I've heard of a boy in a bubble....

[thataway]

Nothing wrong with adventure. I am guilty of that. But this guy is a bit beyond that.

In 2014, after two days at sea with little more than protein bars and bottled water, a Coast Guard cutter located Baluchi. Disoriented, he was making little progress and asked fishermen and boaters for directions to Bermuda.

Despite repeated warnings about possible dangers, he told a Coast Guard captain in 2014 he was not about to give up.

"I think you're going to have a very hard time punching through the Gulf Stream and heading east to make Bermuda," the captain warned Baluchi.

Baluchi responded that he had been practicing two years for the journey.

"So you are declining to stop your voyage at this time and embark the Coast Guard cutter?" the captain asked.

"I am continuing to go," Baluchi said.

But Baluchi's locator beacon was activated, prompting a Coast Guard rescue operation. He was plucked from his bubble and brought ashore.

Baluchi said in 2014 that he never needed to be rescued and the beacon went off by accident. He was treated and released.

There is adventure, innovation and then insanity. This bubble is at the whims of the Gulf Stream and wind. I doubt that he can make headway into significant wind. Having a few protein bars and some bottled water...is a death sentence. I have sailed from Florida to Bermuda (pre-electronic charts and chart plotters), and the approach is not easy. The entrance to any of Bermuda harbors is difficult and of reefs abound to pound the bubble to pieces, assuming he can find Bermuda, get past reefs and navigate into the passage. EPIRB's don't go off accidentally. He was asking directions to Bermuda!?

What the CG is doing at this point is saving themselves a SAR expedition where service members lives may be put at risk.

It brings to mind a vessel which was rescued no more than 4 times a few years ago--the vessel and crew were not suited to the voyage which they undertook--they did not understand the weather, the vessel was in poor condition and their skills were lacking. At least one of the rescues put the CG personal at risk.

 

[Will-C]

I don't think anyone who posted and what I believed was jokingly making light of the bubble guy really wanted the guy to just die. I think anyone of us coming upon this guy would have helped him. That's the great part about the forum we sometimes poke a little fun and have different view points. It's my opinion some might have taken some of the comments a little to seriously. I really don't think anyone meant any harm to the bubble guy or seriously wanted him to be just left out there to die.
D.D.

 

[rogerbum]

The guy trying to do this is an "interesting" character. He seems to have some good motivations and he did plan on catching fish for much of his food along the way. Here's his (self-promoting) web site and a separate link to the Wikipedia article about him.

To me, the coast guard did the exact right thing by laying out the conditions under which they would allow him to go (e.g. with a support boat present for the journey) and then stopping him from proceeding while it was still relatively cheap and easy to do so. Reza should attempt to do some fund raising to cover the cost of the support boat. I'm sure there are some who would be willing to contribute or even provide support from their own vessel. If he had done that and filed a sensible plan with the coast guard, they would have let him go. Absent that, they stopped his journey ("forced rescue on him") prior to having to do so at much greater expense and potential risk to SAR.

 

[hardee]

I like the "prepaid Rescue insurance" plan. Maybe even a partial (80%) refund if no rescue is needed. I'm not for sending, or letting him just go out and die - akin to "suicide by cop" but I agree that common sense should prevail. Yes there are outlyers and adventurers. Some in our day, and I agree with Jay and Casey. Some of us are doing adventures now that others wouldn't or couldn't do, maybe because of a lack of ability to foresee and plan well. For some folks, just going out in a 22 ft boat into salt water is an inconceivable adventure.

I also agree with Bob, in that that vessel is incapable of making way into a reasonably predicted headwind or withstanding any serious rough beaching. And the goofball inside was not prepared for more that an afternoon ride not an epic journey.

I have spent all my life in medical work, ER, EMS, and volunteer SAR for 10 years and more recently volunteer escort service with my C-Dory. There are times and places were conditions are not conducive to having a positive result and that rescue will turn into a recovery. I have never been in a situation were we were told we had to go. Every person on the team was there by choice, and stayed or left by choice. And one of the first classes I took in the field was one that promoted making safe choices -- the first one. If I risk my life on this one and loose, I won't be here to rescue anyone else later down the road.

Double check, Everything twice, and double assess the situation, conditions and resources. Then decide.

There are cases where folks have been charged for starting a wildland fire. Should be no difference when causing a SAR deployment for not being prepared. Yes there can be "accidents". There is a difference between between a hiker getting it by a rock slide and a boater driving a vessel onto a charted rock and then calling for help.

This year I am taking a PLB. I am still planning well, carrying survival gear and spare parts, plugs and food, a water filter and a spare VHF.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

 

[Casey]

I'm delighted our discussion, although still serious, seems to have taken a somewhat lighter tone.

Harvey ... With your recent experience as an escort vessel when can we expect to hear that you've signed-on as Bubble Boy's escort vessel?
(Harvey's Note to Self: Install Much larger fuel tanks beforehand, it's a long way to Bermuda!)

RE the "forced rescue on him" issue. I vaguely recall the term "terminate the voyage" from the USCG Boarding Officer School I attended in the early 70's. At that time we were taught that based on the safety/seriousness of an incident we had the legal authority to "terminate the voyage" of the vessel. Don't know if that power still exists.

Hmmm ... makes me wonder if he began his Adventure outside the USCG's jurisdiction (territorial sea, 200nm, whatever) would he be able to proceed on his own w/o the USCG becoming involved?

Interesting discussion...God I love C-Brats!!

Best,
C&M

 

[thataway]

Roger, thanks for the links. They encouraged me to take another look at this guy--and my opinion remains the same--he is nuts. The rescue cost the tax payers over $144,000. He had been given a mandate by the CG that he was not to undertake another voyage, without certain stipulations. He did not fulfill those stipulations, and started off again anyway. He failed (wind blew him back to the beach earlier) this last week. The CG spotted him (not hard to do--how many are running bubbles?), and intersected his course, and he voluntarily terminated the "voyage".

According to the web site, he actually plans to go to Bermuda, then directly to Puerto Rico, returning to Florida, via Cuba in his bubble. Unfortunately he has not studied the prevailing winds and currents... On our trip to Bermuda we left Datona on 5/1/84 at 10 am,and arrived Bermuda @ 5:42 AM on 5/7/84. We had winds up to 45 knots on the beam on this leg. This would have carried him out to sea, where he would have perished, if he had those conditions.

Apparently he took the bubble from Newport Beach CA- to Catalina in 22 hours--33 miles,(about 1.5 mph) He lost 15 #! (Sweat, and catabolic body weight loss). I am suspicious that he had either a very unusually calm day, or wind out of the opposite direction than the normal pattern. The normal wind pattern would have been impossible for him to make headway for at least 10 hours.

The web site says that "Carefree boats" are providing a support boat--none was apparent when the CG stopped him. He has his extra supplies tied in sections of motor cycle tubes along the outside periphery of the frame of the bubble. He claims to be an "expert fisherman"--and will eat fish. I see a number of problems with that, including hooks, and fish spines into the 3mm plastic... that is if he is able to catch fish.

There is the hyperbola about the Bermuda Triangle being the "most dangerous place on Earth". The web site brags about his participation in the Badwater 135 race (Death Valley to Whitney Portal). I found the web site blog written by his support crew. He did not do well in the race--but finished it--would not have but for his support team (not his own skills)

Hopefully he will confine his adventures to running on terra firma! Live to run another day.

 

[Hunkydory]

It seems to me that this guy didn't want assistance and the USCG didn't allow him to proceed. That puts him right in the category of HunkyDory, where he ventured and did not expect or wish for rescue. Rescue was inflicted upon him.

Not quite so. I've never said, I would ever refuse being rescued or not want to be if truly needed & if needed extremely glad to see the SAR or someone else arrive, as I do know it could be needed, even if Its not involved in my planning, because bad things can happen to even the most prepared & resourceful. So, I do my best to make this a very unlikely event & so far with most of my life involved in frequent risky endeavors, I've never needed the assistance of anyone else, but I have been on the other side as a fireman & deputy sheriff or just in the right place for others having need of assistance when out on my own endeavor.

From Bob's comment it doesn't appear this was a forced rescue, but on the thought of being forced into one, I feel "a on the other hand is warranted" to to my previous statement above. The forced rescue thing in a nut shell is what I see wrong with our advance to government identities being our nannies. When laws are make that compel the government to look out for our welfare, more are immediately added to limit the cost of doing so by restricting our personnel choices of which results may add to the bill. Many are fine with this loss of individual freedom, but personally, I'd prefer much fewer safety nets made up by all the government bodies if their existence takes away the right of self determination of risks assumed for any endeavor, one might want to do, that doesn't harm anyone other then the one assuming the risk, no matter how extreme or crazy it would appear to others. It's very likely that my thoughts on this are in the minority as is what, I feel should be the most important individual right of all & that is our personal choice of how & when we choose to die, without the interference of religious or other beliefs from anyone else