boat in peril, or performing routine maintenance on their Heli back at the Base, 24/7. The equipment they use (Heli's, boats, etc.) are all paid for by you and I, the taxpayer.

I'll ask again; short of fuel, and the unfortunate (but rare) loss of equipment, what "huge burden" of cost would there be?


----------



## Sapperwhite (Oct 21, 2006)

RocketScience said:


> Again, I must be missing something here (see my previous post)...
> 
> CG employees are government employees, much like, if not exactly like, soldiers in our Military; They get paid whether they're rescuing a boat in peril, or performing routine maintenance on their Heli back at the Base, 24/7. The equipment they use (Heli's, boats, etc.) are all paid for by you and I, the taxpayer.
> 
> I'll ask again; short of fuel, and the unfortunate (but rare) loss of equipment, what "huge burden" of cost would there be?


You've answered your own question. If they aren't actively saving a life, they are preparing to do so. If they don't prepare (training, maintenance, etc.) you won't get saved. Have you ever served in any branch? Do you think they are just sitting around playing spades and dominoes all day?

If the routine maintenance doesn't get done, the bird won't fly, and you won't get saved. If the personnel don't train, they won't know how to find you, what to do when they find you, and may hurt/kill you or themselves during a rescue.

Everything they do is geared toward the mission, the mission doesn't just happen on its own.


----------



## btrayfors (Aug 25, 2006)

Yes, it's true that everything is geared toward the *Mission*.

And, don't forget, if they didn't have this Mission in the first place (i.e., in this case to be ready to save lives on the water....both responsible and irresponsible type people), then....

- there'd be no need for all the trained personnel stationed all round the country; and

- there'd be no need for all the equipment, supplies, and overhead.

I doubt if any mariner seriously thinks this Mission to be useless or expendable, and it's darned hard to see how it could be performed any better with the scarce resources doled out grudgingly by an indifferent Congress.


----------



## chucklesR (Sep 17, 2007)

It's all about playing cards when there is no one to kill, rescue or intimidate.

Maybe for some it is Rocket Science after all.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

Sapperwhite said:


> You've answered your own question. If they aren't actively saving a life, they are preparing to do so. If they don't prepare (training, maintenance, etc.) you won't get saved. Have you ever served in any branch? Do you think they are just sitting around playing spades and dominoes all day?....


What???

You guys are 'reading into' my honest curiosity on this issue way too much. Relax, it's just a *simple* question, and one I might add, that has yet to be answered.

I'll try to clarify my question in an analogy:

What '*additional*' cost would be incurred by our CG (other than fuel) in rescuing a vessel 1000 miles offshore with a Heli, versus towing a vessel in 2 miles offshore with a boat?

Again, I truly don't know. Please enlighten me.


----------



## bobmcgov (Jul 19, 2007)

RocketSci: It's a perfectly good and intelligent question. If the resources are in place anyhow, for this or other purposes, is it really a strain on the system when they deploy for live rescues versus scheduled drills, training, or border security?

Operationally, I doubt it's much money. Compare the cost of this rescue to one day's Tank Battalion drills in the Mojave Desert, or one weekend's Air Guard practice in C130s, training that goes on in peacetime or war. Trivial.

OTOH, to some extent the CG SAR capacity is (we hope) dictated by need, historical and anticipated. If lots of boaters get in trouble and need rescuing off Hatteras or the Columbia River bar, more assets and personnel will be allocated for the purpose. That costs money all 340 days they AREN'T performing live rescues.

Imagine a town full of people who are careless with matches. Think of the number of fire engines they'd need, and the firefighters whose training, gear, and feeding require paying for. And yes, they play alot of cards. If people were more careful with the matches, they could get by with less overhead.

It's an ever-present discussion in climbing and mountaineering. Consider Denali (McKinley). A high-altitude medical research tent was set up at 14000ft, to measure the effects of hypoxia. Supposed to be a short-term deal. Still there twenty years later, cuz word got around there was a warm hut to duck into if you got tired. A high-altitude Llama heli was given the Air Guard for all-purpose use; it got called out to rescue inept climbers so often it was sarcastically renamed the Denali Llama.

So the NPS tried to impose peak fees and qualification tests on climbers, which had the effect of driving off the experienced-but-poor, leaving the rich dilettante peak-baggers with bulked-out resumes. Rescues went up, not down. Especially since, if you've passed the test and paid your fee, you feel ENTITLED to that warming hut and a heli rescue if your feet get cold.

Best thing the gummint could do is take down the medical tent, sell the Llama, and say "See that big freaking peak? You try that, you're utterly on your own. End of."

Is sailing in that same realm of risk? Dunno. We expect the State Troopers to pull us out of a snowbank even if we WERE driving like idiots and even if we DID set off to grandma's in a blizzard. Part of the social contract, innit? Forgive us our idiocy, as we forgive those who are idiots against us. Is sailing like driving, or like high altitude mountaineering?

Would language in the law be worthwhile to this effect: "Any person requesting assistance or rescue from public or private agencies, should said assistance or rescue be found frivolous or the direct result of gross negligence, rank incompetence, or willful stupidity, shall be answerable in a court of law and liable for the full fair cost of the aid or rescue, plus such punitive fines as the court sees fit (equal to or less than the rescue cost.)

If you really think you are gonna die, wouldn't you trip that EPIRB regardless? But if sufficiently publicized, it might make skippers take all reasonable precautions before leaving the dock. Got updated charts? At least two means of navigating? Safety gear, storm sails, Basic Keelboat diploma, working VHF? Cuz if you don't you might be paying double damages.

Shame to legislate the care that should be basic to the meaning of 'sailor,' but let's be honest about people's risk calculus and respond in ways that will best limit future rescues. Not sure what ways those are, tho nothing, NOTHING, *NOTHING* curbs human stupidity as well as peer shame and public scorn. A climber will turn back from the summit if he thinks other climbers will call him "a lame gumby dumbarse who got what he deserved". Sailors might not leave in a storm if a Greek Chorus of other sailors will mock them for their poor judgment. Such mockery is just one of the fine services provided by Sailnet.


----------



## artbyjody (Jan 4, 2008)

Quite honestly - not much of a difference and a point I have great indifference to.

Fact is, the CG, our armed forces etc - spend an extreme amount of monies to actually practice what they are trained to do. And, it is to our benefit. 

Think about it for a second. You rarely hear of a failed CG rescue. The reason being, its not only the stand on training they get but the experience they get from real life rescues. 

One can argue the inconvenience - but being prior military - it was much more rewarding when it was not a drill anymore and there is real life scenarios that have to be considered to make a better than expected outcome. 


While, I do agree - its foolhardy and imprudent that someone make a calculated risk or not - of being in a situation, you have to stand back and stop for a second...

If in the real world - nothing bad ever happened because they did x, y and z... if it was not for the uncommon variables (or even common) - the CG etc would be not be as prepared as what they are and as a result (sadly) can deliver on ultimate performance in the worst of conditions. 

The real world is what decides how procedures etc are written and executed and we all should pause for a second before we go hastily chastising events or the what ifs.. It is because of those what ifs that you , me and anyone, will be in regardless of our experience level and we should thank the lucky stars the CG and other agencies have those events (as sad as it may be) before they get to us in the (sad but it may happen) to prevent hopefully us from becoming the fatal news story.

Sure - some things make no sense but in real life when you are out there - did all you could to prepare and THAT happens... you'll be thankful that some organizations just do there job without doing a full on background search on you before they attempt to decide to save you #[email protected]


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Yes, but leaving in the face of a well-forecasted and broadly announced New England winter storm is going to increase your chances of becoming a fatality significantly. Doing so is what makes NO SENSE...

I agree that there are some cases where they do everything to prepare, watch the weather windows and make a decision to leave when the weather permits...and still get hammered-*but that isn't what happened here. * _*These idiots left in spite of a well forecasted and predicted storm. *_ There was very little doubt that this storm was going to show up when it did-and there was little chance of the boat they were in making it out far enough for the storm to not be a major factor, given when they left.



artbyjody said:


> The real world is what decides how procedures etc are written and executed and we all should pause for a second before we go hastily chastising events or the what ifs.. It is because of those what ifs that you , me and anyone, will be in regardless of our experience level and we should thank the lucky stars the CG and other agencies have those events (as sad as it may be) before they get to us in the (sad but it may happen) to prevent hopefully us from becoming the fatal news story.
> 
> Sure - some things make no sense but in real life when you are out there - did all you could to prepare and THAT happens... you'll be thankful that some organizations just do there job without doing a full on background search on you before they attempt to decide to save you #[email protected]


----------



## nolatom (Jun 29, 2005)

The understandable desire to distinguish between "righteous" and "you're an idiot" distress/EPIRB calls and the resulting rescues at sea by the Coast Guard is a slippery slope. As I recall it, they don't charge for rescues where there is peril at sea, period. Trying to distinguish the "root cause" of the peril and charge, or not charge, is just not realistic and not that good an idea to begin with. It'll just lead to debates like the one we're having, to the detriment of their SAR mission.

Yes, they do try to tally up their costs for a rescue attempt when the initial distress call was a hoax. I humbly suggest that's the right policy.

That said, please don't make these dedicated souls risk their lives trying to save you when you should've stayed in port, but didn't.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

nolatom said:


> *That said, please don't make these dedicated souls risk their lives trying to save you when you should've stayed in port, but didn't.*


Amen to that...


----------



## Undine (Jan 26, 2008)

If you are interested in the rates the CG would charge...
www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1L.PDF


----------



## therapy23 (Jul 28, 2007)

Undine said:


> If you are interested in the rates the CG would charge...
> www.uscg.mil/directives/ci/7000-7999/CI_7310_1L.PDF


Cool.
Thanks.


----------

