Sailing from Nantucket to Australia

[Jim Walsh]

It is fools like these guys who will make inspection requirements mandatory for the rest of us. Having some slight deficiencies and assuming the risk is one thing but these guys were way over the line, Steve.

I agree completely, what they did amounted to a stunt.

[hilbert]

I believe the McGlashans daft to set sail this time of year, but I would not describe it as a stunt. They put their property and lives on the line. It seems likely they believed that they were prepared.
I also believe that Raven is a sound boat with a competent skipper. The poor choices of a few are not a justification for government overreach.

"In a Democracy, The People Get the Government They Deserve." Alexis de Toqueville

[Steve Laume]

I don't think it was a stunt either. Stunts are what Evil Knievel and Houdini did. They were well planed with a reasonable chance of success. Not always but most of the time. They were also professionals who knew the risks, accepted them and had something to gain in doing what they did. They provided their own safety nets, and didn't count on others to bail them out.

They might have been crazy but were not fools, Steve.

[John Danicic]

Freedom is messy, but careful what you wish for.

New Zealand recreational boats, yachts and pleasure craft going overseas must be inspected before they leave. This is commonly referred to as a Category 1 inspection. The main purpose of the safety inspection is to ensure those departing are as safe as possible, and that they can get help if anything goes seriously wrong. The vessel must be out of the water for inspection. The design and construction must be suitable for the voyage, the safety and communication equipment is inspected, and the skipper and crew must be capable of undertaking the proposed voyage safely.

Under this bureaucracy, Raven may not have been permitted to sail single handed to Bermuda.

If I remember correctly, the New Zealand government inspects pleasure boats leaving their island paradise closely, requiring all sorts of safety equipment and vessel condition standards. This, in my opinion, is an example of government being responsible, although it does come off as heavy-handed to some.

The unstated purpose of the inspections is to lower the odds of the NZ taxpayers springing for an expensive rescue in the vast South Pacific. Oh, and also attempting to keep the vessel's occupants safe.

Sure, it is annoying to have to follow regulations that you think excessive. But the alternative is a heavy fine and banishment forever from their island paradise. Too bad the NZ government is too cheap to go out and rescue every bum sailer out there. In the case of the above Nantucket to Australia craft, the US government could learn from their example.

Maybe a better solution to this heavy hand -- although a rather cold-hearted one -- is a "No Rescue Policy." Fine, leave port without an inspection, but don't expect to be rescued. No wet high-fives in a "government helicopter" after a bunch of 20-somethings risk their lives to rescue your sorry ass. You're on your own, matey. I do imagine that was the way it was in the days of our founding father's so why not do it now?

A No Rescue Policy (NRP), would allow the truly adventurous to test the bounds of danger. With a "NRP," one could experience the feeling of true independence and self-determination. You would really be alone and totally on your own and would be able to show your competent resourcefulness by staying alive. It would be the ultimate thrill. No need for stinking government telling you to patch the hole in your hull, or worry that the weather and your skills are heading south. True freedom to die or live. I am sure everyone at the bar will agree to that sentiment.

Sure, if you wanted to play by the rules and protect yourself, you could submit to the government inspections, pay your inspection/rescue fee and be issued an EPIRB transmitting a code indicating that all is up to date. By setting it off, the CG would know, "Yep, he paid his fee and followed the rules so society should send help." Look at it as a form of insurance with another pair of eyes looking at your boat's condition and equipage and passing judgement as to your fitness. Then, after you corrected all to government satisfaction, the sea gods still go against you, well….you'll be rescued and will be be able to go on with your lives as before having some good stories to tell at the clubhouse to boot. Too bad about losing the boat, but your private insurance will get you another. Money saves lives and and replaces property. Imagine that?

But the ones opting for the NRP! If they survived a wreck, think of the stories they could tell. The two months working on the fishing boat that picked them up after foundering in the North Atlantic. Being ignored by ship after ship while on a raft because the crew didn't see them. Finally drifting ashore on a desert island and spending the next few years eking out a living on clams and grubs. I tell you, books are written about tales like that. Then of course, you could simply and anonymously slip beneath the waves ala Joshua Slocum, having your own private moment with what will eventually happen to all of us anyways. No nursing home and hospice experience or long drawn out "courageous battle" with some-such thing. And no vessel to pass on to fighting heirs.

But alas, there is little chance of a "No Rescue Policy" ever being enacted, at least in the first world. We are doomed to either curse a meddling government and their rules and inspections or curse a government that spends our tax money to save those whom we, the careful, deem idiots. Joshua Slocum lived in a time when there was true freedom; we just live and curse in our own time.

[Paul D.]

It has an acronym now! That's progress.

Didn't Jim Morrison say, "True sailing is dead."? I disagree every time I'm going 6 knots on a close reach and all is right with the world. But maybe the reality of adventure has changed.

It is true New Zealand has a Category 1 inspection requirement.

http://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/yach ... 0FINAL.pdf

I spent six weeks in Aukland getting a homebuilt, wooden Atkins Ingrid up to that standard 25 years ago. It was a challenging but rather pleasurable experience learning what was important for the boat to be considered "Government Safe". We still had real challenges crossing to New Caledonia and then Australia - and made many mistakes. But I still look at Femme with a critical eye from lessons that I learned during that time. When I actually take her offshore, I will revisit their Category 1 requirements as a guideline for a well found ship. And hopefully avoid ever being discussed in this manner by members of the CD Board!

[Steve Laume]

Paul, thank you so much for posting the link to the NZ safety inspections. This is the most clear and concise list of requirements and recommendations I have seen for the preparation for an offshore passage. Our boats are very well suited if properly maintained. The equipment list is what I paid the most attention to and I made notes regarding areas that I might be able to improve upon. The one thing that seemed absent was any recommendation for cold weather survival suits. They seemed to place a great deal of importance in having the vessel's name on floating gear. That is sort of ominous but I suppose it would rule out false alarms if gear was found and it could be confirmed that the vessel or her crew was not in danger.

We should all learn from our mistakes but it is far better to learn from some else's. This incident and the discussion could help in preventing the need for another rescue and the accompanying loses. If everyone prepared to meet the NZ standards there would be fewer rescues and no need to create requirements here in the USA.

It is great to be lucky but better to be prepared, Steve.

[Jim Walsh]

We should all learn from our mistakes but it is far better to learn from some else's.

Amen