Sailor rescued

[MrBurns]

A French round-the-world sailor has been rescued in rough seas after being stranded in the Southern Ocean for three days.-

The cruise ship PV Orion, which was scheduled to visit Macquarie Island as part of an Antarctic expedition, made a 50-hour diversion to come to the Frenchman's aid.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-20/french-sailor-rescued-after-days-adrift-off-tas/4473120

Seems to be something very wrong here, This guy caused a cruise ship to diverted to safe him from himself.

Perhaps a bill for $500,000 might be appropriate but he wouldnt have it would he.

 

[dutchie]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-20/french-sailor-rescued-after-days-adrift-off-tas/4473120

Seems to be something very wrong here, This guy caused a cruise ship to diverted to safe him from himself.

Perhaps a bill for $500,000 might be appropriate but he wouldnt have it would he.

I have often wondered why people who put themselves in these situations are not required to take out insurance policies to pay for any rescues required.

This goes for all adventurers who may need to be rescued at someone else's (taxpayers) expense.

 

[Logique]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-20/french-sailor-rescued-after-days-adrift-off-tas/4473120
Seems to be something very wrong here, This guy caused a cruise ship to diverted to safe him from himself.
Perhaps a bill for $500,000 might be appropriate but he wouldnt have it would he.

Yes I'm wondering who picks up the bill, the taxpayer more than likely. Send him an invoice Aust Govt.

 

[McLovin]

The biggest issue I have with this is that Australia ia a relatively small country whose search and rescue zone encompasses 20% of the Earth's oceans primarily one of the roughest in the world. A few years ago there was a young American who decided it was a smart idea to cross the Southern Ocean in late Autumn. At great expense, the RAN had to go and fish her out.

These guys drop down into the furious fifties and screaming sixties and then expect us to foot the bill.

 

[burglar]

Another good reason to go to the toot before you go out sailing!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-by-mobile-phone-after-falling-overboard.html

 

[Julia]

Would people undertaking such high risk adventure as this even be able to obtain insurance?

Why would the Australian taxpayer be footing the bill for this? MVOrion is, as far as I know, a privately run cruise ship. I suppose there was an air search funded by the Australian government to determine his exact position.

Imo adventure like this should be at the risk of the person engaging in it. If you stuff up, then don't expect others to sort it out for you.

 

[MrBurns]

What irked me a bit was it was reported he was on board enjoying onion soup and lamb shanks with a big grin on his face AFTER A CRUISE SHIP HAD TO DIVERT FOR 50 HOURS to accommodate this "adverturer"

Then the photo at home all smiles and thumbs up.

There might be some international fund that pays for these things but it's grossly unfair to launch a very risky personal advernture and expect "others" to bail you out.

 

[Julia]

The government was also refusing to answer questions on Monday - about the cost of Mr Delord's rescue.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) said it did not comment on the cost of rescues. An AMSA plane identified Mr Delord's position and dropped him provisions.

An AMSA spokeswoman said it was unlikely the cruise ship company would receive compensation for the rescue as the ship was obliged to divert its course under the international Safety of Life at Sea.

Mr Delord was apparently planning on thanking the ship's guests and crew for his rescue on Monday night.

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/nat...ilor-at-sea-20130121-2d35y.html#ixzz2IbuuY84A

So, apparently as I thought, the cruise company will be bearing the cost of the rescue, and presumably the government for the air effort.

How charming of Mr Delord to be planning to thank the ship's guests and crew for his rescue.

 

[Logique]

So, apparently as I thought, the cruise company will be bearing the cost of the rescue, and presumably the government for the air effort...

Yes that was the media last night. The MV Orion cancelled a scheduled visit to Macquarie Island, so the passengers would have a grievance as well. These cruises are big money, once in a lifetime trips.

 

[MrBurns]

Who Pays?

The cost of search and rescue operations in the remote waters of the southern latitudes has triggered periodic debate in countries such as Australia, which along with New Zealand and Chile, are bound by international maritime law to perform rescues in the southern latitudes.

The Vendee Globe, a single-handed race in which some of the world's best sailors shoot around Antarctica in the remote and dangerous Southern Ocean, has had its share of rescues -- some successful, some not.

In 2008, the Australian Navy frigate HMAS Arunta rescued two Vendee Globe competitors -- French yachtsman Yann Elies, who was severely injured, and Britain's Mike Golding, whose boat lost its mast. The Australian media put the cost of picking them from the Southern Ocean at $1 million.

Search and rescue missions are expensive, Pagels said. It costs about $12,000 an hour to operate a C-130 rescue craft and as much as $8,000 an hour to run a Sikorsky helicopter.

In Sunderland's case, the first visual contact was made by a diverted Qantas A330 jet airliner, a case Pagels said "I have never seen in all my years in this business." According to a statement from the airline, Qantas "was approached to make the aircraft available." An airline spokesperson declined to say how much the 13-hour flight cost or who would pick up the tab.

The Australian maritime authority also would not put a price tag on Sunderland's SAR mission but said it would not be seeking compensation for the search, which initially fell just outside the country's jurisdiction. "That's the way the system runs," said Mick Kinley, the acting chief of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. "It's our obligation to do this and we'll fulfill those obligations as Australia does."

http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/06/11/16095/teen-sailors-rescue-raises-safety-expense-issues/

 

[Smurf1976]

Imo adventure like this should be at the risk of the person engaging in it. If you stuff up, then don't expect others to sort it out for you.

Agreed in principle but it ought to apply to far more than just adventure on the seas.

Banks (and other industries) and their bailouts and government guarantees come to mind. If my taxes are being used to provide defacto insurance cover to a profit making enterprise then I see no reason why banks (and others) shouldn't be required to pay for this cover.

Off topic perhaps, but it's the same principle. We've just spent a few $ bailing out a failed adventure but that's a drop in the ocean (if you'll pardon the pun) compared to what we spent bailing out all sorts of failed enterprises, and underwriting others, over the years.

 

[Julia]

Agreed in principle but it ought to apply to far more than just adventure on the seas.

Banks (and other industries) and their bailouts and government guarantees come to mind. If my taxes are being used to provide defacto insurance cover to a profit making enterprise then I see no reason why banks (and others) shouldn't be required to pay for this cover.

The difference is that the sailor alone would be reaping the consequences of his misadventure.
If major banks fail, the ramifications across the population are immense.

Agree, however, that banks et al should have to pay for government guarantees which is exactly what they did during the GFC.

I don't really see how you can compare the two situations.

 

[explod]

The difference is that the sailor alone would be reaping the consequences of his misadventure.
If major banks fail, the ramifications across the population are immense.

Stripping the loss to one unit does not exonerate the idea proffered.

 

[Julia]

Stripping the loss to one unit does not exonerate the idea proffered.

What idea? What are you actually trying to say?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-20/french-sailor-rescued-after-days-adrift-off-tas/4473120

Seems to be something very wrong here, This guy caused a cruise ship to diverted to safe him from himself.

Perhaps a bill for $500,000 might be appropriate but he wouldnt have it would he.

Burnsie, I cannot agree. On a number of points.

1. The search and rescue enables our ADF and Rescue services valuable training with a real live frog. Rather like biology students dissecting same.

2. Many of the people on the cruise ship are Gold Camry owners, people who appear in insurance ads for funeral expenses or rolling their caravans on rural roads. They probably had a ball being "dangerous".

3. It is only money, good on the Lone Sailor for having a go.

4. The Cruise Ship Captain and Company will gain valuable media exposure and advertising.

5. The Grey Nomads who missed out on Macquarie Island deserve to, they could have bought a National Geographic and some acid and had a better trip.

gg