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

Dreamer":3hkblm35 said:
I think the "craft" should have been scuttled after the rescue. Some people need to be rescued from themselves!
Click to expand...

That is often SOP in helo rescues, to avoid confusion or duplication of efforts.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

0_CD_Cover_SlpyC_with_Classics_MBSP_2009_288.thumb.jpg
 
The USCG letter says he could get a $40,000 fine and up to 7 years. Why bother. Just let him do his trip and and save the tax payers the dough.

It'll only take once.

Sorry if that seems cruel, but you cannot save everyone from themselves if they choose not to let you.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

0_CD_Cover_SlpyC_with_Classics_MBSP_2009_288.thumb.jpg
 
The USCG does not often save vessels when they are not likely to pose a threat to navigation. I'm surprised they towed this thing back in at all. As pointed out, helo rescues don't even try to save your boat, but rescues from ships don't tend to do that either. I would think this guy would be ready, willing, and able to build himself a new bubble if that happened though.

Some people have a wild hair to do certain things. This guy certainly has one for pushing a bubble to Bermuda for whatever reason. At some point he will either make it or die trying. Let's just hope his insistence doesn't get anyone else killed in the process.

But people doing these ridiculous things and actually pulling them off is where progress comes from. I'm sure the Wright Brothers had a lot of people calling them dumb for continuously crashing different prototype aircraft off the dunes in Kitty Hawk and the rolling hills of Dayton, Ohio, but now that we've been to the moon and back, broken the sound barrier, and make regular trips in packed commercial jetliners, their work seems not only normal and important, but somewhat mundane compared to where we are now.

I'm not saying that Bubble Boy is going to usher in a new era of marine travel or trans-Atlantic passage making, but his breed are the ones who actually stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before, and occasionally make a major breakthrough that changes everything. As something of an adventurer myself, and having had many people scoff at the early stages of ideas that ended up making a lot of sense and working out well, simply because they were a bit out of the box at first glance, I have some sympathy and empathy for this guy, and can understand his obsession, as I, too, become obsessed with ideas and with things I know can be done, but just need to be figured out first with some trial, error and luck.

So give Bubble Boy a bit of a break. In a few years we may all be enjoying the water differently, or maybe have a whole new breed of liferaft, or perhaps have some other capability that we didn't have before the wild hair stretched across Bubble Boy's...
 
The difference as I see it;
1. When the Wright brothers crashed, no one risked anything and no one had to come rescue them
2. When the Wright brothers crashed my tax dollars were not spent to rescue them

This is different. It's reckless, hair-brained and utterly idiotic. I truly believe he is a typical attention you-know-what (rhymes with "bore"). If he wants to make a go of it, what do I care; go to your early demise. I'd have him sign a release freeing the CG, the Federal gov't and Florida from any/all liability.

I feel the same about people that hike up mountains and then others have to risk their lives to save them along with tax funds that could go to other, legitimate rescues etc. See it all the time on Rainier and our SAR people do it nearly daily in the Cascades. I don't have a problem when say, someone gets injured. But you go hike in the woods and are totally NOT prepared to do so, it's on YOU.
 
hardee":2t5ob2rh said:
The USCG letter says he could get a $40,000 fine and up to 7 years. Why bother. Just let him do his trip and and save the tax payers the dough.

It'll only take once.

Sorry if that seems cruel, but you cannot save everyone from themselves if they choose not to let you.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

0_CD_Cover_SlpyC_with_Classics_MBSP_2009_288.thumb.jpg
Click to expand...




Cleansing of the GENE POOL! :twisted: :roll: :lol:
 
I agree with the "let him go..." side of this debate. (Wo)man's Adventurous side is often challenged and sometimes that Adventureous side is successful, sometime's not. If death is the result of the Advenure, so be it. I agree that the cost of rescue should not be a public expense, but there are probably ways to mitigate that. In Switzerland, "rescue" can sometimes come with a hefty price tag. "Rescue insurance" can usually be prepurchased, and should be a part of pre-planning if the "Adventurer" is prudent. ...and if they're not prudent, they have the right to die if that's in the cards.

I have a difficult time saying what's Really Stupid any more. Free/Clean climbing big walls in Yosemite? NASCAR's cruising around a loop at 200+ mph? Crossing the Atlantic/Pacific in an 8' kayak (or a 40' sailboat)? Wearing a jet suit to fly among the Alp's? Riding a motorcycle? ...or riding a motorcycle down the Interstate at 75mph doing a "wheely" (as we observed yesterday while driving to Naples (FL)? Hand-feeding Great White Sharks? Heading West in a wagon train in the 19th Century? Or, trying to find the East by sailing West from Europe in the 15th Century?

Lots of things can sound pretty stupid/silly ... and many are probably just that. But they often fall under the spirit of Adventure and Discovery. ...and if events or poor planning conspire for something to be one's Last Adventure; so be it.

Best,
Casey&Mary
 
As someone who participates in SAR, I can tell you that the sentiment of "let them go" is not one that is shared by the people who are doing the rescuing. When a person is in need, SAR will go. There simply isn't a mental health or intelligence test that must first be passed. It's not something that exists only for the stable and the brilliant. This is a human being in the water, and if he is in distress he should be assisted if it is safe to do so.

I think it's hilarious when someone barks over "their" tax dollars being put to use in such a manner. But that's why the taxes get taken out of your control, and once collected, cease to become yours, and become OURS. Your taxes should be used to serve the greater good, especially in situations where an individual might not have an interest sufficient to act. It's in all of our best interest to have SAR available and for those standing for SAR to go willingly. This is simply not a tool to weed out the mentally ill or the less than brilliant.

I can only hope that none of you "let them go" folks never find the wrong part of your boat pointing at the sky, and if that comes to pass, and your beacons or EPIRBS get activated, that those standing for SAR deem you both mentally stable, or intelligent enough to be worthy of a rescue.

Honestly, the sentiments being expressed here with regard to a living person are pretty much some of the more hateful and disgusting things I've read on this site, and not very nice at all.
 
I think a good bit of that let them go attitude is subsumed when push comes to shove.

We (the majority) put the bubble guy in a must be crazy category, mainly because his endeavor is outlandish. But, recast this lost soul as a guy who purposely drives around a barrier on an ice slicked state highway, runs off the road, and hangs his vehicle on a steep hillside, and fewer of us would abandon him. Add a toddler in a car seat, and I bet none of us would say rescue the kid, but forget the driver.

Kushtaka's remark that SAR does not base a go/no go decision on a presumption of sanity for the stranded or lost person, but rather the degree of risk for SAR personnel, establishes the ethic we operate on, in this country. And I am damn glad we operate that way. High rescue costs require some compensation for whatever group does the rescuing ... and rescue insurance is one method of securing that, amongst a range of mechanisms. So, also, are beacons to assist SAR in locating someone ... a system which has worked moderately well on Mt Hood, OR, with relatively low cost to users.
 
I sure enjoyed reading Casey's comment, as his thoughts on this mirror my own & show why, I have so enjoyed spending time with him, where we spent hours sharing thoughts on subjects such as this & many others.

We have just returned from a 6 day 325 mile exploration of Glacier Bay in a 22 foot boat, where very few come during the main season in less than a 40 footer, during which time weather reports & possible assistance if needed except by PLB unavailable. This is a place hard to imagine if you've never been there & especially if seeking out the more remote area's of it, plenty of places & ways to be in trouble. I'm sure some think us on the extreme side & any rescue not deserving, but we would go still whether or not we had the notifying devises for SAR & I would even without electronic charts or VHV radio. They're all good to have aboard, but mainly, I have the PLB for Jo-Lee's sake & the In Reach to share our travels & ease the minds of family back home. On the other hand unlike Kushtaka, I don't find the comments involved around cleansing the gene pool hateful or disgusting. I grew up fascinated by the individualist men making up the mountain man era & somewhat prescribe to many of their thoughts on self reliance & letting the fools & unprepared suffer the consequences. Of course the SAR units, shouldn't make exceptions on their rescue choices, but us individuals who come across others in distress can & will make judgement calls on how much risk we're willing to assume to save someone else from themselves & I would venture to think more or less risk has been applied during varies SAR rescues depending, on just why the individual or individuals needed rescuing.

Jay
 
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.

This guy has actually done a lot of different crazy things and pulled them off. He is clearly off the beaten path here, but to use selective SAR to modify the gene pool, that is just nuts. Like Dr. Evil Lex Luthor nuts. There are all kinds of ways for those so inclined to win their Darwin Award without completely ruining one of the most functional and necessary tools we have to assist those in distress.

Suppose this guy popped his PLB off because he came upon a vessel in distress that had no such capability and was in immediate need. If we have decided to ignore distress calls from certain individuals, and they act altruistically, you have condemned those who are likely smart and stable enough for rescue to death.

It sure is fun to express ardent and extreme opinions, I'm just glad that your opinion won't actually get anything traction until you show up and work in a SAR program for a long time, go on some rescues (and see just how often you are recovering instead of rescuing) and learn something about it, and after you do that, I promise you won't have such a frivolous opinion, and won't be looking for chances to miss out on bringing someone back alive and well.
 
Somehow I think my use of the term "let him go" was misinterpreted.

"Let him go" (and die...) was NOT what I meant. That would be pretty cold-hearted.

"Let him go" (to pursue his Adventure) was what I meant. Adventures, and Adventurer's come in all sorts and sizes. None of them have to pass MY muster for correctness. Sometimes what I think may be ill advised works out well and mankinds interests are advanced. Well Done. Other times an adventure goes sour with a fateful end. It happens.

Thanks goodness for the SAR personnel, the USCG, firemen and EMS folk; all perform heroic service, and often at their own risk.

In my experience rescue funding has never been used in some less than honorable way. Those who search, and those who rescue invariably do it with the very highet motives ... to save lives. Sure, funding can be a problem, but that's usually an issue for the higher-ups. That said, there sometimes comes a point when the incident commander has to say: Stop. Heartbreaking as that may be.

When the USCG searches for days/weeks and finds no reason to press on - the search has to end sometime. When the Civil Air Patrol tries diligently to locate a downed aircraft, and fails - someone has to make the difficult call to stop. When a Denali climber dies in a cravas and recovery of the body would unduly endanger SAR personnel - someone has to make the tough decision to end the recovery effort

And in every situation such a decision is painful, but whether or not the victim was foolish or richeous isn't an issue.

Best,
Casey
 
Kushtaka":s7vk98xc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Back
Top