30boat
N/A
For being there in the first place?
I feel for them but were they?
I feel for them but were they?
The Chandlers,were they irresponsible?
- Thread starter 30boat
- Start date
Krusty
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, or Perhaps Not:
It depends on which 'norms' of responsibility you subscribe to.
They are intelligent, self-sufficient adults capable of researching the background to their intended adventure, assessing the extent of the precautions they needed to take, preparing for the eventualities they could forsee or imagine, etc.
- Just the same as the rest of us who choose to live life rather than lead a cocooned existence.
They got it wrong and they face the consequences of the risk they took.
In exactly the same way as a mountaineer faces the consequences of a wrong risk-assessment of avalanche or rock-fall (I've done both, and lived).
- Or the chance of arriving off a rugged but navigable lee-shore in a snowstorm instead of the expected good visibility: done that too!
In my book, we who voluntarily accept a slight risk, say 200-to-one, of an identified risk going against us should not expect too much from the rest of the world if the one-in-200 happens. It was our choice, and our necks.
This particular hazard the Chandlers faced was of course human, not natural; but so is street mugging, death by someone else's dangerous driving, or a terrorist bomb.
On the one hand we moan about the 'Nanny State' trying to inhibit out natural risk-taking; then like to have a different moan that something dreadful was allowed to happen!
We should all take a great deal more personal responsibility, and bite the lip when we lose out, or have to see others lose out when we cannot realistically help.
Help by paying the ransom demand, and encourage more? Only if we are prepared to have our government announce exclusion-zones for British yachtsmen with the clear declaration that if you enter one of them you forfeit your rights as a British national.
It depends on which 'norms' of responsibility you subscribe to.
They are intelligent, self-sufficient adults capable of researching the background to their intended adventure, assessing the extent of the precautions they needed to take, preparing for the eventualities they could forsee or imagine, etc.
- Just the same as the rest of us who choose to live life rather than lead a cocooned existence.
They got it wrong and they face the consequences of the risk they took.
In exactly the same way as a mountaineer faces the consequences of a wrong risk-assessment of avalanche or rock-fall (I've done both, and lived).
- Or the chance of arriving off a rugged but navigable lee-shore in a snowstorm instead of the expected good visibility: done that too!
In my book, we who voluntarily accept a slight risk, say 200-to-one, of an identified risk going against us should not expect too much from the rest of the world if the one-in-200 happens. It was our choice, and our necks.
This particular hazard the Chandlers faced was of course human, not natural; but so is street mugging, death by someone else's dangerous driving, or a terrorist bomb.
On the one hand we moan about the 'Nanny State' trying to inhibit out natural risk-taking; then like to have a different moan that something dreadful was allowed to happen!
We should all take a great deal more personal responsibility, and bite the lip when we lose out, or have to see others lose out when we cannot realistically help.
Help by paying the ransom demand, and encourage more? Only if we are prepared to have our government announce exclusion-zones for British yachtsmen with the clear declaration that if you enter one of them you forfeit your rights as a British national.
Last edited:
LONG_KEELER
Well-Known Member
Just following on from PIOTASKIPPER really.
In fact, the more we evolve and expand our lives , the more unpredictable life becomes. The less certain we are, the higher we have climbed. Personally, I feel that it was ok, and in the end, their experience way prove of great worth.
I think it must be very difficult for their own immediate families than the Chandler's themselves.
In fact, the more we evolve and expand our lives , the more unpredictable life becomes. The less certain we are, the higher we have climbed. Personally, I feel that it was ok, and in the end, their experience way prove of great worth.
I think it must be very difficult for their own immediate families than the Chandler's themselves.
Ludd
Well-Known Member
Can't fault that except for last line ----what rights do we NOW have as a British national?
RichardS
N/A
We chartered a boat in the Seychelles for two weeks from one of the two largest charter companies (they both operate in the Seychelles) about 4 years ago.
We sailed north from Mahe to La Digue and back during the charter which is about 40 nm each way. In the middle of this crossing we were out of sight of land.
I understand that the Chandlers were only about 60nm west of Mahe.
We loved the Seychelles and had always intended to return and, until the Chandler's capture, my wife and I would have not thought twice about any threat from Somalia, 1000 nm away.
The charter companies websites show normal chartering continues in The Seychelles but would I charter there again? Yes, probably but I now concede that there must be a potential risk. Would my wife? No way!!
The Chandlers kept well clear of any perceived trouble spot as it was understood before they were taken. To get some idea of the scale, if these pirates were operating out of Cuba the entire Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico would now be out of bounds!
Richard
We sailed north from Mahe to La Digue and back during the charter which is about 40 nm each way. In the middle of this crossing we were out of sight of land.
I understand that the Chandlers were only about 60nm west of Mahe.
We loved the Seychelles and had always intended to return and, until the Chandler's capture, my wife and I would have not thought twice about any threat from Somalia, 1000 nm away.
The charter companies websites show normal chartering continues in The Seychelles but would I charter there again? Yes, probably but I now concede that there must be a potential risk. Would my wife? No way!!
The Chandlers kept well clear of any perceived trouble spot as it was understood before they were taken. To get some idea of the scale, if these pirates were operating out of Cuba the entire Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico would now be out of bounds!
Richard
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
For many years the high-risk area was the approaches to the Red Sea, particularly close to Socotra. The danger area is now basically anywhere in the western Indian Ocean. There have been pirate attacks all along the African coast. A passage from the Seychelles to Kenya should have been low-risk.
A lot of circumnavigators have chosen to go round the Cape instead of risking the Red Sea but even that route is becoming a potential risk.
There are other areas that are risky e.g. Indonesia and the S American coast E and W of Panama. Should we be saying it is irresponsible to cruise anywhere away from Europe & N America?
A lot of circumnavigators have chosen to go round the Cape instead of risking the Red Sea but even that route is becoming a potential risk.
There are other areas that are risky e.g. Indonesia and the S American coast E and W of Panama. Should we be saying it is irresponsible to cruise anywhere away from Europe & N America?
Rum_Pirate
Well-Known Member
What is the latest news update?
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
from Noonsite....
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
The Chandlers were not the first - the catamaran Serenity was sailing from the Seychelles to Madagascar and was hijacked in the same area the Chandlers were taken - that was in February. Their route up to then obviously had 'pirate-avoidance' in mind as they gave Somalia a very wide berth, so I wouldn't say that sailing there was irresponsible. Both of them being in bed with no-one keeping watch...that's irresponsible.
David_Jersey
Well-Known Member
No. Mainly because I don't think the risk was unreasonably high (even though higher than, say, the Solent) and also that by the nature of the risk they took they would be accepting full responsibility for their actions by sufferring the consequences in the event that the risk crystallised. Which it did.
A
Alcyone
Guest
It's all a question of risk. I really get wound up when asked, by mortgage lenders for example, if I do any dangerous sports such as scuba diving.
For me, rightly or wrongly, I still believe one of the biggest risks we all take statistically, is driving a car on a British road.
No, I don't think they were irresponsible.
For me, rightly or wrongly, I still believe one of the biggest risks we all take statistically, is driving a car on a British road.
No, I don't think they were irresponsible.
Rum_Pirate
Well-Known Member
I would suggest that sailing (cruising) yachts cannot out run a powered pirate vessel even if you saw it a good distance off.
jonic
Well-Known Member
No I don't think they were irresponsible. The perceived risk just off the Seychelles at the time was not high. If you look at their position reporting blog they had already transited the danger area, following the correct advice at the time of staying near Yemen.
I wish them a safe return. They were very unfortunate.
I wish them a safe return. They were very unfortunate.
V1701
Well-Known Member
No...
... I wouldn't call their behaviour irresponsible, they gave Somalia a very wide berth (and I'm surprised that the fact that they did so has been mentioned so little in the discussions on the forums here) and must have thought that they were taking far less of a risk than turned out to be the case. Their experience will now be factored in by anyone considering sailing in that area and factored in to their assessment of the level of risk, which is clearly now much greater.
On a more personal note I travelled in Colombia for 6 months in areas where the British FCO advised against travel to mainly because of risk of kidnapping. I took a risk I deemed acceptable to me & went with the idea in my mind that if I was kidnapped I would state that I had no money, my family had no money & my government would not even speak with let alone pay any ransom to anyone for my release. I still think that ransoms should not be paid but do think the government could and should do something, I have opinions on what that should be but am not going to start making suggestions here. The government's behaviour on this issue is nothing but a disgrace...
... I wouldn't call their behaviour irresponsible, they gave Somalia a very wide berth (and I'm surprised that the fact that they did so has been mentioned so little in the discussions on the forums here) and must have thought that they were taking far less of a risk than turned out to be the case. Their experience will now be factored in by anyone considering sailing in that area and factored in to their assessment of the level of risk, which is clearly now much greater.
On a more personal note I travelled in Colombia for 6 months in areas where the British FCO advised against travel to mainly because of risk of kidnapping. I took a risk I deemed acceptable to me & went with the idea in my mind that if I was kidnapped I would state that I had no money, my family had no money & my government would not even speak with let alone pay any ransom to anyone for my release. I still think that ransoms should not be paid but do think the government could and should do something, I have opinions on what that should be but am not going to start making suggestions here. The government's behaviour on this issue is nothing but a disgrace...
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
I think such questions - and it's a good question - would better be asked (a) of the Chandlers themselves and (b) when they're back home.
ccscott49
Well-Known Member
I wouldnt call their behaviour irresponsible either, they were a long way from somalia!
As an aside, if they know these are pirate mother ships, why dont they just blow the bloody things out of the water! Any "Skiffs" found there also!
An exclusion zone around the islands, say 300nm, and enforce it.
As an aside, if they know these are pirate mother ships, why dont they just blow the bloody things out of the water! Any "Skiffs" found there also!
An exclusion zone around the islands, say 300nm, and enforce it.
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
Not maintaining a lookout is irresponsible. Period. But if they saw the pirates, they could have called for help and evaded for as long as they could.
Bishop Terrorchoke
Well-Known Member
Called for help? There was a ship with a military helicopter, 30mm cannon and 70 marines standing off - who should they have called? It is a fantasy to think that a middle aged couple can do anything at all to evade a bunch of fit young armed thugs with powerful engines.
They were no more irresponsible than most other long-distance cruising couples, they were just unlucky.
BishopT
Last edited:
rivonia
Well-Known Member
They were living there dream. Doing what a lot of us are still doing. Taking calculated risk's. Do I think that they were irresponsible? NO. But they realy should have kept a watch. I wish them safe recovery from the pirates.
Peter
Peter
Cruiser2B
Well-Known Member
Now it's 70 marines, eh? Just a little reality check - the pirates had been aboard Lynn Rival for days before the RFA ship got there. If a military ship or aircraft had gotten to them before it was a hostage situation, they could have engaged the pirates or scared them off. Even if they arrived after the pirates boarded, they might then have had a few days to resolve the situation before the pirates' mothership arrived. Bringing their predicament to the attention of the forces sooner might have gotten an actual warship on scene and may have mobilized the SBS in time to do something. How exactly does age affect their ability to evade? They can still operate a throttle and a tiller can't they? Have you ever tried to get on a moving boat? Especially one that was being actively steered? Powerful engines don't help much there.
Other threads that may be of interest
