Most of the places I hike don’t have cell phone reception and I seem to get along just fine. I also carry emergency gear and have fairly extensive first aid training. Yes, there are risks in going out into the wilderness, and there are rewards. We all make our own call about where our comfort line is.
36 footer sailboat is very small. I wouldn’t take anyone who couldn’t swim on a cross-sea voyage. Especially my own kids. I know how to sail and handle rough weather, but with a 1 and 3 year-old. No way.
And of course, before I go out I make sure that there’s a good chance my cell phone has reception. If it doesn’t, I make sure I stay on major trails so that someone will hear my screams. Because I don’t trust myself to be able to hobble miles on a injured limb. And if I’m out on a boat, I don’t trust myself to be able to swim a mile to the nearest shore.
There are rewards to taking risks and being adventurous. But there’s being brave and there’s being foolish. I’ve experienced too many sun-burned days being stranded out in the middle of the Everglades on a broken-down airboat to be careless about communcation technologies. I’ve also heard too many horror stories. Maybe it takes first-hand experience dealing with the “worst case scenario” to make the risk less abstract.
Or “a three hour cruise”.
Yep. That’s a small boat for ocean sailing. And with two little kids, not one, you more than double the chances of trouble.
I bushwack, travel off trail, in remote areas where I wouldn’t expect anyone coming by to hear me yell. I go solo often but also modify my plans when solo to avoid some of the riskier terrain. I did this before cell phones - their existence doesn’t really change my risk/reward calculations.
I agree, but no two people seem to agree on the line between brave and foolish. I would never BASE jump, but I have no problems skiing off a (moderate) drop in the remote backcountry. Other friends do cliff drops and are willing to ski in terrain when the avy report lists conditions as Moderate or higher.
There was a long thread about a teenager who is the youngest person to climb Everest. Many on the thread called it child endangerment, some thought it was a reasonable risk for a motivated and well trained young climber. This situation is trickier since the child in question is an infant and has no say in the matter. Still, my default position is that parents make lots of choices about their kids and I’m very leery to charge someone with endangerment without a bright line being crossed. IMO, this situation doesn’t cross that line - but I’m not very knowledgeable about sailing so I don’t know if my opinion is fully informed.
The difference being that while the Navy will do that, that’s not what it’s there for. This is an expensive distraction from its real mission, you know, national defense?
There’s a big difference between one big thing going wrong, and a whole string of things going wrong. Yes, shit can happen, even to the most well-prepared. But as Auric Goldfinger said, three times is enemy action. And sometimes you’re your own worst enemy.
Personally, I’d bet the navy guys thought it was kind of a cool mission to go find this boat, transfer the kid, and haul the kid back to port.
Oh, and they needed to practice their sailing skills by actually having to use the boats sail since it looks like the motor was down.
Probably the most exciting thing they have gotten to do in years.
Because if this family had foundered just out of sight of land, they could have probably managed to save themselves, assuming life jackets for all, even if they can’t grab anything else as the boat sinks. One parent stays with the kids, the one that’s the stronger swimmer strikes out for shore to summon help.
Try doing that 900 miles from land in the middle of the eastern Pacific.
Well hell, it’s always enjoyable when you get to do something that’s more fun than your ‘real’ job is, while you’re on the job. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s taking you away from the work you’re really there to do.
Yeah, actually, sea rescues ARE part of the Navy’s mission. On a certain level it doesn’t really matter if the rescuees are military or civilian, the Navy has trained rescue crews to haul people in distress out of the water. If they weren’t asked to do an actual rescue they’d still be paid to sit there or train or whatever it is they do the rest of the time.
The Navy spokeson on TV today said that as far as the Navy’s concerned as citizens and taxpayers they’ve already paid in advance and don’t owe the government anything for the rescue.
What, are you saying they Navy should have just ignored the distress call and sailed on by? Taking care of US citizens in distress is somehow not part of national defense? What about all those humanitarian missions the US military has been sent on over the years?
Apparently, the boat was done for by the time the Navy showed up, again, their spokesman said they saw it sink even as they sailed away. Makes me wonder if those folks got caught in a storm or something.
Navy rescue teams are there to rescue people. That’s what they did.
I remember visiting the local children’s museum’s boat display and having to grab diapers hand over hand while my kids ran over that boat. But doing that and sailing, on the ocean? Seems like there would have to be a lot of… restraining… involved.
- What % of the folks you personally know?
** How long would you last in the water off San Francisco in normal clothes & a life jacket? In early spring off the coast of Maine?
It is good to know that you would not go out there because of what you believe are the odds & knowing your own limitations.
And another point for those expressing opinions based on ignorance of facts: Size does not make a vessel seaworthy; think Titanic.
Sailboats in the 28 to 32 foot range are very common among blue water cruisers because they are so much less expensive to maintain than boats above about 35 feet. For instance, a winch for a 30 foot boat might cost $100 and a winch for a 40 foot boat might cost $400; everything needs to be much bigger and much stronger on a bigger boat.
As for why a sailboat? Sailboat fuel is very inexpensive.
Bawahahahaha, Perzactly… 
One of the more interesting folk in my current area is an adult offspring of Spike Africa, president of the Pacific Ocean; he might have hit dry land occasionally but was pretty much raised on boats. This is Wooden Boat country, (and yes, the husband built a 34 :ft LOA Garden cutter, launched 1992), and there are many children, parents, and grandparents who are sailors. Blue water sailing may be boring but is safer that coastal travel, overall. (Fewer rocks;)). I, myself, get seasick, at the dock, or on a swing. But our local liveaboards raise children on this size vessel, and do it well. Folk I have heard talking are not about blame, but what shit luck this couple had…