# 70year olds get rescued 7 times in 7 months



## TQA

2 elederly yachtsmaen form North America have had to be rescued 7 times in the last 7 months as they try to sail from Scandinavia to North America.

Time to give up ?

More here Yachtsmen rescued seven times in seven months - YBW


----------



## zeehag

naaaaahhh they still in cold water. 
they still havin fun.
let em be....


----------



## capttb

They need a vessel assist Gold Membership.


----------



## sailordanny

zeehag said:


> naaaaahhh they still in cold water.
> they still havin fun.
> let em be....


Plus 1, question sailing in those waters in January but they are doing it, great


----------



## Maine Sail

Wow...

*Quote:* "Bob Weise and Steve Shapiro, both 71, *told the BBC the rescues have had nothing to do with their seamanship abilities*, saying they have just had bad luck."

*Quote:* "*Nora has a broken propeller shaft and a faulty battery*, and was moored in a safe spot outside the harbour for repairs."

Sorry but keeping your boat ready and prepared for a trans Atlantic is PART OF SEAMANSHIP.......

More here: *After many rescue calls, Americans sailors in Cornwall called "incompetent"*

The frustrating thing is these guys lack any respect for the guys rescuing them.

*
Quote:"One of the coast guard fellows, he said, 'You guys could sink.' And, I said, 'You know, there's worse places to die than at sea.' We're 71 years old. I've done everything in life. I've skydived. I've flown helicopters. I've been to Vietnam and Alaska. You know, to me, it's just an adventure."*

Pretty certain the guys risking their lives to rescue them don't see it quite the same. What the heck is wrong with so many "entitled" people these days.....

After seven rescues I vote to take away their communication devices then see if they choose to leave the dock.... The Coast Guard of any country is not your personal Sea Tow to use SEVEN TIMES...

I guess the real question is; _why do they keep towing the boat back so they can repeat this for an 8th time_....?


----------



## Yorksailor

I have no problem with people behaving like idiots...I just think that they should leave their cell phones and radios at home so that they do not involve the rescue services in their foolishness!

Phil


----------



## rckfd

I remember this guy about 30 or more years ago he was either the first to sail around the world solo nonstop or set a record doing it. I see him, he races out of Ida lewis in New Port. But this guy is the real deal I remember he prepared two years for the journey. I also remember his auto pilot broke one day out and his spare within a day of that. He had to restart from Bermuda or somewhere like that.
He was 30 years younger than them and as prepared as they get.
Foolishness?
I race in a series that has veteran American Cup crew in it and on one of the boats is the Olympic yachting coach. The boat I'm on i'm the kid at 60 the bow girl is 74 and on main is 78 helm 74. We won The spring summer and fall series this year. I'd rather be with that group than some of the screamin meme's I raced with in the past.
So I don't really know what you guys are driving at?


----------



## Maine Sail

rckfd said:


> I race in a series that has veteran American Cup crew in it and on one of the boats is the Olympic yachting coach. The boat I'm on i'm the kid at 60 the bow girl is 74 and on main is 78 helm 74. We won The spring summer and fall series this year. I'd rather be with that group than some of the screamin meme's I raced with in the past.
> So I don't really know what you guys are driving at?


This has nothing to do with their age but everything to do with being ill-prepared..


----------



## rckfd

Maine Sail said:


> This has nothing to do with their age but everything to do with being ill-prepared..


Had you read the whole post you would have seen my thoughts on perparedness


----------



## Maine Sail

rckfd said:


> Had you read the whole post you would have seen my thoughts on perparedness


I read it and it really had no relevance to these guys who have been rescued SEVEN TIMES..... I know numerous folks who have had AP's die and you know what, they didn't call the coast guard they sucked it up and figured out how to get where they were going without it. That is seamanship not hitting the "Easy Button" SEVEN TIMES....:wink

Sorry but I feel these guys are a menace and danger to the good folks who risk their lives to rescue them. Their behavior and attitude exemplifies the exact societal issues we have today where everyone is seemingly entitled to be ill prepared and entitled to put others at risk...


----------



## rckfd

Maine Sail said:


> I read it and it really had no relevance to these guys who have been rescued SEVEN TIMES..... I know numerous folks who have had AP's die and you know what, they didn't call the coast guard they sucked it up and figured out how to get where they were going without it. That is seamanship not hitting the "Easy Button" SEVEN TIMES....
> 
> Sorry these guys are a menace and danger to the good folks who risk their lives to rescue them. Their behavior and attitude exemplifies the exact societal issues we have today, everyone is entitled to be ill prepared and entitled to put others at risk...


Well, maybe you down easter's having only about two weeks a year of a sailing season haven't realized yet that ALL boats are sinking. Just some faster than others, you prepare the best you can and expect the worst.

And all you boys are judging them way too harshly.


----------



## MarkSF

This is an old one, but always good :

BBC News - Man rescued off Isle of Sheppey after sailing blunder

Sailed around and around the Isle of Sheppey until he ran out of fuel. Did he not notice passing the same spot several times?


----------



## krisscross

They probably keep forgetting stuff, like the fact that they have already got rescued 6 times. These old cats are on their 7th life now. Next time they may end up in Davy Jones' cold locker.


----------



## miatapaul

Yea there really is no room for thrill seekers as they have already admitted that is what they are. They are not sailors, not prepared and hey why not someone will risk there life and save us if it gets too tough out there. So why not the real level of risk for them is actually quite low. If they want a thril, then let them go out there, and figure it out on there own rather than calling for help every time there is a little issue. 

I have no issue with a couple of 74 year old guys going out there and having fun going across the ocean, on the other hand going out in a boat that is obviously not prepared for the voyage, then no way, or if you insist on it deal with the situations you cause, as a drive shaft does not just magically bend, unless they wrapped a line around it or sit something. Heck Eric Forsith is 83 and I would go with him anywhere because I am confident he could get out of just about any situation and he is taking off next month to cross the Atlantic. He is has top notch seamanship skills.

So it is not age, it is just that these guys are idiots.


----------



## Capt Len

Apparently not all us old farts are as astute as we'd like to think. Anchored behind east end of Discovery Is I see a 38' ferro on its side at low tide on the flats between Chatham an Discovery. Mossey over in the skiff to chat. Bilge water still running out the rudder pintles ,he's waiting for the tide .With no chart, he'd seen the lights of Oak Bay and just headed for them .Met his son some years later and learned the ship was lost with all hand somewhere closer to Hawaii .


----------



## miatapaul

krisscross said:


> They probably keep forgetting stuff, like the fact that they have already got rescued 6 times. These old cats are on their 7th life now. Next time they may end up in Davy Jones' cold locker.


Yea, and that is not even counting the ones in there earlier adventures they were bragging about!


----------



## hpeer

At 74 maybe they CANT remember the past rescues? Sez me to the Missus, ol Whatshername.


----------



## hpeer

At 74 maybe they CANT remember the past rescues? See me to the Missus, ol Whatshername.

Seriously, try DRIVING around here. Age has nothing to do with it. I think the driving test consists of puttin an iPhone under your nose to see if the screen fogs up. And those idiots are blasting around at 70+ MPH sending text messages. Thank God I'm moving aboard full time soon, my "don't kill the a$$hole sphincter" is loosing its grip and I'm gonna get myself I real trouble for road rage some day. 

Those old guys are, by comparison, harmless. 

But the boat looks like the devil for sure.


----------



## hellosailor

I can see being surprised by a "faulty battery". I'll be the devil's advocate and say it failed, mechanically, internally, and no one would have anticipated that.

But how does a propshaft get broken by bad luck? I'd say "collision with debris" but then, the prop and skeg and whatnot ought to also be damaged if that were the case.

And that would all still leave five or six other occasions, when they called for aid. All conveniently undetailed.

In the US, after that many rescues (and unless they were in danger, they would have been told to go pay for a commercial tow) the USCG probably would have seized the vessel and returned it to port as "manifestly unsafe" and taken further action to prevent it from setting off again. These gents apparently have had the good fortune (ahem) to call on many different national authorities, leaving it for the BBC to finally figure out the count.

Most curious, how little detail was presented.


----------



## Minnewaska

How did the propeller shaft break, while they were sailing?

I have no problem saving even foolish lives. No need to tow the boat back though.


----------



## hpeer

Mine did, not he shaft exactly, but the vibration isolators just came apart one day. They were not old and had not been abused.

I ok it's not a "shaft" exactly but within the limits of human communication and journalistic reporting. Close enough.


----------



## MarcStAug

May we all live to be 70 year olds with enough 'nads to go sailing in the first place instead of sitting in a sunroom, surrounded by sad old people and playing canasta before lunch. 

At 61 I am banking on it!


----------



## miatapaul

MarcStAug said:


> May we all live to be 70 year olds with enough 'nads to go sailing in the first place instead of sitting in a sunroom, surrounded by sad old people and playing canasta before lunch.
> 
> At 61 I am banking on it!


I agree, but lets hope that we might use a bit of the wisdom we must have gained in those 70+ years to not put ourselves and others in danger. Heck 70 is not even old anymore, my father is mid 80's and still working full time. He has been saying for at least 7 or 8 years "well next year" but as they say tomorrow never seems to come.

I think it is rather rare for the USCG to tow a boat back in, they will remove the people and leave boat to be salvaged, or if it is a hazard to navigation scuttle it. I think the only time they tow it is if it is easier to do than to pull the people off.


----------



## krisscross

Minnewaska said:


> How did the propeller shaft break, while they were sailing?


Maybe the prop snagged something really massive, like a fishing net or a log, leading to the shaft breaking from stress. That could have sunk their boat in no time.


----------



## zeehag

i know of snapped prop shafts. usually occurs when a groove is worn onto shaft from improper engine alignment and too tight stuffing box needing flax.


----------



## MarcStAug

miatapaul said:


> I agree, but lets hope that we might use a bit of the wisdom we must have gained in those 70+ years to not put ourselves and others in danger.


You're spot on about 70 not being "old" anymore. I also agree wholeheartedly with you, but I also know better than to presuppose I know what other people are thinking/planing/doing too <lol>.

Someone said recently that we shouldn't go quickly to a conclusion because we don't know what challenges other people are living. Who knows? Maybe it was, as the gentleman said, just bad luck!

I know when I am out for a run I look both ways before crossing the road and am aware of my surroundings. You'd think that when we leave the dock we do the same thing, right? 

It could be interesting to see if they surface (no pun intended) again in the news!


----------



## eherlihy

I have no issue with their age...

What I do have an issue with is the fact that these "sailors" have had to be rescued 7 times.

"We're taking [the boat] across the oceans and we're finding out things that nobody knew were wrong with it. It has nothing to do with seamanship. It's totally the mechanics of the boat." You're supposed to find this stuff out BEFORE you set out to cross oceans.

If it were up to me, I would simply take the boat away from these bozos... Let that be part of "the adventure."


----------



## miatapaul

zeehag said:


> i know of snapped prop shafts. usually occurs when a groove is worn onto shaft from improper engine alignment and too tight stuffing box needing flax.


As in improper maintenance/improper preparation before a long crossing. IE poor seamanship.


----------



## Dan Hossley

Does a broken propeller shaft and dead batteries normally cause the paint to fall off the hull?


----------



## Bleemus

These guys are abusing rescue services. The RNLI guys are fantastic and I had a few brews with them in Falmouth once and their stories are quite amazing. These two geezers with no respect for what they do have no respect and I doubt they will be alive much longer to bother hard working volunteers. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sailordanny

They are quoted by one newspaper as 7 times but only 2 dire straits. I can believe that. Grounding could be one. I have not determined the second one yet.

One of the rescues was when they talked to an oil rig's rescue boat and mentioned that their battery was weak. The boat brought out a new one to them. Rescue boat for an oil rig is boring, standby in all weather 7/24, chance to do something and record it as a event/incident, great. 

Purchasing a boat, getting it ready for transit, never perfect. Sooner or later you have to leave - some issues will not be resolved, hopefully all the safety ones are. Some defects like a scored and worn shaft are hard for a surveyor to detect. One of the causes of a broken shaft is the prop coming out of the water then reentry, big shock. I would expect a storm in the North Sea would do this. 

I deferred on the transit when purchasing my boat, lack of available time and the purchase was to renovate over time while sailing not all upfront. These gentlemen chose the prepare and leave, purchase in July after preparing winter crossing of North Sea. Most do it without incident these gentlemen are having problems but surviving.

One of the problems with these comments is people may hesitate to call a pan pan. As a sailor in his 70's I deal with my own problems and sail home engine or not. With medical problems I take the advice of the doctor in the crew not the Coast Guard. 

Has any one located their facebook page? One of them is a screen writer so it should be a good read.


----------



## Minnewaska

A safe boat does not have to be in Bristol condition. However, you can tell this one has issues before stepping aboard. To attempt an ocean crossing and blame the failures on mechanical problems no one could have known is implausible.

Further, at least one, if not two, of their "rescues" involved being pulled off a hard grounding. Bad boat, bad navigators.


----------



## Bleemus

I've seen dumpsters that look better than that. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MarcStAug

Minnewaska said:


>


If it was a piece of furniture you could describe it as "Distressed"


----------



## sailordanny

This photo is 31 August 2015. 

Nora's current position is Cooper Island in the Caribbean per their AIS transponder. It appears they did what most of us are only thinking of.

Looks like a classic pilot house gaffer that has gone through a storm, mast hoops no less.


----------



## Bleemus

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Maine Sail

sailordanny said:


> Nora's current position is Cooper Island in the Caribbean per their AIS transponder. It appears they did what most of us are only thinking of.
> 
> .


Considering they were towed into Falmouth England on Jan 19, 2016 that would make them exceptionally fast sailors.....:wink


----------



## oceangirl

Maine, how are you following these guys? I can't find anything.

As many have said this has very little to do with age. At 70, my dad was half way through sailing RTW on a 37 ft boat. 70 is the new 50 . 
We were towed two or three times the in a one year span ( this was a few years ago), not by CG but by tow boat us. Never occurred to us to call pan pan pan on a non life threatening issue. Stuff happens, I totally get that, but why are these guys calling rescue? Is there no tow service where they are? What am I missing here ?


----------



## Bleemus

I think Maine Sail was referring to the original article. 

"On Tuesday 19 January, the Falmouth Coastguard sent the St Ives Lifeboat team out to tow their sailboat, Nora, back to harbour."


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## hannah2

How could any sailor go to sea in a boat looking like that. Unfortunately no matter where my wife and I sail we see so many boats in disrepair. And it is sailors on boats looking like that one that need to be rescued far more than sailors who keep their boats seaworthy. We are almost 70 and there are no excuses for not keeping your boat safe. Personally I think it is time for these dudes to plant a garden and smell the roses.

Cheers


----------



## sailordanny

Maine Sail said:


> Considering they were towed into Falmouth England on Jan 19, 2016 that would make them exceptionally fast sailors.....:wink


http://rnli.org/NewsCentre/Pages/Li...ing-vessel.aspx?printerfriendly=true&pdf=true

Royal Lifeboat report of Mike MacDonald dated July 2015.

Vessel Finder reports Sailing Vessel Nora in British Virgin Island January 21, 2016 Length 40 feet, width 14 feet.

Could be newspapers are off. Inconsistency somewhere.


----------



## Bleemus

Falmouth Coast Guard is a wee bit more reliable than Vessel Finder. These guys aren't drinking Painkillers. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sailordanny

Bleemus said:


> Falmouth Coast Guard is a wee bit more reliable than Vessel Finder. These guys aren't drinking Painkillers.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Royal Lifeboat Society is not on painkillers either. their news feed is an interesting and chilling review

North Lifeboats launched to stricken Norwegian sailing vessel
31-08-2015
The Invergordon RNLI lifeboat "Douglas Aikman Smith" launched mid morning on Sunday to respond to a call made to Aberdeen Coastguard via Wick Lifeboat to take over a tow of a Norwegian registered Sailing vessel.

No problem with Falmouth just the Sunday Express on a slow day.

Also note that on the Lifeboat news search this is the only report for Sailing Vessel Nora


----------



## Bleemus

A Painkiller is a drink you have when in the Caribbean. Get it? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cshrimpt

Maine Sail said:


> This has nothing to do with their age but everything to do with being ill-prepared..


I can't tell from the article if they were ever actually in danger, or just using the life boat crews as personal valets.

So are they ill prepared, or just pestering the authorities?

Craig


----------



## Maine Sail

sailordanny said:


> http://rnli.org/NewsCentre/Pages/Li...ing-vessel.aspx?printerfriendly=true&pdf=true
> 
> Royal Lifeboat report of Mike MacDonald dated July 2015.
> 
> *Could be newspapers are off.* Inconsistency somewhere.


Could be they have been rescued 7 times. The July 2015 grounding was apparently one of their earlier rescues, Jan 19th 2016 was another....

http://www.ybw.com/news-from-yachti...men-rescued-seven-times-in-seven-months-16595

Highly likely there is more than one boat named NORA on the planet...


----------



## TQA

> The pair - both from North America - have called rescue teams in Norway, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland and twice now in Cornwall. On Tuesday 19 January, the Falmouth Coastguard sent the St Ives Lifeboat team out to tow their sailboat, Nora, back to harbour.


The above coupled with the pic of their boat says that it is time for them to give up.


----------



## Don L

I don't know why it seems to personally piss off so many people. I hope they keep trying and make it.


----------



## hpeer

She's a tad worn for sure. Looks to have been beat up on a wall. Had the same thing happen to me once. Long story, longer night. But that's some pretty bad dock rash.


----------



## zeehag

the pic of their boat shows a lil wear. big deal. it is a solid boat with a bit of rash. :cut_out_animated_em
the more you (prissy clowns :devil) yell agin em, the more i am for em.


----------



## hannah2

Don0190 said:


> I don't know why it seems to personally piss off so many people. I hope they keep trying and make it.


Don, Don't you realize that these two guys are putting people who have family's in danger that should have never been. I know these rescue people signed up for the bravery that they perform but why should those that are clueless be able just go make such foolish choices and put rescuers in danger. And I would think you realize that these two guys and their boat is not up for a winter crossing of the Atlantic let alone a southern Atlantic crossing.

Lets hope that they finally throw in the towel and go home by jet so they can tell their grand kids about the their adventures both successful and the failures.


----------



## Bleemus

RNLI is a volunteer organization. They are thinly staffed. If someone dies in a real emergency while RNLI resources are focused on rescuing these two bucket listers with no obvious skills I think most will feel quite differently about them. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Don L

hannah2 said:


> Don, Don't you realize that these two guys are putting people who have family's in danger that should have never been. I know these rescue people signed up for the bravery that they perform but why should those that are clueless be able just go make such foolish choices and put rescuers in danger. And I would think you realize that these two guys and their boat is not up for a winter crossing of the Atlantic let alone a southern Atlantic crossing.
> 
> Lets hope that they finally throw in the towel and go home by jet so they can tell their grand kids about the their adventures both successful and the failures.


get a grip


----------



## Bleemus

It's official. I vote Don angriest person on this forum. His endless posts of anger or outrage have me thinking he is A BS alter ego. Are the little blue pills not working anymore? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Capt Len

One possible answer may be that all the blue pills are mixed in the same bottle. Happened to me once with odd simultaneous results.


----------



## Don L

Yeah, I'm getting pretty angry at know it all. holier that you boat snobs who can always find a way to condemn others as they pass along their self righteous words of wisdom.


----------



## Bleemus

Len, I think there is a really good story in there! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bleemus

Don0190 said:


> Yeah, I'm getting pretty angry at know it all. holier that you boat snobs who can always find a way to condemn others as they pass along their self righteous words of wisdom.


You do realize that with a few clicks of the mouse one can easily see every post you have ever written don't you? You rarely contribute to a discussion instead preferring to snipe (a favorite word of mine). Perhaps if you look at your own post history you might see a pattern. Perhaps things aren't going well at home? We are here to help if you need anything.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Don L

Bleemus said:


> You do realize that with a few clicks of the mouse one can easily see every post you have ever written don't you? You rarely contribute to a discussion instead preferring to snipe (a favorite word of mine). Perhaps if you look at your own post history you might see a pattern. Perhaps things aren't going well at home? We are here to help if you need anything.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Gee what a sport. I can't wait for your help.

Here I hope for the best for a couple of guys trying to cruise. While you take the short press written article that was designed to to hook you and set the hook as deep as possible.


----------



## hannah2

Hey Trump in 2016.


----------



## Bleemus

I am all for these guys trying for their dream. If they prefer to die on the ocean instead of a nursing home that is their choice. Someone needs to tell them that cruising doesn't mean stressing the rescue services of every country they sail past.

_Mod Edit: lets leave politics out of this one._

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## sailordanny

zeehag said:


> the pic of their boat shows a lil wear. big deal. it is a solid boat with a bit of rash. :cut_out_animated_em
> the more you (prissy clowns :devil) yell agin em, the more i am for em.


Plus 1


----------



## Minnewaska

zeehag said:


> .... it is a solid boat with a bit of rash. .......


Sorry, you missed the part about the broken propeller shaft. I think it's an indication of condition.

I would be very willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and cheer them on, but it didn't take all 7 rescues to prove they and/or the boat are not up to it.

I also haven't read any thoughts on crossing the North Atlantic in January-February. I seriously wonder if the boat even has heat.


----------



## Capt Len

Seem that the running aground was at the entrance to a harbour that didn't have enough water anyway. That's why the life boat dragged them along the coast (at 6 knts) to a deeper port. Just possible that looking at a road map wasn't enough.


----------



## miatapaul

sailordanny said:


> http://rnli.org/NewsCentre/Pages/Li...ing-vessel.aspx?printerfriendly=true&pdf=true
> 
> Royal Lifeboat report of Mike MacDonald dated July 2015.
> 
> Vessel Finder reports Sailing Vessel Nora in British Virgin Island January 21, 2016 Length 40 feet, width 14 feet.
> 
> Could be newspapers are off. Inconsistency somewhere.


No inconsistency at all just a different boat. If they are in the British Virgin Islands they are really off course as there destination is Maine. I would be surprised if they have AIS after all they grounded at least once trying to go into a harbor that was too shallow so they don't seem to have much in the way of electronics, or at least don't know how to use them. Here is the "Nora Simrad" not the same!


----------



## hannah2

Minnewaska said:


> Sorry, you missed the part about the broken propeller shaft. I think it's an indication of condition.
> 
> I would be very willing to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and cheer them on, but it didn't take all 7 rescues to prove they and/or the boat are not up to it.
> 
> I also haven't read any thoughts on crossing the North Atlantic in January-February. I seriously wonder if the boat even has heat.


Winter crossing from Falmouth to Carib is not all that uncommon in January in most years. I just weather routed an American family last week. January usually brings an Atlantic High and the late leaving boats headed for warm weather have a chance to get out but usually a short window to get below 22 degrees N. where the trades start to blow.

But if these guys were going to cross in January on the northern route to Maine then they are really brain dead. It is hard enough to do in summer.


----------



## DonScribner

This smacks of "I've been around boats all my life" or "Sailing aint rocket science". Both could be true, but a respect for the sea as a fickle mistress is a good thing. And putting others at risk during rescues solely due to a flippant attitude towards life is simply selfish. Like people sailing into Somali waters expecting to go unharassed . . .

Why are they coming to MAINE???? I'll keep an eye out.


----------



## hpeer

I'd like to hear their story befor passing judgement. I've never know a newspaper article to get the Devils right yet.

Or maybe it's just that I'm a 65 yo fart who thinks their antics are cool and give me encouragement.

On the other hand I've seen some real doozies come into our marina. Far more scary that these guys.


----------



## miatapaul

hannah2 said:


> Winter crossing from Falmouth to Carib is not all that uncommon in January in most years. I just weather routed an American family last week. January usually brings an Atlantic High and the late leaving boats headed for warm weather have a chance to get out but usually a short window to get below 22 degrees N. where the trades start to blow.
> 
> But if these guys were going to cross in January on the northern route to Maine then they are really brain dead. It is hard enough to do in summer.


Yea, Eric Forsyth is leaving Portugal in a couple of weeks but headed to the Caribbean.


----------



## Minnewaska

As stated by these guys, they planned to cross the North Atlantic to Maine. In January. 

Not stable.


----------



## hannah2

hpeer said:


> I'd like to hear their story befor passing judgement. I've never know a newspaper article to get the Devils right yet.
> 
> Or maybe it's just that I'm a 65 yo fart who thinks their antics are cool and give me encouragement.
> 
> On the other hand I've seen some real doozies come into our marina. Far more scary that these guys.


I'm about the same age as you and if your in sound health you will have no problems. That is if your boat is in good shape and you have some seamanship ability. Your boat pic, I think it is the Pape looks to be very sound, nice boat, more pictures. But don't wait too long my wife and I are in good shape for our age but we have had our first real illness recently and have had to modify our plans of going to New Zealand then up to Borneo and do the jungle rivers there. But we make the best of it and will enjoy the east coast of the USA where we have medical services if needed.

Your right it does not matter what age they are there are some real doozies out there, we meet them all ages. These two guys show the worst of what is like to be a sailor with no regard for everyone else who has to get involved in their constant rescues. Three times they ran aground and I think in the same harbor! I wish there were laws like in New Zealand that would not allow a couple like them and their beat up old boat from going off shore. I know that will pis off old Don and Zee. But luckily most on sailnet agree with the idea that a boat and its crew should be prepared, and seaworthy. But I guess I'm an elitist snob sailor who has regards for other peoples lives besides my own.

More pics of your boat.

Cheers


----------



## Minnewaska

hannah2 said:


> ....I wish there were laws like in New Zealand that would not allow a couple like them and their beat up old boat from going off shore......


Admittedly, I don't know all the details of NZ law, but I have heard it and don't agree with it. Freedom should allow these guys to go, if they are mentally competent (actually this is truly questionable here). For me the question is whether they pay for their rescue.

Pass a nav/safety course, have your vessel pass a safety inspection, etc, and rescue cost is on the taxpayer. If you want to go anyway, knock yourself out, but if we come get you, then you pay the huge tab for it. If you don't pay, you get your boat impounded, until you do. That's assuming anyone brings the boat back at all.


----------



## zeehag

anyone who has had a vessel safety check knows all that is checked are pfds, toilets, propulsion of some kind, lights and flares. not hull, not anything making a boat actually seaworthy. i have watched as a boat sank while "passing" vsc .. is entertaining. considering there is no pass nor fail. just you dont have enough life jackets, or you must seal your holding tank just so... and your outdated flares need to be disposed of... and opposite, also stated tome in vsc-- "keep your outdated flares for just in case. never know when you will NEED em"
only those not owning boats believe a vsc is the answer to all on ocean. that is a bad thought, sadly.
real seaworthiness is a whole nother thing entirely. 
on moorings, we had to go get boat vsc'd annually, and when they saw fit. it didnt work for moorings, how can it work for adventurers....

and so, how is vsc gonna help keep these good ol boys in port, or how is vsc gonna make a difference to these boys and their adventures???
and where in any rule book does it say running aground in any place is a bad-- violation of what newly invented law of sea???
if you aint run aground, ye aint been around.
altho a depth sounder is a useful tool. even a line with a heaviness on end for soundings...

i think they need not be kept in port, but they do need to address potential fail points before departure. i believe they are doing that as they go. it is not easy to locate all fail points on a boat before they happen. 
kinda like when yer driving and have a heart attack on the road, day after your cardiology checkup.


----------



## Minnewaska

My proposed safety check was not intended to be limited by any program that currently exists, nor did I suggest it was required. Only that you pay for your own rescue, if you don't pass one.


----------



## MarkSF

zeehag said:


> anyone who has had a vessel safety check knows all that is checked are pfds, toilets, propulsion of some kind, lights and flares. not hull, not anything making a boat actually seaworthy. i have watched as a boat sank while "passing" vsc .. is entertaining. considering there is no pass nor fail. just you dont have enough life jackets, or you must seal your holding tank just so... and your outdated flares need to be disposed of... and opposite, also stated tome in vsc-- "keep your outdated flares for just in case. never know when you will NEED em"
> only those not owning boats believe a vsc is the answer to all on ocean. that is a bad thought, sadly.
> real seaworthiness is a whole nother thing entirely.
> on moorings, we had to go get boat vsc'd annually, and when they saw fit. it didnt work for moorings, how can it work for adventurers....
> 
> and so, how is vsc gonna help keep these good ol boys in port, or how is vsc gonna make a difference to these boys and their adventures???
> and where in any rule book does it say running aground in any place is a bad-- violation of what newly invented law of sea???
> if you aint run aground, ye aint been around.
> altho a depth sounder is a useful tool. even a line with a heaviness on end for soundings...
> 
> i think they need not be kept in port, but they do need to address potential fail points before departure. i believe they are doing that as they go. it is not easy to locate all fail points on a boat before they happen.
> kinda like when yer driving and have a heart attack on the road, day after your cardiology checkup.


Have you ever had an actual VSC? Apart from the safety equipment (and it is supposed to be a check for safety equipment, not a structural survey), I got some very useful tips on general safety and equipment. I would struggle to think of a more productive 1/2 hour to 1 hour that you could spend on safety.

I am glad to hear that your level of expertise is so high that you have nothing to learn from someone else.


----------



## mstern

Minnewaska said:


> My proposed safety check was not intended to be limited by any program that currently exists, nor did I suggest it was required. Only that you pay for your own rescue, if you don't pass one.


This same or similar discussion has taken place here before. I just don't see how to craft a fair program that differentiates between who "deserves" to be rescued at public expense, and who pays for their own rescue.

What you have suggested (inspection or pay for your own rescue) is just not workable. Unless we are talking about full structural surveys, inspections won't catch problems with propeller shafts or any other kind of hidden defect. And even if we were going to have these more cursory inspections, what kind of voyages require an inspection to be eligible for "free" rescues? Who performs the inspection? Who pays for it? Even the most modest of programs of voluntary inspections would require more resources than the USCG or even the Auxilliary could supply now. And given the current state of our government (we can't even seem to agree that it should stay open or solvent), I doubt more resources are forthcoming.

The fact is, you can't inspect for or mandate against stupid. Given some of the comments on this thread, it seems to be up in the air as to whether these two are stupid or are even guilty of bad judgement.

I believe that search and rescue (like the police and fire departments) is a public service we provide to all citizens. Absent criminal circumstances, I don't think we should make anyone pay for those services.


----------



## hellosailor

There are historical reasons for police and fire departments, and there are also very successful modern programs that do put costs back on the idiots.

For instance, before there were fire departments there were private fire insurance companies. You paid their annual fee, you got a plaque to attach to your gatepost, and if you were on fire they came to put you out.

No plaque? The competing fire companies that did arrive would let you bid for their services, while the house burned down. If you didn't agree to a price on the spot, goodbye. But since fires SPREAD and major portions of Rome, London, Paris, New York, Chicago, have all burned down (sometimes 1/2 of the city) our governments figured that municipal fire departments that would simply respond to all fires, were not a bad concept. Even if it meant raising taxes.

Police? Well, again, historical reasons to have a night watch to keep savages and thugs out of a village, and less of a burden on the village militia, which was the old English system.

But those are not _rescue _services. The sometimes very logical and financially prudent folks in New Hamphire have had a "wilderness rescue" program for at least five years now. In posted wilderness areas, you'll see a sign that tells you very plainly, hey, if you go past this point, you need to be prepared. If you go past this point and call for rescue, and we decide you weren't prepared in a reasonable manner (trail map, clothing, shoes, fire, water, whatever) then we'll be glad to rescue you--but you will be given a bill for the whole cost of it.

And they do that by an administrative process, with the facts of each rescue taken into specific consideration. So far, the laws have held it up. It works very nicely and their budget has benefited.

The USCG, or any similar authority, could do the same thing. No USCAux safety sticker? No recent survey or other other inspection or manifest of safety equipment? You're just two fellows who bought a boat, a road map, and some Budweiser and went out without listening to the weathercast? OK, here's the bill.

There's room for discretion and there's room for generosity. Or for prepaid services, i.e. "Here's my voluntary tax dollar, give it to the USCG". The system we have now, where anyone can push a button and make a HUGE drain on limited resources, needs to be improved. Pretending that we can be generous to every fool, every proven fool, just doesn't fly any more.

The changes don't have to be radical, cruel, or fast, but they do need to happen. Hell, in the US there are many places where you will get a 911 bill if you have a traffic accident and there's an emergency response. Not just for the ambulance, for a statutory bill to cover EMS and fire rescue and even the guy who sweeps up the broken glass when it is all done.

Or, you could just send every registered boat owner a $100 annual "rescue" bill. Somehow, I don't think the voters would like that one any better.


----------



## Minnewaska

mstern said:


> This same or similar discussion has taken place here before.


Well, it looks like we're fixing to have it again. 



> What you have suggested (inspection or pay for your own rescue) is just not workable.


Inspections are completed for offshore racing/rallies all the time.



> Unless we are talking about full structural surveys, inspections won't catch problems with propeller shafts or any other kind of hidden defect.


No, but they would identify a vessel in poor condition and unfit to be out of swimming range to shore. We would avoid most, if not all maladies. 



> And even if we were going to have these more cursory inspections, what kind of voyages require an inspection to be eligible for "free" rescues?


Racing/rally inspection a more than cursory. The voyage is irrelevant, it's the free rescue. Pass inspection, pass a basic course on navigation and seamanship and the taxpayer picks you up at their expense. Every time.



> Who performs the inspection? Who pays for it?


The boat owner pays for it, naturally. Why should some poor farmer in the middle of the country pay for an inspection program for recreational yachting? Who does it would have to be organized, but they are done all the time.



> The fact is, you can't inspect for or mandate against stupid.


What part of my proposal does so? One is welcome to head out, without inspection or license and pay the consequences. Most likely, some will.

The point is, we drag their butts ashore and effectively prevent them from just turning around and heading right back out again. Their boat would be liened and impounded until the rescue is paid for.



> Given some of the comments on this thread, it seems to be up in the air as to whether these two are stupid or are even guilty of bad judgement.


Not about just these guys. Nor am I suggesting we wouldn't continue to rescue everyone.



> I believe that search and rescue (like the police and fire departments) is a public service we provide to all citizens. Absent criminal circumstances, I don't think we should make anyone pay for those services.


Sure it is, but after 7 rescues in 7 months you feel no need for limits? What if I called the local police every single night to report that I thought someone was breaking in?

I offer a compromise. Everyone's first rescue is on the house, but all vessels involved in the rescue must pass inspection afterward to be considered seaworthy and the skipper must pass a remedial seamanship exam.


----------



## miatapaul

Minnewaska said:


> I offer a compromise. Everyone's first rescue is on the house, but all vessels involved in the rescue must pass inspection afterward to be considered seaworthy and the skipper must pass a remedial seamanship exam.


This seems perfectly reasonable to me. I also think the cost of bring the boat back should be billable if they do so. Seems the USCG has stopped the towing of boats back in, but they still seem to do it some times. I think if these guys thought they would have had to pay for the boat to be towed back, they would have thought twice about calling for assistance and found a way to get home, or ungrounded.


----------



## hannah2

In 2007/8 when we last sailed to New Zealand we had the opportunity to have a look at the regulations the New Zealand goverment put out on boats going offshore. IF they have changed or I'm not on the money someone please chine in. The book had over 100 pages I think. The rules were for boats going offshore, I believe it was 200 miles offshore that one needed to comply. It covered rigging, boat structure, safety gear and engine. 

At one time these rules were for every boat that came into NZ waters and that were going to leave again. That was changed when many non NZ boats threatened not to go to NZ. Now it is only for NZ flagged boats. Most NZers thought the rules were too strict but agreed that they were important for the safety of the crew, boat and the volunteer rescue teams involved in a rescue. I have no statistics on how many non NZ boats were rescued those two seasons we were there but I know a lot of non NZ boats were rescued (8) while on their way to Fiji and Tonga. I do not recall any boats from NZ that had to be rescued in 2007/2008. By the way I knew 3 of those boats and crew and to be honest I wouldn't even step board those boats they were in such bad shape. 

I think we could do the same here in N. America. The cost of a survey is around 650 dollars last time we had one. I think any boat going off shore should pay about the same in having a complete safety inspection and comply with the regulations. We do it in the aviation industry for private planes and in the marine field with commercial ship why not with ocean going private vessels. 

I fear that one of these days our heroic coast guard will have a tragic accident with loss of life. If that does happen while going out after some fools then we may have new rules and regulations of making sure boats are seaworthy and the skipper is qualified. Our coast guard signs on for this type of work and get paid for doing so, most countries have a volunteer rescue service. But paid or not why put these brave men in women in harms way because someone and their boat was not safe to go anywhere they damn well thought they could go. Selfishness I don't understand. 

cheers


----------



## hellosailor

"The fact is, you can't inspect for or mandate against stupid."
Sure you can. Ever see a car with an annual safety inspection sticker? And the owner has to PAY out of pocket every year to get an inspection, or else they can't register the vehicle?
There are some states that don't require annual inspections. And I've seen plenty of cars with 2 out of the three brake lights--even long-lasting LED brake lights--burned out on those cars. They effectively have no brake lights, and never will, because the drivers are too stupid to check them and no one has mandated the PITA inspections.
One can only guess how good their tires or brakes are, if they've gone long enough to blow at least two of the three brake lights, which usually take years to fail.

Ah, don't confuse the issue. "Racing/rally inspection a more than cursory" Race inspections are a liability matter invoked by the private race sponsor. They've got nothing to do with whether a government will allow a boat to go to see, or whether they will respond to a SAR request from that boat.

And that farmer in the wheat or corn fields get plenty of government aid directed at him, which is of no benefit to the boater, who might care less about why some farmer is being paid to grow corn to make ethanol to damage his engines. The question of socialism versus tax allocation has also got nothing to do with the real issue here.

Police are publicly shared and funded? Tell that to the poor folks, who may find a 911 call takes a half hour for a response. While better neighborhoods with loud-mouthed campaign contributors get a 4-6 minute typical response. There's only an illusion of sharing in many of those places, and even the cops know it.


----------



## Mr. Bubs

Go the Rimas!


----------



## TQA

Go the Flying Hawaiian !


----------



## Minnewaska

hellosailor said:


> .....Ah, don't confuse the issue. "Racing/rally inspection a more than cursory" Race inspections are a liability matter invoked by the private race sponsor. They've got nothing to do with whether a government will allow a boat to go to see, or whether they will respond to a SAR request from that boat.


I didn't suggest these inspection were connected to rescues. I used race/rally inspections as an example that inspections can be and are done, even if for other purposes. I will add, however, I believe the Newport-Bermuda race takes great pride in safety for safety's sake, not liability. Can't speak for others.



> And that farmer in the wheat or corn fields get plenty of government aid directed at him, which is of no benefit to the boater, who might care less about why some farmer is being paid to grow corn to make ethanol to damage his engines.


Sure, but having a recreational yacht is not the same as policy to keep farmers making money. I hate ethanol and oppose that particular policy, but I would not argue the farmers should pay to inspect my automobile either.


----------



## zeehag

MarkSF said:


> Have you ever had an actual VSC? Apart from the safety equipment (and it is supposed to be a check for safety equipment, not a structural survey), I got some very useful tips on general safety and equipment. I would struggle to think of a more productive 1/2 hour to 1 hour that you could spend on safety.
> 
> I am glad to hear that your level of expertise is so high that you have nothing to learn from someone else.


i have yes. have YOU~!!!!????? every year i was in san diego , 1995-2011, EVERY year,as i owned many boats over the time i resided aboard before leaving to actively cruise, yes i had many vsc done. 
remember, i resided aboard from 1990-currently. the only difference now is i am cruising. 
how was the vsc on your desk?? did you have enough pfds for those who need?? did you have enough flares?? did all of your lights work???
how about your toilet?? was it plumbed correctly???
and THAT is a vessel safety check in a nutshell. 
vsc is safety equipment only. want a seaworthiness test?? take boat to survey, not vsc. rodlmffao.


----------



## Minnewaska

A VSC is fairly limited and not the right analogy for an offshore vessel inspection. Here is a link to exactly what it entails. It is just a touch more than pfds and fire extinguishers. Click the link for the form.

Return to V-Directorate's Home Page.

If anyone is interested, here is a link to the race safety requirements. Click on. Newport Bermuda Race Safety Requirements. Clearly, they are not all absolutely required for a safe passage, but a good inspection would be more than a VSC, if possibly less than a race inspection.

Safety and Inspections - Newport Bermuda Race

Note, even the race inspections do not require a surveyor.


----------



## hellosailor

"but I would not argue the farmers should pay to inspect my automobile either. "
Why not? If the farmer is in Tennessee, the entire nation paid to run electric power lines out to his farm courtesy of the TVA. If he's in the Midwest, we all paid for the Interstate that allows him to ship his crops to market cheaply. Even if it isn't our market. And we probably subsidized his phone lines, and of course, the military GPS system that now guides his tractor.

Bottom line, the US is a socialist state, just not a very highly "socialized" one, compared to some others.

And if a Coastie drowns trying to rescue a boat...that farmer's taxes are going to pay the costs anyway, so he's got a vested interest in the safety of your vessel, doesn't he?


----------



## rbrasi

wow- this thread devolved in the worst way. I was just checking in to see whether there was an update on the actual subject (two old dudes that have problems sailing).


----------



## miatapaul

Well they are at it again! Apparently they did not tie up there boat correctly, and when it tipped over they had a fire on deck. No one was on board at the time, but apparently they put the fire out. So apparently the fire was caused by a candle left burning while no one was on board. Another sign these guys are rocket surgeons.

American 'Captain Calamity' sailors rescued for a NINTH time | Daily Mail Online


----------



## mstern

Minnewaska said:


> Well, it looks like we're fixing to have it again.
> 
> Inspections are completed for offshore racing/rallies all the time.
> 
> No, but they would identify a vessel in poor condition and unfit to be out of swimming range to shore. We would avoid most, if not all maladies.
> 
> Racing/rally inspection a more than cursory. The voyage is irrelevant, it's the free rescue. Pass inspection, pass a basic course on navigation and seamanship and the taxpayer picks you up at their expense. Every time.
> 
> The boat owner pays for it, naturally. Why should some poor farmer in the middle of the country pay for an inspection program for recreational yachting? Who does it would have to be organized, but they are done all the time.
> 
> What part of my proposal does so? One is welcome to head out, without inspection or license and pay the consequences. Most likely, some will.
> 
> The point is, we drag their butts ashore and effectively prevent them from just turning around and heading right back out again. Their boat would be liened and impounded until the rescue is paid for.
> 
> Not about just these guys. Nor am I suggesting we wouldn't continue to rescue everyone.
> 
> Sure it is, but after 7 rescues in 7 months you feel no need for limits? What if I called the local police every single night to report that I thought someone was breaking in?
> 
> I offer a compromise. Everyone's first rescue is on the house, but all vessels involved in the rescue must pass inspection afterward to be considered seaworthy and the skipper must pass a remedial seamanship exam.


So much to address....

First, inspections for rallys or racing are a completely different animal. Participants pay fees that directly fund the inspection services. These are expert inspectors who are doing thorough inspections of a very limited number of vessels. If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that anyone at all who wants to be rescued has to get an inspection of a similar type. I just don't think there are enough inspectors in the world to handle that kind of demand, especially if they have to repeat this exercise every year. Based on this alone, I don't think your proposal is practical.

But there is also this state/federal issue that doesn't have an easy or to my mind, satisfactory, solution. Are you envisioning state-based programs, or a federal program? Does this apply only to rescue services provided by states? Just the Coast Guard? Both? Unless you can figure out a way to have this cover services provided by local, state and federal authorities, your "free" rescue card might not apply to the crew that shows up to help.

You also referenced a need to have some kind of examination for boaters to prove basic seamanship skills in order to qualify for "free" rescue services. Here in Connecticut, everyone who operates a boat over a certain size or horsepower needs a "certficate" (they won't call it a license). Would that suffice for you? I can tell you that the program covered only very basic rules of the road, and didn't involve any piloting or other basic seamanship skills. Frankly, I don't see there is anyway to create a baseline of an adequate skill level that the public would accept. If all I ever do on the water is go no more than two miles offshore in good weather, do I really need to learn how to take sunsights with a sextant or to learn to use parallel rules and a paper chart? Are you really comfortable with some bureaucrat deciding what you need to know to be competent on the water? This isn't like driving a car; that's something we all do and can all share in the common understanding of a basic set of skills necessary to be safe and minimally competent in order to get a license. Seamanship is a much different animal. I am fairly confident that if you give this job to the legisltature; they'll do what they did in CT: set a very low bar so that it won't deter people from getting their certificate. And if that is the level of competence that you are seeking to justify a "free" rescue, then I don't see the value of the extra expense.

And what part of your proposal seeks to legislate against stupidity? I think most of it; the sailor who ventures off shore in the clearly inadequate vessel is the rarity. Most rescues that I have heard of are necessitated by an unforeseeable failure of gear (which your inspection program would not help), or very bad judgement (drinking, trying to keep to a schedule despite the weather reports, etc.). I don't think your proposal addresses either of these very well.

I saw that Hellosailor has provided several examples of other rescue services as well as emergency services that do charge. He says they are fair and regular. I would be very interested in seeing how such a thing is adminstered. My experience with emergency responders attempting to charge for their services has not been good. In more than one instance, local first responders sent invoices to my company, seeking to charge us for services provided. These were big responses, but none of them were unusual or required out of the ordinary services of the police and fire departments. As an in-house lawyer for my company, the bills eventually came to me with the question "do we have to pay these?" In my discussions with the towns, it became clear that these were naked attempts to shore up flagging budgets. One town official told me that in so many words. We refused to pay, and that was that.

I cannot imagine this type of thing wouldn't repeat itself with emergency services. The Coast Guard, town police and other first responders are always strapped for cash; given the ability to charge for their services, I am willing to bet that many of them will liberally construe their authority to do so. However, instead of a small town trying to collect from a large company that has lawyers and resources to defend themselves, you would have the federal government trying to bully a lone boat owner. And the cost of a rescue has to be staggering; it must cost thousands of dollars just to get a rescue boat ten miles from it's homeport. I cannot even imagine the cost of scrambling a helicopter. I just don't think it's fair to try and collect that kind of money from an individual, especially one trying to save their own life.

f you want to change the law to allow us to charge a boater with the crime of recklessly endangering the lives of his potential rescuers, count me in. Fine the hell out of them. Good. Make restitution a part of the sentence. Bully. But first, make the government prove it's case. I am against imposing an impossible to implement or enforce system of inspections; I would rather have us all pay to rescue a few idiots than force one blameless, helpless boater to pay for their own rescue.


----------



## Bleemus

"The RNLI costs £410,000 per day to run and rescues on average 24 people - meaning each person costs £17,000 to rescue.
Now authorities fear the pair could endanger themselves and would be rescuers if they continue their odyssey and have advised them to stop."

About time. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## drakeParagon

*Sir Robin Knox Johnston's take on the situation: "Get the hell out of our waters"*

Rescued transatlantic duo are 'catastrophe waiting to happen' - BBC News


----------



## Bleemus

*Re: Sir Robin Knox Johnston's take on the situation: "Get the hell out of our waters*



drakeParagon said:


> Rescued transatlantic duo are 'catastrophe waiting to happen' - BBC News


Too funny. You must watch the video in the BBC link.


----------



## Maine Sail

DonScribner said:


> Why are they coming to MAINE???? I'll keep an eye out.


Don't Don worry they'll never make it here... I do feel sorry for the 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th rescuers though.

The best they can do is remove them from the vessel on the _next rescue_ and scuttle the boat.


----------



## miatapaul

In the interview they sure did not seem very appreciative of the assistance they received, and it looked as though the boat was not near anything else so they should have just let it burn. Who leaves burning candles on an unattended boat? Heck who lights candles on a boat? I sure hope they give up.


----------



## MarcStAug

Wait til next season; this could be a Mini-series on TV with Robert Redford and Clint Eastwood.


----------



## hellosailor

mstern-
The situation in NH is openly discussed on the web, although I haven't looked for any information on it in at least a year. Their criteria is basically, if a couple of guys grab a case of beer and wander into the wilderness in just their shirtsleeves...they're gonna get a bill when they call. If the same two guys were out camping and a bear tore up their tent and they got lost while running away...they don't get a bill, the bear attack wasn't something you can really plan for. And they provide for due process and an examination of all the facts, not just what someone at a desk arbitrarily decides.
A little web searching, and you'll find their program.

WRT to candles on a boat...please do ask your local fire station or fire service. Folks burn their homes down, burn other peoples' homes down, all year long in every state in the US, from leaving decorative candles burning. Decorative candles, Christmas lights, and plain kitchen cooking fires keep all the men in big trucks busy all year long. The building I lived in almost burned down six or eight years ago, someone one floor down and one unit over ha a skillet fire in their kitchen and it got into the walls of the building and partly past the fire stop in the walls.
Thirty-odd years ago my friend came home from work to find firemen coming out of his apartment. His cat liked to push the buttons on his electric range (it had buttons, not knobs) and the cat turned on a burner under s greasy skillet left over from breakfast. Fortunately, it was a ground floor apartment and someone on the street called in the fire before that building was lost.
Then ask any city dweller how many times they've seen a burned mattress on the sidewalk--after firemen threw it out someone's window, because that was the fastest way to put it out. Smoking cigarettes in bed, and other places.
So the candle screw-up...could have been easily prevented. but that one happens all the time, on land.


----------



## Minnewaska

*Re: Sir Robin Knox Johnston's take on the situation: "Get the hell out of our waters*

Seems they don't know how to tie up a boat either. It's a shame they are identified as Americans, because they're nothing like any sailor that I know.

Judging by the comments in the news articles, there is zero sympathy in Britain for these guys and I don't blame them.


----------



## Minnewaska

mstern said:


> So much to address....
> 
> First, inspections for rallys or racing are a completely different animal.


The race/raly example was provided to refute the point that inspections are impractical. They are not.



> Participants pay fees that directly fund the inspection services.


And this is why they are not. Create the funding source from boat inspections and it will get done. In fact, aren't we looking to create more jobs?



> If I understand you correctly, you are proposing that *anyone at all who wants to be rescued* has to get an inspection of a similar type.


You don't understand me correctly. At the least, you might just want to hear what you want to hear. Pay close attention to the next few words.

Everyone gets rescued, no matter what. (stop, go back and read the last six words).

I said, if you didn't have your vessel inspected and/or pass a basic seamanship exam, you would pay for that rescue. If you did pass these, it's on the house, knock yourself out.

I also offered, as a compromise, that everyone's first rescue is on the house. However, being rescued would be cause to require a vessel inspection and remedial seamanship examination. Fail either of these and all rescues going forward would be at your expense, until you passed.

My compromise would very effectively rescue everyone and keep these "calamity captains" from continually setting off and costing the RNLI supporters all that money.



> Are you envisioning state-based programs, or a federal program?


That's pretty simple. We've been specifically focused on ocean rescues. All water on our shores is federal. They specifically grant rights to it, with limits, back to the States. This could be easily codified.



> Here in Connecticut, everyone who operates a boat over a certain size or horsepower needs a "certficate" (they won't call it a license). Would that suffice for you?


No.

However, I'm willing to bet you that the guys in question in this thread still couldn't pass it. Think about it.



> And what part of your proposal seeks to legislate against stupidity? I think most of it


I thought I stated this already. You can be a stupid as you like under my proposal. What you can't do is head out a second time is a POS unprepared boat and be rescued for free. You can, however, head out as much as you like.



> My experience with emergency responders attempting to charge for their services has not been good. In more than one instance, local first responders sent invoices to my company, seeking to charge us for services provided.


I think we're understanding where your bias against this comes from. You'd be excused during voir dire, wouldn't you?

However, your story reminded me of a good reference. Many years ago, the town our company was in passed an ordinance on burglar/fire alarm responses. Their first couple of response were free, but after that, the next was something like $50, the one after was $100 and it kept going up. They did this because home and business owners had zero incentive to repair faulty equipment that caused repeated false alarms. Fire trucks and police resources were being diverted. The record holder had a false alarm every single day for two months. The fee worked. Essentially the same as I'm proposing, particularly in my "first rescue for free" compromise.



> I would rather have us all pay to rescue a few idiots than force one blameless, helpless boater to pay for their own rescue.


Right........ "have us all pay". That's the point, you're not paying, you're asking everyone to pay. Everyone should decide the fair way to do so.


----------



## caberg

Although it sounds like a great idea to require billing people for their own rescue, it is a problematic policy. It can, and will, cause people in distress to NOT call for help until the situation becomes much more dangerous for BOTH the rescuers and the person in distress. Often, if rescue situations are related to weather, conditions are only deteriorating as time goes by. Also, as the situation becomes more imminent for the person needing rescue -- i.e., they are closer to death -- more resources that will be needed to effect a rescue. A helicopter versus an AMVER ship for an ocean rescue, or snowmobiles for a winter backcountry rescue. I will wager that most rescuers would be against a policy of billing rescuees for these reasons.


----------



## cb32863

They were just on GMA and actually just said about the cost of the rescues "If they aren't out rescuing us, they are out practicing so they might as well practice rescuing us.". They don't see to give a rats ass about the people rescuing them. These guys are a menace.


----------



## Maine Sail

Comment withheld....


----------



## Bleemus

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rbrasi

Omg....


----------



## TomMaine

Anybody know where in Maine, they're from?


----------



## hellosailor

"Although it sounds like a great idea to require billing people for their own rescue, it is a problematic policy. It can, and will, cause people in distress to NOT call for help until the situation becomes much more dangerous for BOTH the rescuers and the person in distress."
That's long been part of the discussion. And part of the answer, from the responders' side, has been the paradigm shift in "rescue" that resulted from the 9/11 cluster*k by the incoming fire departments that responded on their own.
The current training in emergency responders is that you do NOT always have to go out. You measure the situation and the hazards, and then decide IF you are going out. By example, I know someone who was lost at sea, presumably drowned, within eyesight of the NJ shore about a decade ago. When people saw the "uncrewed" boat racing along, they called the USCG and the NJSP, and neither one could respond until the next day because the waters in the inlet were simply too dangerous to pass through.
That's right, they said "We cannot respond at this time, it is too dangerous." You don't risk the lives of four or six responders for one potential victim. You do the cruel math, because if six responders drown, now the victim still drowns and MORE victims frown while six new responders are being trained, which may take years.
The same thing applies in city rescue services. NYC responders are taught to treat every mass casualty incident as a potential terrorist attack, and EMS does not enter a scene until NYPD has secured the scene and confirmed they are reasonably certain there is no "device", no IED, waiting to be set off in the mass of incoming responders. Because standard terror tactics are to detonate one, wait for the medics to arrive, and then detonate a second one to target the medics.

The math of rescue has changed. It may no longer seem as "valorous" as it was, but it is indeed far more logical and a far better use of resources, that allows MORE rescues to be made in the longer picture.

Part of this runs contrary to the "new crowd" in sailing. These days anyone can buy a boat, boat a GPS, have refrigeration (!) and a windlass (WOW!) and take off around the world. And they may have no idea when it is appropriate to call for rescue. "Dear, the soup course is sloshing over the plate, perhaps we should call for evacuation." Uh, no.
If putting up some uncomfortable bars, like "You know, if you call this decision wrong, you may either die or go broke" were to happen, what's the worst thing that would happen? Some deaths, some bankruptcies, some fewer unprepared voyages, and in the long run? It would settle out fairly quickly, all for the better, I think.
There's a lot of room for discretion (in the responses) and for discussion (in advance) but as reach the point where "mayday" buttons are available for anyone, anywhere (including the automatic "I've fallen and can't get up" we may just have to say that simply HAVING the Big Red Button, like having a driver's license, is a revocable privilege, not a right.


----------



## mstern

Minnewaska said:


> The race/raly example was provided to refute the point that inspections are impractical. They are not.
> 
> And this is why they are not. Create the funding source from boat inspections and it will get done. In fact, aren't we looking to create more jobs?
> 
> You don't understand me correctly. At the least, you might just want to hear what you want to hear. Pay close attention to the next few words.
> 
> Everyone gets rescued, no matter what. (stop, go back and read the last six words).
> 
> I said, if you didn't have your vessel inspected and/or pass a basic seamanship exam, you would pay for that rescue. If you did pass these, it's on the house, knock yourself out.
> 
> I also offered, as a compromise, that everyone's first rescue is on the house. However, being rescued would be cause to require a vessel inspection and remedial seamanship examination. Fail either of these and all rescues going forward would be at your expense, until you passed.
> 
> My compromise would very effectively rescue everyone and keep these "calamity captains" from continually setting off and costing the RNLI supporters all that money.
> 
> That's pretty simple. We've been specifically focused on ocean rescues. All water on our shores is federal. They specifically grant rights to it, with limits, back to the States. This could be easily codified.
> 
> No.
> 
> However, I'm willing to bet you that the guys in question in this thread still couldn't pass it. Think about it.
> 
> I thought I stated this already. You can be a stupid as you like under my proposal. What you can't do is head out a second time is a POS unprepared boat and be rescued for free. You can, however, head out as much as you like.
> 
> I think we're understanding where your bias against this comes from. You'd be excused during voir dire, wouldn't you?
> 
> However, your story reminded me of a good reference. Many years ago, the town our company was in passed an ordinance on burglar/fire alarm responses. Their first couple of response were free, but after that, the next was something like $50, the one after was $100 and it kept going up. They did this because home and business owners had zero incentive to repair faulty equipment that caused repeated false alarms. Fire trucks and police resources were being diverted. The record holder had a false alarm every single day for two months. The fee worked. Essentially the same as I'm proposing, particularly in my "first rescue for free" compromise.
> 
> Right........ "have us all pay". That's the point, you're not paying, you're asking everyone to pay. Everyone should decide the fair way to do so.


First, I don't think we disagree on the main point: boaters that recklessly endanger rescue personel should pay the consequences for their actions. While I think your solution (inspections and licensing or pay the actual cost of the rescue operation) may deter people from behaving recklessly, I don't think it is the most efficient or fair way to accomplish that goal. On top of that, I don't think it is implementable in the first place. And, contrary to your belief that I didn't understand or listen to your position on who gets rescued or not, I did in fact, completely understand (although I admit my "everyone who wants to get rescued" was inaccurate; I should have written "rescued for 'free''').

Why I don't think it is possible to inspect everyone:

I don't know where you are, but here in Connecticut, pretty much everyone wants to launch their boat within two or three weeks of each other in the spring. Just in my very local area, that's two yacht clubs and four marinas; probably about 1000 boats. Muliply that by all the yacht clubs and all the marinas where everyone wants the same thing (an inspection) at the same time, and you get an unmanagable number. Even if you were able to develop the only government program that pays for itself (another issue that I don't really want to touch), I don't think you would be able to inspect everyone who wants it within the time they need it. I believe you will inevitably wind up with many people who need rescuing who asked for an inspection but couldn't get one scheduled in time.

At base, I think your solution is really overkill; I don't hear about many rescues where the boaters are as boneheaded as the two seventy year olds that started this thread. In fact, I can only think of two others that have occurred over the past few years that generated this much publicity: those two idiots that left Rhode Island last winter in an old race boat in the middle of a nor'easter on their way to Australia; and that knucklehead that tried to "run" in a big plastic bubble to Bermuda. I just don't think we need a grand, expense federal licensing and inspection program to deal with a few jackasses.

I think it is more fair to recover costs and deter bad actors by either having the government sue them in civil court for costs (where a jury can hear how stupid the boaters were and how dangerous they made it for the rescuers), or by charging them with a crime and fining them or maybe even imprisoning them.

Your example of the police department charging for false burglar alarms addresses the completely different issue of false alarms. If any of those subsequent alarms had been "real", there would be no charge. However, if the police were to follow your program, it wouldn't matter if they really needed the police or fire department; the fact that they sent the alarm in the first place means that they get charged, whether they need emergency services or not. I certainly agree that a boater that transmits a false SOS deserves the maximum punishment allowable, including reimbursement to the government and jail. But that's not what we are discussing.

It is better in my mind to limit the number of those who pay for their own rescues those truly bad actors; any number of much less culpable rescued boaters would inevitably be caught up in the inflexible program you have suggested. As I said before I think it is better that we all pay to rescue some idiots rather than unfairly force even one blameless person to pay for their own rescue. I don't understand your response to this point; we all (through our elected representatives) DO make this decision.


----------



## hellosailor

Anyone in the US ever tied up alongside, and later come back to find out the tidal range left your lines drum tight? Or your boat six feet off the dockside?
I think the Brits are more used to the ocean going away, and the requirement to tie up hard (or use beaching legs) than most of us Colonials are.
Why no one thought to ask for help, or no one lent a hand to ensure the boat was properly tied up...
These guys are working for a reality TV show, aren't they? (sigh)

We should bear in mind, Britain's lifeboat service is a voluntary organization. The USCG is a federal administrative agency, except in time of war when it becomes a military agency. Australia? Volunteers again. 
So to say that all rescue services should adopt a uniform policy is pushing past logic. There's nothing to stop a volunteer agency from taking a vote of the membership and then saying OK, you want us to come out? You'll have to sign over the title to the boat, if we make a profit on the run, you'll get something back."
As opposed to a US administrative agency, subject to Congressional debate and all sorts of issues.
You're on a boat, you're at sea, not at home. Once you leave your home venue, whatever "rescue" you were entitled to, ended when your home waters did.


----------



## Bleemus

TomMaine said:


> Anybody know where in Maine, they're from?


Somewhere far inland it would appear. 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> Although it sounds like a great idea to require billing people for their own rescue, it is a problematic policy. It can, and will, cause people in distress to NOT call for help until the situation becomes much more dangerous for BOTH the rescuers and the person in distress. Often, if rescue situations are related to weather, conditions are only deteriorating as time goes by. Also, as the situation becomes more imminent for the person needing rescue -- i.e., they are closer to death -- more resources that will be needed to effect a rescue. A helicopter versus an AMVER ship for an ocean rescue, or snowmobiles for a winter backcountry rescue. I will wager that most rescuers would be against a policy of billing rescuees for these reasons.


Valid point. So, how do you feel about the first one free, followed by paying, only if you fail to pass or take these inspections/exams? I highly suspect, 99+% of boaters have one or fewer rescues per lifetime. The idea being that we have a program that gets sufficient folks attention that repetitive rescue calls decline, as unnecessary, not just unaffordable. Initial calls would have zero impact on the whole system, it would essentially be just as it is now.

If that still doesn't make sense, what do you suggest is the solution to the crew that started this thread? Based on the comments to the reporting, inside the above links, there is 100% outrage from the public that someone keeps paying to go get these guys.


----------



## caberg

Minnewaska said:


> Valid point. So, how do you feel about the first one free, followed by paying, only if you fail to pass or take these inspections/exams?


Again, it sounds good and seems to make sense, but ultimately any policy that might cause a person in distress to delay making that call, can lead to a worse situation for everyone involved. I don't know the solution, but this is a big concern with the "bill for rescue" policy. I'm an avid backcountry skier and this issue is discuss ad naseum within that circle.



Minnewaska said:


> what do you suggest is the solution to the crew that started this thread? Based on the comments to the reporting, inside the above links, there is 100% outrage from the public that someone keeps paying to go get these guys.


I am definitely not defending the guys in the OP. I believe they are not mentally stable, and it is a very sad situation. I don't have answers. But I would hope they have caring family members who can help them get back to Maine safely.


----------



## miatapaul

Maine Sail said:


> Comment withheld....


Aw come on go ahead and comment! They obviously have no respect for those who are rescuing them. And his comment to about RKJ was very inappropriate, it is not like they fought in WWII, yet acting like they were WWII war heroes. Give me a break, what a way to endear yourselves to the locals. I doubt they will be very helpful from now on.


----------



## rbyham

Caught these two interviewed on GMA this morning. Hilarious couple of old dudes. Can't recall the question but the answer involved the one guy blowing a kiss at the other. It was all invest and cute stiff. Made me laugh. Should they sail her back across? No telling from the interview but it was obvious they are having fun.


----------



## bigdogandy

rbyham said:


> Caught these two interviewed on GMA this morning. Hilarious couple of old dudes. Can't recall the question but the answer involved the one guy blowing a kiss at the other. It was all invest and cute stiff. Made me laugh. Should they sail her back across? No telling from the interview but it was obvious they are having fun.


from watching the GMA interview it's clear the captain is a jackass as well as crazy. The authorities there should impound the boat and send him home on a plane.


----------



## Bleemus

I have no problem with two guys doing a Thelma and Louise but they seem to have a disdain for those that have helped and appear incompetent. I, like Sir Robin, would like them to leave. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## hannah2

Sorry to say in a kind of humerous way that I think this episode is an embarrassment for us American bluewater sailors. Got a feeling we will be the butt end of cruising jokes at anchorages around the world. We have always been respected as good sailors and known for keeping boats in good condition. Maybe now it will no longer be the fun jokes about the French but of two crazy fools from Maine, USA who with the help of brave rescue crews from Europe out lived their 9 rescues. 

Cheers


----------



## Erindipity

Now Nine Times...

"...The fire was thought to have been started by a candle on board the ship, which toppled over after the boat tipped to one side when the tide went out..."

I've kept my big mouth shut, but this is too much. These guys need to be deported from the Isles, and the boat scrapped. (Too bad about that last bit... it looks like it was once a nice boat.)
They are no longer just a hazard to themselves, and to those who have gone out of their way to help them. The remains of burnt Docks litter the shores around here; Fires Aren't Funny. 
Dollars to Doughnuts, Pounds to Pancakes, I'm willing to bet good money that these two idiots aren't carrying _any_ Insurance.
Candles??? I noticed something earlier- The Running Boards don't have any Running Lights mounted. Do they take them below to refill with Kerosine? Or maybe Running Lights just aren't that important to them.

For those here who found these Geezers Cute, or Charming, or Deliciously Kooky, I suggest that you write out a nice fat Check payable to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, that organization run by Volunteers, and that depends on Donations to keep on saving Jingoistic Self-Entitled Ugly Americans like these two:
"Robin Knox-Johnson oughta revisit history and realize that we won the war." These twerps were one year old when WWII ended. Daddy won the War, not them.

Finally, these two will end up being the problem of the United States again, where they are quite free to start out all over, with utterly predictable results.

¬Erindipity


----------



## Minnewaska

caberg said:


> Again, it sounds good and seems to make sense, but ultimately any policy that might cause a person in distress to delay making that call, can lead to a worse situation for everyone involved. I don't know the solution, but this is a big concern with the "bill for rescue" policy. I'm an avid backcountry skier and this issue is discuss ad naseum within that circle.


I hear the concern. Ironically, the USCG would tell you that nearly everyone already waits too long to call them. Their presentation at the last Safety at Sea seminar I took said, "just call". They said most wait until there is no hope and are certain they need rescue. The USCG said, they want to know asap and to not worry about deploying assets. They won't send them until necessary.

The real purpose of my proposal is not to collect fees, but rather prevent repeated, wasteful use of rescue resources. Bluntly, if your boat is as crappy as we assume the one in their thread must be, the owner probably can't afford the fee, after whichever rescue levies it. The boat then becomes impounded.

Here's my updated proposal.

First rescue, in past 12 months is free. Therefore you do reset the clock for completely unrelated incidents.

Following any rescue, the vessel must pay for a safety inspection and is illegal to be on the water, until it passes. Therefore, blow off the inspection or fail to pass it and authorities can fine you and impound the boat before you require rescue.

Therefore, if you sneak away and require a second rescue, you are subject to a fine for sailing a condemned vessel.

What do you think?


----------



## bigdogandy

Minnewaska said:


> .......
> 
> Here's my updated proposal.
> 
> First rescue, in past 12 months is free. Therefore you do reset the clock for completely unrelated incidents.
> 
> Following any rescue, the vessel must pay for a safety inspection and is illegal to be on the water, until it passes. Therefore, blow off the inspection or fail to pass it and authorities can fine you and impound the boat before you require rescue.
> 
> Therefore, if you sneak away and require a second rescue, you are subject to a fine for sailing a condemned vessel.
> 
> What do you think?


I thin that sounds reasonable as it gives a way to address repeat offenders and get them off the water....kind of like taking the licenses away from reckless drivers on the highways.


----------



## miatapaul

Erindipity said:


> Now Nine Times...
> 
> "...The fire was thought to have been started by a candle on board the ship, which toppled over after the boat tipped to one side when the tide went out..."
> 
> I've kept my big mouth shut, but this is too much. These guys need to be deported from the Isles, and the boat scrapped. (Too bad about that last bit... it looks like it was once a nice boat.)
> They are no longer just a hazard to themselves, and to those who have gone out of their way to help them. The remains of burnt Docks litter the shores around here; Fires Aren't Funny.
> Dollars to Doughnuts, Pounds to Pancakes, I'm willing to bet good money that these two idiots aren't carrying _any_ Insurance.
> Candles??? I noticed something earlier- The Running Boards don't have any Running Lights mounted. Do they take them below to refill with Kerosine? Or maybe Running Lights just aren't that important to them.
> 
> For those here who found these Geezers Cute, or Charming, or Deliciously Kooky, I suggest that you write out a nice fat Check payable to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, that organization run by Volunteers, and that depends on Donations to keep on saving Jingoistic Self-Entitled Ugly Americans like these two:
> "Robin Knox-Johnson oughta revisit history and realize that we won the war." These twerps were one year old when WWII ended. Daddy won the War, not them.
> 
> Finally, these two will end up being the problem of the United States again, where they are quite free to start out all over, with utterly predictable results.
> 
> ¬Erindipity


Yea, I thought the WWII comment was very rude. Especially since they did not have anything to do with the war. These guys are out of control.


----------



## mstern

Minnewaska said:


> I hear the concern. Ironically, the USCG would tell you that nearly everyone already waits too long to call them. Their presentation at the last Safety at Sea seminar I took said, "just call". They said most wait until there is no hope and are certain they need rescue. The USCG said, they want to know asap and to not worry about deploying assets. They won't send them until necessary.
> 
> The real purpose of my proposal is not to collect fees, but rather prevent repeated, wasteful use of rescue resources. Bluntly, if your boat is as crappy as we assume the one in their thread must be, the owner probably can't afford the fee, after whichever rescue levies it. The boat then becomes impounded.
> 
> Here's my updated proposal.
> 
> First rescue, in past 12 months is free. Therefore you do reset the clock for completely unrelated incidents.
> 
> Following any rescue, the vessel must pay for a safety inspection and is illegal to be on the water, until it passes. Therefore, blow off the inspection or fail to pass it and authorities can fine you and impound the boat before you require rescue.
> 
> Therefore, if you sneak away and require a second rescue, you are subject to a fine for sailing a condemned vessel.
> 
> What do you think?


If this applies just to rescues relating to the condition of the vessel itself, then I kind of like this idea.


----------



## TQA

I know that the Swiss have been charging for mountain rescues for many years, maybe from the 1930s when the Eiger madness was ongoing.

The Greeks have it sorted


> Calling for assistance
> 
> If the port police become aware that a boat has a problem, either by hearing a radio call for help (especially if you issue a PAN-PAN) or if they see you being towed into port, they are required to log the event and detain the boat until it has been deemed to be seaworthy.
> 
> How a boat is determined to be seaworthy depends on the regulations of the country in which she is registered. The responsibility for determining the seaworthiness of a British registered vessel under 24m LOA rests solely with her crew. It is they, or the vessel's insurers if they are involved, who decide whether any remedial work is necessary to make the vessel seaworthy. Unfortunately, the British embassy in Athens seems not to be aware of this and when the Greek port police ask the embassy for the appropriate British regulations the embassy responds that "the vessel should be certified by a surveyor who would satisfy Lloyds Registry".
> 
> Under Greek regulations only a marine surveyor on the Greek registry is authorised to determine whether a boat in Greek waters is seaworthy. The cost of engaging the services of a Greek registered surveyor can be high, €400 to €700 for a sailing yacht for example (it generally depends on the LOA) yet the actual survey is often perfunctory and casual. It is not unusual for it to take several days before a surveyor is able to visit your boat and they only work normal business hours. You may also be charged for any travelling costs incurred by the surveyor, the cost of any remedial work that is required, and of course for the time the vessel is in the port.
> 
> In addition, under Greek law if someone on board is injured*, and especially if a Mayday or Pan Pan call is made, the port police have a legal obligation to pass on all details to the public prosecutor who will decide whether the captain has been negligent and whether legal proceedings should be brought against him or her. Apparently local Greeks know that they need to be careful when calling for help to avoid this unwelcome problem. The legal process in Greece takes so long that this may occur many years after the event. Keep all paperwork relating to the event for a minimum of 6 years.
> 
> Do not allow yourself to be towed into port unless it's absolutely necessary and be careful how you call for help (a mobile phone may be better than the VHF radio).


While I am generally in favor of the free mountain rescue and free RNLI seaborne services in the UK this pair seem to be excellent reasons to introduce some kind of Swiss / Greek system where bye they pay for what they call out and are inspected before being allowed to proceed.


----------



## Faster

The cavalier attitude was kinda offensive, I thought. Hard to imagine that they would actually ever arrive if they did get too far from land for a rescue team..

This story has actually made it into our local radio/media news. That takes some doing, as a rule, when no one's actually died yet.


----------



## Dancin' Bare

Last night there was a quick TV shot of these guys and their boat. I think they may want to take sailing lessons and certainly rethink their goals. I saw nothing that would convince me that they have any business challenging an ocean regardless of their age.


----------



## John Casey

I don't think they did themselves any favours with quips like, "&#8230;realize that we won the war."


----------



## Bleemus

Dumb and dumber. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cb32863

John Casey said:


> I don't think they did themselves any favours with quips like, "&#8230;realize that we won the war."


Besides, if they are 71 years old, they are too young to have fought in WWII. They would have been born in 1944 +/-.


----------



## kjango

"Calamity Crew": Senior sailors struggling along on Atlantic voyage - CBS News

29 times now


----------



## SaltyMonkey

First call was for a battery issue?
Tipped over and started a fire because the tide went out and they dried?

holy **


----------



## hpeer

Ya know, sometimes when I drive I get around some geezer struggling. They always piss me off. Then I think, in a few years that might be me. God bless 'me, they are doing the best they can.

I wish them well, and good luck.


----------



## Bleemus

They are incompetent and will likely die if they attempt a North Atlantic crossing to Maine in winter. I have done it in August and got the **** beat out of me. The best interview was the BBC. They basically said they were good for the RNLI by providing them training and the the interview got cut short because the stone quay they were tied to crushed their wooden boarding ladder. CRUNCH! Idiots. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## senormechanico

Disgusting in more ways than one...


----------



## miatapaul

hpeer said:


> Ya know, sometimes when I drive I get around some geezer struggling. They always piss me off. Then I think, in a few years that might be me. God bless 'me, they are doing the best they can.
> 
> I wish them well, and good luck.


You know I feel that our elders do deserve respect, when they act as though they have learned from there years. But these guys are acting like a couple of love stuck teenagers. When they made the statement that the ocean is not such a bad place to die, I think it became pretty clear this is a suicide trip. They show no respect for the life saving crew, and actually contempt at the thought that they should be held responsible for there actions.


----------



## John Casey

PBO has an article that has their side of the story: 'Nine' lifeboat rescues is 'grossly exaggerated' says Nora skipper - Practical Boat Owner


----------



## Minnewaska

John Casey said:


> PBO has an article that has their side of the story: 'Nine' lifeboat rescues is 'grossly exaggerated' says Nora skipper - Practical Boat Owner


The more they say, the worse they appear. They are attempting to draw the distinction that being pulled off a sandbar is not a rescue, because their lives were not in danger. They are either intentionally spinning the issue or flatly ignoring the fact that they put themselves on the bar. All nine incidents count, when assessing their qualifications.

I suppose they would argue that they weren't aboard when she caught fire, therefore, it doesn't count? The fact that they improperly tied up for a falling tide and left an unattended candle burning is supposed to be ignored?

To the qualifications issue, they claim they can't depart until wind speeds decline. I haven't looked up these wind speeds in England, but what do they expect to happen over the next month or two in the North Atlantic? I'm convinced they don't have the faculties to process their circumstance.


----------



## hellosailor

It could be worse--at least they weren't wearing Aloha shirts and carrying vintage box Brownies or 110 Instamatics around their necks.

And besides, #9, the candle fire, doesn't count as a rescue. They were both ashore, safely on land off the boat, and weren't being "rescued" at all.

The big question is, did they buy a round at the pub for the lifeboat crews?


----------



## OldEagle

I have watched these videos and heard their self-defenses. While I have held my counsel until now, it's time to say, Nora:

No
Ocean-
Roving
Allowed


----------



## Maine Sail

TomMaine said:


> Anybody know where in Maine, they're from?


I can pretty much guarantee they are not "from Maine".. They are flat-landers at best.......:wink


----------



## sailordanny

Another side of the issue from an experienced sailor

good times?
Brian Hancock gives a slightly different take on the two ‘tards who can’t seem to sail their way straight…

There is a story all over the news about two America sailors who have called rescue services for help nine times in the last seven months. It’s an interesting story and one that at first glance seems to call for some derision toward the two men. But not me. I have a very different opinion, as you might expect.

First let’s look at the business of rescuing sailors. That’s what the rescue services are there for; to rescue sailors in need of help. I remember quite clearly the uproar that went on after the Australian rescue services were called out to haul French solo sailor Isabelle Autissier off her upturned boat deep in the Southern Ocean. The Australian public was up in arms at the expense but were quickly silenced when Isabelle noted politely; “you telling me my life is not worth a million dollars?” How do you put a price on anyone’s life?

I watched an interview with the two men on Good Morning America. Again just the way they looked could lead you to think that they were two hapless men in a leaky boat looking for trouble, but it’s too easy to dismiss them that way. Dig deeper and it’s a much more interesting story. The boat is owned by Steve Shapiro, a retired screenwriter from California. He is sailing with his college friend Bob Weise, an ex-US Army helicopter pilot. The recently found each other through Facebook and decided to embark on this adventure. Without social media it’s likely that their journey and mishaps along the way would have gone unnoticed, but that’s no longer the world we live in.

The pair started their trip in Norway where they encountered their first problem. They then went on to Denmark where they had to call for help to jump-start a dead battery. Same again in Scotland where they had propellor problems and in Ireland where they ran aground. A few days ago they had to call for help again after their boat caught on fire. Yes that’s the story that made the papers but again let’s take a closer look. The two men miscalculated the huge tidal range in England especially with a full moon, and when the tide went out the boat started to list as the docklines tightened up. A candle left burning below then tipped onto some clothing causing a small fire. Nothing really serious when you dig into it.

So let’s take all of this in context. Most of the people snickering at the two men have probably not undertaken such a trip in their lifetime. If they had they would know that things happen especially on an old wooden boat. I have been sailing for 40 years and have managed to hit a reef, run aground and get a jump start from a passing Chinese freighter in the middle of the Atlantic. Do enough miles and sooner or later you will need help. These are two men in their early 70’s that decided to do something fun with their lives. Most of their contemporaries are spending their afternoons watching Judge Judy reruns. As Shapiro pointed out. “I bought a sailboat in Norway and the best way to get it to the US is to sail it and that’s all we are doing.” He’s right and I think we need more people like him and Weise and Isabelle Autissier. We need more people to push the boundaries and less people to park off on the couch each afternoon.

A civilized society sets up safety nets in the event people fail. Take a look around you. There are safety nets everywhere from drug rehab clinics to suicide hotlines. Humans are human; we all fail sometimes so be careful when you snicker into your hand about the two geezers needing help. These two geezers are at least living full lives and as pointed out on GMA, “if the rescue services are not out looking for us they would be out practicing and we gave them some good practice.”

Here is a link to the GMA interview and here is a link to a grumpy Robin Knox-Johnston talking about the two men.


----------



## Bleemus

I worked with Brian at Doyle so many years ago if it is the same Brian Hancock. A talented sailor. I still disagree with him though. It is the responsibility of the mariner to prepare himself and his vessel. These two have done neither and casually dismiss their burden on hardworking rescue crews. If you are not competent you make sure someone who is is on the boat. Do we all make mistakes? Of course we do. Brian claims to have required assistance on a few occasions. Knowing Brian's ability I can assure you he didn't require assistance 9 times in five months. Big difference. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnewaska

sailordanny said:


> Brian Hancock gives a slightly different take on the two 'tards who can't seem to sail their way straight&#8230;


I know this was a repost of someone else, but it's ridiculously flawed.



> Without social media it's likely that their journey and mishaps along the way would have gone unnoticed, but that's no longer the world we live in.


Whether we know or not, is beside the point. No one should have to come to their aid this many times.



> The two men miscalculated the huge tidal range in England especially with a full moon, and when the tide went out the boat started to list as the docklines tightened up. A candle left burning below then tipped onto some clothing causing a small fire. Nothing really serious when you dig into it.


It's not the amount of damage that's relevant, it's the carelessness and ineptitude.



> So let's take all of this in context. Most of the people snickering at the two men have probably not undertaken such a trip in their lifetime.


Let's focus on what "such a trip" actually is. A northern Atlantic crossing in the height of winter. Seriously? You're only right about this much, most probably wouldn't undertake such a stupid thing.

The fact that they would even contemplate a winter crossing is about all the evidence one needs to prove their incompetence (I mean that as a legal definition, not seamanship).



> If they had they would know that things happen especially on an old wooden boat.


Wooden boats are to blame for running aground, dead batteries, running over fishing lines and being tied up incorrectly?



> A civilized society sets up safety nets in the event people fail.


That's right, but not endlessly. You are grounded after proving you aren't capable.



> "if the rescue services are not out looking for us they would be out practicing and we gave them some good practice."


They also criticized the Brits for having lost the war. I seriously worry there is mental disease at play here. That would be tragic, if their "rights" are defended and they kill themselves.


----------



## hannah2

Shapiro pointed out." I bought a sailboat in Norway and the best way of getting it home to the USA is to sail it and that's what we are doing."

Brian Hancock says, " He's right and I think we need more people like him and Weise and Isabella Autissier. We need more people to push the boundaries and less people to park off on the couch each afternoon.

Ya right Brian. For one Isabella Autissier had a boat that was in total shipshape condition for the extremes of the southern ocean and she spent most of her life sailing hard and the last two years before setting out for the southern ocean practicing 8 hours a day in all weather conditions single handed. Sometimes leaving at mid night in 40 knots sailing some 50 miles out to the shipping lanes off the Bay of Biscay and back to port, winter, summer and fall. 

If you want look up Brian Hancocks blog page the guy supports all these folks that decide to paddle board around the world or kyak around the world. 

As far as these two jokers I don't think any of us know weather they were going to sail the route back to Maine by the way of below 20 degrees North or go strait across above 45 degrees north. The 45 degree route east to west in summer is a great challenge let alone winter. As dumb as these guys are I can't imagine they were or are going to try that route.

A guy I weather route boats out of Falmouth, England on occasion with ran into these two dudes in northern Ireland as they were being assisted. Then two days later in Scotland with their boat on a mooring outside the Crinan Canal with bow sprint snapped in two in an onshore gale. He said they were just sitting there when 50 meters away was the canal basin and totally sheltered place to stay in a storm. 

These two guys have no clue at all.


----------



## Minnewaska

hannah2 said:


> As far as these two jokers I don't think any of us know weather they were going to sail the route back to Maine by the way of below 20 degrees North or go strait across above 45 degrees north. The 45 degree route east to west in summer is a great challenge let alone winter. As dumb as these guys are I can't imagine they were or are going to try that route.


I'm not sure if they are dumb or perhaps mentally incapacitated in some way. If their plan was to sail to Maine via 20N (i.e. the Caribbean), I would have expected their interim destination to be identified. I just don't think they are fully aware of what they are doing.


----------



## miatapaul

Well it looks as though these Bozo's trip is over. They have sold there boat and went home. I guess there romantic plans for a cruise across the Atlantic is over.

Multiple-rescue yacht Nora has been sold - Practical Boat Owner


----------



## mstern

I would be interested to know why they decided to abandon their plans. The owner was pretty adamant that he was acting reasonably. I wonder if the public bashing took it's toll, or if he actually changed his mind.


----------



## hellosailor

Admit it guys. You're just jealous because no one has optioned YOUR movie rights for your own adventures.

You know, we really need a forum section dedicated to that kind of activity. A place where all the competing studios could come to be pitched.

Meanwhile, the creative genius who was going to roll a large "bubble" from Florida to Bermuda in 2014 before that nasty USCG snatched him out of the water, is at it again. I heard he was camping on the beach next to his new improved bubble (complete with water maker!) debating how and whether to go, now that the USCG has said hell no, they're going to stop this one without having to burn any fuel.


----------



## PNWHunter40

I just don't how he could overcome the windage of that huge thing.....I feel the difference between a kayak and a stand up paddle board.


----------



## jephotog

capttb said:


> They need a vessel assist Gold Membership.


Yes we are trouble. Currently in Norway, can you tow us back to my slip in Chesapeake Bay?


----------

