# Resuming Search!!!!!



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

US Coast Guard resumes search for missing British yacht crew | Fox News


----------



## JonEisberg (Dec 3, 2010)

Slayer said:


> US Coast Guard resumes search for missing British yacht crew | Fox News


You realize it was a 'political' decision to do so, right?

Evans Starzinger puts this in it's proper perspective... Well worth reading:



> the uscg spent 2 days looking, deploying multiple aircraft. We know they were looking in the right place. They "saturated" the search area. And yes, they are using IR in addition to visual. They concluded there was no-one alive.
> 
> They have proven in the past they are more than willing to go to almost any effort to save lives when they think there is a chance. The Bounty case is a good example, where they went out in near hurricane conditions and found one of the crew alone in the water a mile or two from the vessel. If there was new information to check here, or a new position to search, the uscg would be the first to go.
> 
> ...


How ironic, this sort of bowing to public pressure to "Do Something", coming so closely in the wake of the massive public 'outcry' - much of it woefully uninformed, of course - over the cost and risk involved in the REBEL HEART affair...


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

Interesting precedent. I don't know what to think. 

To resume the search suggests at least in terms of perception that they were wrong to call it off in the first place.


----------



## TomMaine (Dec 21, 2010)

That's surprising. I think it was called off too soon(I signed the petition). 

It's a slim-mer chance now, but I think, worth the effort and resources.


----------



## Donna_F (Nov 7, 2005)

chall03 said:


> Interesting precedent. I don't know what to think.
> 
> To resume the search suggests at least in terms of perception that they were wrong to call it off in the first place.


Not necessarily. They may have received additional information.


----------



## fryewe (Dec 4, 2004)

chall03 said:


> Interesting precedent. I don't know what to think.


I think there was a discussion at embassy level. A couple of calls to the "right people" made it happen. Not because there is a chance of rescue but because the "right person" asked.


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

... and what happens should the CG get another request for aid, but all of their assets are tied up, and have expended their fuel on this snipe hunt? I would hate to see the situation where the C130 has to return to base to refuel, so that they can then go look for someone that may benefit from a quick response. 

IMHO the decision to call off a search is a heavy responsibility that the CG commander bears, but once that decision is made, it should be respected. If the Royal Navy or CG would like to take over the search, that is their prerogative.


----------



## souljour2000 (Jul 8, 2008)

I think that especially given the huge range involved in the search...almost 1000 miles off the coast of USA...the Coast guard Commanders decision should have been given more respect....but whatever entities intervened to cause a resume in the search..even if it was the USCG themselves..this...like anything ultimately government-related lately.... is getting out of hand...but since it is back on..I hope they are found...and that all the rescue personnel return safely...like the USCG...the offshore yachting community need some searching in progress..in their souls...
What should be the limit for any rescue service?...250 miles...500 miles...?? If I was ever more than 500 miles offshore in a recreational sailing adventure...and in trouble beyond my ability....I don't know... but I'd be inclined to say I hope I could just quietly kiss my ass goodbye and say a prayer...before I bring a bunch of good men out 1000 miles for more than a couple days searchin for me....just some thoughts...life is precious...but can we really expect this type of rescue for our recreational pursuits?


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

DRFerron said:


> Not necessarily. They may have received additional information.


True.


----------



## GeorgeB (Dec 30, 2004)

With a range of 2,000 NM and deploying from Otis, the search area is at the effective edge of the plane's search radius. Without an EPRIB signal to home in on, blindly searching will be of limited value.


----------



## nwsaildude (May 20, 2012)

> The hull of the missing UK yacht Cheeki Rafiki has been found in the North Atlantic ocean by a US Navy warship, the US Coast Guard has said.
> 
> A surface swimmer identified the name on the back of the boat, but was unable to go inside. The swimmer knocked on the hull but there was no response.
> 
> ...


BBC News - US ship finds hull of missing yacht


----------



## Slayer (Jul 28, 2006)

Terminating search. Sad ending.

US Coast Guard has found hull of Cheeki Rafiki yacht | Mail Online


----------



## killarney_sailor (May 4, 2006)

When you are in the middle of an ocean and have nothing better to do during a watch that starts at 0300 you have lots of time for 'what-if' discussions with yourself (if you are by yourself and having 'what-if' discussions with someone else you know it is time to get more sleep).

Anyway, you think about various scenarios if things go seriously wrong - a major water ingress you can't contain, a big fire, losing the rig if you are in a really remote area and your jury-rig possibilities are limited. When I did this it occurred to me that there are two possibilities
- you are able to contact the outside world to let them know there is a problem. For us this meant the EPIEB, SSB, and Spot. If so, you sit in the remains of your boat or in the raft and think about how good it is to be alive until someone locates you, likely within a day or three
- for whatever reason you are not able to contact shore and are in a disabled boat or raft and must survive until you reach land or are spotted by chance by a ship or plane. In this case you become much more active managers of resources whether we are talking water, food, flares and so on.

In this latter case so much depends on what chunk of ocean you are in. Crossing from Bali to Mauritius we were in a very empty ocean in terms of land and people, but there were a huge number of ships passing by - 5 to 10 or more a day. One of them must be paying enough attention to see a mirror flash, or flare (we have one of those rescue laser flares too). When we went from the Galapagos to Easter to Mangareva (SE French Polynesia) we saw exactly three vessels - a sailboat (we knew he was out there because we talked daily on the SSB), a Chilean navy supply ship at Easter, and a cruise ship of all things. I had pretty much decided that our AIS had quit since we never saw anything on it either.

In all this I never thought about an active search occurring in this second scenario. I thought it would be either we get lucky and are seen or we die. I think that people seem to have the idea that you can head off cruising and there is no real risk that it might kill you. Intellectually we know that driving on the highway or eating too much of the wrong food will kill us and we just come to terms with the risks. We need to do the same thing about extended sailing. Assess the risks, try to reduce them when possible - but ultimately accept that they may kill us.


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

The cause/method of this disaster (long discussion on it over on SA) is easily secondary to this bit from the report:



> RCC Boston calculated the estimated survivability of the crew members based on their average descriptions, assuming that they were dressed in full foul weather sailing gear, immersed to the neck in water and wearing a personal flotation device (PFD). Using these criteria, the estimated functional survivability and survival times were 12.3 hours and 15.5 hours respectively.
> 
> Using similar parameters but assuming that the crew members had been submerged to the waist in water, sitting in a liferaft in heavy weather, produced estimated functional survivability and survival times of 14 hours and 21 hours respectively.
> 
> ...


This is what any and every sailor needs to know.


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

smackdaddy said:


> This is what any and every sailor needs to know.


Smacky, why would the POS for a capsized liferaft be better than for an upright one??


----------



## smackdaddy (Aug 13, 2008)

Classic30 said:


> Smacky, why would the POS for a capsized liferaft be better than for an upright one??


I honestly don't know. But I'll see if I can get an answer from my CG pals.


----------



## chall03 (Oct 14, 2002)

So if your going down..... stay with the hull and turn your liferaft upside down?


----------



## Classic30 (Aug 29, 2007)

chall03 said:


> So if your going down..... stay with the hull and turn your liferaft upside down?


Sounds like the plan..


----------



## MedSailor (Mar 30, 2008)

smackdaddy said:


> The cause/method of this disaster (long discussion on it over on SA) is easily secondary to this bit from the report:
> 
> This is what any and every sailor needs to know.


Staying warm in the raft is not something that gets enough attention IMHO. The gumby survival suits, for example, will help you survive floating as a person in the water, but they're really designed to keep you warm and alive in the raft.

I'm hoping my double floored pudgy, with foam insulation in between the hulls and the ability to keep the floor/boat dry will help in this regard. Well... at least until I get to warmer waters. 

MedSailor


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Maybe time has something to do with the %. By the time the raft is found, it's turned.This assumes that it started out right side up


----------

