Search and rescue

[Observer]

While pleased to hear that Louise Sanders (British backpacker lost in Australia) is safe and well, it seems to me that she was reckless (and foolish) in setting out by herself on an expedition without adequate preparation, with the result that an expensive search and rescue operation was launched to find her. I assume that Australian taxpayers will be footing the bill.

Compare with the case(s) of a yacht which sets out on a trans-oceanic passage, whether independently or taking part in an organised race or similar. They may be (to a greater or lesser extent) better prepared and, in the case of an organised event, I imagine have to meet defined safety requirements. Should part of that include a contribution (insurance premium?) to a search and rescue fund?

I'm not suggesting that everyone who gets into trouble should be obliged to meet all the rescue costs incurred, should mischance occur, but I am asking whether it is reasonable to require individuals who undertake potentially dangerous expeditions to make a direct contribution to the costs of providing the search and rescue safety net.

Any views?

 

[jamesjermain]

While I sympathise with you thinking and agree that some people act in a way which invites disaster and thus put rescuers lives at risk, my short answer is: no they shouldn't make an advance contribution.

The slightly longer answer is:

1) How do you define 'potentially dangerous'?
2) What do you do with people who don't pay?
3) Do you differentiate between rescue services which are government run and paid for out of someone's taxes and the RNLI which is self-funding?
4) How much do you pay to make a significant contribution to an operation which might cost millions?
5) How do you assess the cost of such an operation. Afterall, the infrastructure, equipment and wages have to be paid whether the service is active or not - is it just fuel and consumables or the total cost of the service on a 'per day' rate.
6) Most people who are rescued by the RNLI (I'm talking private yachtsmen here) contribute to their rescue either before the event by becoming members or afterwards in terms of a contribution.
7) in many other countries the rescue services do make a charge, particularly if they feel incompetence or recklessness has been a contributory factor, or the call out was unnecessary.
8) In most other respects the rescue services themselves prefer to feel that, like the fire and ambulance services, they are there for the good of mankind and fees are not appropriate.
9) That's what they are there for.

JJ

 

[Twister_Ken]

JJ,

OTOH - when I go skiing I have an insurance policy which will pay if I need to be rescued from the hill. Maybe appropriate insurance should be part of the deal for people putting themselves at risk (on land or at sea) beyond the reach of the 'mainstream' rescue infrastructure.

 

[jamesjermain]

It's an arguable case, Ken. I have put some arguments against, but I can see another side to it.

I have to confess to having an instinctive dislike of anything which wraps sailing up in more rules, regulations, compulsions and expense, and tend to look for reasons 'why not' until a convincing reason 'why' appears. 'Because others do it' doesn't quite do it for me.

JJ

 

[Guest]

Where do our rescue services get their funding from?

I would have thought I've been making some fairly large advance donations to the kitty for the last 33 ish years.

Geoff

 

[tony_brighton]

The Kiwi other skipper of our boat would argue that New Zealand spends a fortune sending frigates out into the ocean (often hundreds of miles) to rescue all sorts of boats, many of whom make no contribution to the cost of their recovery - its picked up by the tax payer. This would seem a little unreasonable to said Kiwi tax payers.

 

[PortsmouthBird]

I think you are getting over excited about this backpacker, she was a beauty therapist that took a wrong turn in the jungle??!! She was far from being on an expedition, more like a little wonder that went wrong!!

Agree that all poeple at sea should have insurance to cover the unlikely event of rescue facilities being deployed, if that was the case may be they wouldn't be so keen to keep trying to relocate our coastguard.

 

[jimi]

In the UK?

 

[Observer]

I'm not saying I have all the answers but I think the question is worth pursuing.

Perhaps in a slightly perverse way, I feel more comfortable about part of my taxes being used to rescue people (despite their own stupidity or recklessness) who did not envisage they were putting themselves in a situation where they might get into trouble than I do about them (the taxes) being used to rescue people who, albeit with thorough preparation, knowingly and with full recognition of the risks being undertaken, engage in activity where there is a significant risk that something may go wrong AND they "expect" that if something does go wrong, they will be bailed out, at no direct cost to themselves, at other people's cost and, often, at the risk of someone else's life.

To answer some of your specific points:

1) I think there is a basis in a posting below - to the effect of putting yourself outside the scope of "mainstream" public services
2) I don't think you can do much about people who won't pay, any more than I (we) can do that much about people who refuse to accept their responsibility to pay their fair share of taxes generally. However, the fact that some people don't pay a contribution doesn't excuse those of us who recognise our responsibilities from doing so.
3) No differentation needed. The RNLI is a magnificent organisation of which I am a member and I would encourage everybody who uses the sea to join.
4) I don't feel the rescuee should pay an indemnity. I do think there is a case for people in the category described in 1 above being required to contribute a flat sum. For an organised event, this could easily be made a condition of entry
5) See above
6) Good for them. In most cases (for most of us), that's all I would think it is reasonable to expect. However, if you're putting yourself outside the mainstream, an additional contribution is, perhaps, called for (where a mechanism exists for the contribution to be made and, if it doesn't, perhaps it should be created)
7) Fair enough. But see my first paragraph above (mixed feelings)
8) Not suggesting a call out charge. But the service still has to be paid for by someone
9) That's a circular argument.

 

[bigmart]

I whole-heartedly agree with your points.

The more sailing, & any other moderately adventurous persuits get bogged down with over regulation of any kind, the less likely it is that, Britain will, produce the kind of leaders & excellent sportsmen that we were once proud of.

These columns are already full of "reasonable people" who seem willing to rush like Lemmings to embrace the legislation, which is stifling, our chosen pastime.

Compulsory Passage Plans, Light Dues & Charges for SAR Helicopters are just the thin edge of a rapidly thickening wedge designed to kill any individuality. Ambulance chasing lawyers are just the final straw.

"Kick em all out" I say

 

[tcm]

Re: going somewhere?

this sounds as though you plan some outlandish and scary trip to recoup the expenditure!! Lets us know your plans eh?

 

[Viking]

Does't NZ have a very strong 'safety' inspection policy on boats leaving their shores, for this reason?

 

[kgi]

But there not alone in sending there ships out, all the navies of the world do it, and if the truth is told the people involved were canvassed they relish the prospect of a live callout and not just "another bloody exercise" so the original complaint is null and void, we are all in the same boat so to speak..........keith

 

[Observer]

I apologise for being reasonable...

but the reason we end up with regulation, which I like no more than you, is that some people - maybe, unfortunately, a significant minority - do not think through, accept and act upon the responsibilities which they owe to others.

 

[nicho]

RNLI

As an off shore member of the RNLI, I have huge regard for their organistion, and hope to never have need of their resources.

Am I not correct in thinking however, that they recently came in for some stick from the Charity Regularity Body for underspending their annual income by an average of £10 million every year? I'm sure that most who are rescued by their services would anyway, make a sizable donation to the cause, but having to repay or all much of the rescue costs would surely be beyond the means of most.

 

[Guest]

Re: going somewhere?

What a great idea!! If I do, I will.

No, I just meant that we to a greater or lesser extent have already made an up front payment via tax and donations. As have say the New Zealanders (post elsewhere). The deal is - we save them if they'll save us. Seems fair and these things have a habit of smoothing themselvses out in the long run.

Geoff

 

[Observer]

Re: RNLI

You may well be right. I haven't seen the comment you refer to. I do vaguely remember reading that the RNLI seeks to have reserves of 2 x annual expenditure, which seems sensible. Whether it should be spending more of its revenue or not is a question I haven't considered.

I do not suggest that rescuees should be required to pay all, a substantial part of, or any particular proportion of their rescue costs. I simply question whether those who take part in dangerous activities (including, but not necessarily limited to, ocean racing), where there is a significant risk that any participant may call upon SAR services, should be asked to make a direct contribution to the SAR safety net, particularly when participating in an organised event. One could apply the principle equally to (for example) mountaineering.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Being reasonable...

...never counts for much on this forum!

~

 

[pugwash]

Ken, surely what you are paying for is quick rescue. If you fall over and break a leg somebody will get you down the mountain somehow, you won't be left, and you will face hospital bills when you get there, but your insurance gives you peace of mind - in effect, a helicopter will appear magically out of the sky and whisk you to a free hospital.

At sea and when hill-walking in UK there is no similar private rescue service like the AA. In effect, it's done free by the services and teams of volunteers, be they RNLI or mountain rescue. We owe it to these volunteers to be responsible for ourselves. But "appropriate insurance" doesn't exist.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Never underestimate greed.

Appropriate insurance may not exist now, but once those avaricious bugg*rs in the Lloyd's Building read this thread...