I don’t know whether they did or not, but it seems unlikely that a Navy ship would tow a small disabled vessel. It would likely be further damaged and sink in the process.
It’s clear that the guy never listened to the actual interviews, and repeats a number of the errors or misstatements in the news reports, such as that they subsisted on just oatmeal, rice, and pasta and that they brought food for a year, rather than six months. He also continues the confusion of Kiribati and Kiritimati. It’s not really that good a summary.
It’s actually Tanya Aebi.
Not detailed, but I mentioned up thread that Appel said they had beef jerky (odd for apparent vegans), oatmeal, rice, pasta, and dried fruit and nuts at least. I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt that they had enough food for them and their dogs to ward off starvation for five months. (By the way, the blog author compares the weight of a years worth of food sold by Costco, but that consists largely of canned goods, which they specifically said they did not take.)
If you would read the thread and links more closely you would find these questions have already been answered. Their boat was declared unseaworthy and abandoned, presumably with the communications gear on board. They did not make the claim that the fishing boat had struck their boat until some time after they had been rescued and the boat abandoned. The Ashland had no particular reason to do a forensic examination of the boat, and decided it wasn’t worthwhile trying to tow it back with them.
Her too.
They transmit on a frequency of 406 MHz, which a number of satellites monitor. Surface-based searchers - e.g. a Coast Guard vessel trying to find a beacon that satellites had reported - would also receive those 406 MHz signals.
Many EPIRBs now (of course) include a GPS receiver, so their position can be part of what’s transmitted.
The old versions that transmitted on 121.5 MHz used to be monitored by satellite, but those satellites are no longer functional.
Maybe they were obese at the outset?
i know shit about sailing, but i have a thing for clothes and sharks, and there are MANY dubious eyebrows at the whole ‘shark attack’ thing,
Also one of the women claimed to have lost 70 lbs. i would like to know why she had clothes packed that would fit her so well when she had lost roughly 7 clothes sizes.
To be quite clear, if she was at the weight she was pictured as rescued at (looks like something in the range of 150-200 lbs) that means she started out easily into the solidly XXL category in clothes, and her now M to L frame is perfectly fitted into her clothes in pictures of the rescue. Maybe she borrowed them from the other woman? But if they weren’t short on food til the end, then why would she lose so much weight? Sailing (especially when drifting) isn’t exactly strenuous.
Link? I haven’t seen any statement to that effect, and Googling doesn’t come up with anything.
What about the blogger’s point about having to run the watermaker all day just to keep up with their needs? They don’t look noticeably dehydrated, to be sure. I don’t know how those things work; is it something one sets up and leaves to run on its own, or does the operator have to be continually doing something to keep it producing fresh water?
To me, at least, it isn’t a question whether or not a 50 footer can be single-handed, but whether or not it was their plan to single-hand sail the boat for 1600 miles in open ocean. I don’t believe that was their plan. I’d guess at least a roller-reefing mainsail would be in order (which, according to the photos, they did not have). In addition, if the plan was to single-hand, any sailor with sense enough to inhale would have put in for repairs at first available port, even if it meant turning around. Finally, if that was the plan, the pilot would have made damn sure the radios worked and that she knew how to operate them.
If that wasn’t their plan, then Appel clearly engaged in reckless endangerment.
How much shit was she full of before?
He amended that part yesterday:
Bolding mine.
hmmm, i could swear i saw it in one of the news stories today, but the only place i’m seeing it now is that blogger’s page, so i’ll retract it until/unless i can find a reputable cite. i’d like to think i didn’t see it there, but i can’t be sure. i was tweeting and following lots of links earlier.
Must have eaten her 10 year old child.
I’m sure you meant Stockholm Syndrome.
The reporter says it at about 17 seconds into the video.
Strangely enough, their story seems to have changed:
Los Angeles Times: Lost-at-sea saga marked by inconsistencies, changing stories
Another paragraph down in that article Phil Johnson, a retired Coast Guard officer who was responsible for search and rescue operations had the same thought I did.
So, she’s an idiot. If the story is true, we’ve already pretty much confirmed that.
My guess is that she scrounged a lot of used gear (which might explain why she had radio difficulties).
If she got her hands on an EPIRB of pre-2009 vintage, it would probably signal at 121.5 MHz. EPIRBS send signals to whomever is listening on the EPIRB frequency. It used to be that both civil aviation and satellites monitored 121.5 emergency, but by Feb 2009 the satellites no longer used 121.5 and instead used 406, although civil aircraft still used 121.5 as their emergency frequency. LSL Guy could inform us of the present use of 121.5 (query: do aircraft monitor it globally, or only certain places) – it’s over my head (flying about over my head).
Odds are that whoever sold or gave her a 121.5 MHz EPIRB probably would have pointed out that it would not be heard by satellites, but still could be heard by planes that might be in range. Thus her statement flight paths and her not using her EPIRB.