Who pays for ocean rescues?

[gryffron]

British yachtswoman rescued in mid-Pacific - great news. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sailing/46568243

But who pays? Presumably it costs quite a lot of money to detour a freighter. Both in direct fuel costs, and potentially penalties for not delivering their cargoes on time.

So who pays for this?
Is there a "gentleman's agreement" that sailors will rescue each other? After all, it just might be them next time.
Is there any legal obligation for ships to help each other? Even the massive mega-freighters?
Or do boats have insurance to pay?

It is not exactly an uncommon occurrence these days. The story says 3 yachts have had to be rescued from this one race.

Gryff

[Maroochydore]

Perhaps this covers it: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/si ... ion-n74001
The rescue at sea was one of the most complex in recent memory: Four members of the National Guard, backed by a Navy warship and 177 sailors, parachuted into the Pacific Ocean to pluck out a couple and their two daughters, one of them a seriously ill 1-year-old.

Even one of the couple’s relatives questioned the wisdom of the trip — an attempt to go around the world in a 36-foot sailboat — and the couple themselves are on the defensive.

But it seems unlikely that the pair, Eric and Charlotte Kaufman of San Diego, will be asked to pay for the rescue. By international convention, rescue on the seas is not charged for, said Dean Ross, deputy emergency chief for the National Park Service.

“We’re out there to save lives. You can’t put a price on that,” said 2nd Lt. Roderick Bersamina of the California Air National Guard’s 129th Rescue Wing, which sent the four rescuers by parachute.

The Navy, Coast Guard and California Air National Guard, all involved in the mission to rescue the family and save the 1-year-old, Lyra, declined to talk about the cost of the operation. They said their focus was on bringing the family home safely.

But besides goodwill and the basic purpose of the mission, there’s a reason that people rescued in high-risk circumstances — stranded mountain climbers, backcountry skiers — generally are not asked to cover the cost.

Even a few minutes’ hesitation by those in distress, perhaps holding off on a call for help because they’re worried about getting a bill for tens of thousands of dollars, can mean the difference between life and death.

“We don’t want people to second-guess themselves,” said Petty Officer 3rd Class Loumania Stewart, a spokeswoman for the Coast Guard division that coordinated the Pacific rescue. “The Coast Guard doesn’t charge. It’s what we’re here for.”

[Lanark]

In the UK the coastguard coordinates search and rescue operations, but the charity RNLI actually respond to all requests and operate the lifeboats.

They are both vastly underfunded and I can tell you from personal experience that get into trouble in the wrong place on the wrong day and you can easily find yourself alone.

So who pays: the people who voluntarily donate time and or money.

and this is in a supposedly 1st world country!

[Dod101]

They are both vastly underfunded and I can tell you from personal experience that get into trouble in the wrong place on the wrong day and you can easily find yourself alone.

The RNLI is certainly not 'vastly underfunded' but it is of course mainly funded by voluntary donations and legacies and not by the Government. I think that is a good thing because it takes pressure off them (unlike the UK Coastguard which is subject to Government funding and is thus at the whim of the Treasury) Voluntary funding undoubtedly improves the ethos of the RNLI and produces a steady supply of volunteers for its rescue craft. I doubt that they would want it any other way. No doubt Lanark makes annual donations to RNLI as I do. I have never been rescued by them but when I was relatively young, we had a couple of tragedies where lifeboat crews were lost near where I lived and, as in many communities, a father and son were on board one of the boats together. We indirectly knew the family and ever since I have contributed.

On the subject of paying, it is a bit like mountain rescue, although they are seen rightly or wrongly as rather less 'heroic' and so do no get even much voluntary funding.

Dod

[Lanark]

RNLI recieves around £177 million per year in donations. £2.60 per person
The UK military recieves around £36 billion per year from taxpayers. £545 per person or £1200 per taxpayer per year

[dspp]

Who pays depends here in the world you are.

Out on the high seas, basically the rescuer pays.

In coastal waters it all depends on which jurisdiction you are in.

It is always figured out afterwards.

[Dod101]

RNLI recieves around £177 million per year in donations. £2.60 per person
The UK military recieves around £36 billion per year from taxpayers. £545 per person or £1200 per taxpayer per year

And what is your point?

Dod

[bungeejumper]

When the military are called in to rescue stranded explorers (take a bow, Ranulph Fiennes), they are often able to treat the mission as a training exercise, so the cost is effectively swallowed. As for merchant ships, I imagine that they just have to say "well, that might just as easily have been me".

I'm all for a bit of derring-do, but when I rule the world, anyone who enters into these high-risk ocean racing scenarios will be required to take out a bond that will cover the cost of their rescue, should it ever be required. Ditto for polar explorers. It might not be cheap, but it'll certainly concentrate their minds.

BJ

[dspp]

Search & rescue at sea is dealt with under UNCLOS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... of_the_Sea

There is a duty on all seafarers to render assistance, see article 98

For SAR zones in the world see
https://sarcontacts.info/

Each nation looks after its SAR zone in a different way, but the RNLI are only a part of how the UK looks after its SAR zone.

Here is a good starting point for the UK MCA in this respect
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/falm ... seychelles

- dspp

[stevensfo]

Four members of the National Guard, backed by a Navy warship and 177 sailors, parachuted into the Pacific Ocean to pluck out a couple and their two daughters, one of them a seriously ill 1-year-old.

So they took a baby on a 10 metre boat to sail around the world?? I've helped to sail 8 and 9 metre yachts along Lake Maggiore and there's no way anybody would allow a baby on board unless it was a quick trip across or close to the shore and other boats. That's with ripples barely high enough to notice and mild winds, not the huge waves and gale force winds you get at sea. Oh, and the parents are 'defensive' about their decision? What a bunch of idiots!

Steve

[baldchap]

Maritime Law states that you must respond to a distress. You may only be released by the Rescue or Search co-ordinator. Usually shore based.

As for solo-yachts people - they are breaking numerous maritime laws, but still expect to be rescued.

[UncleEbenezer]

I'm all for a bit of derring-do, but when I rule the world, anyone who enters into these high-risk ocean racing scenarios will be required to take out an insurance bond that will cover the cost of their rescue, should it ever be required. Ditto for polar explorers. It might not be cheap, but it'll certainly concentrate their minds.

BJ

Organised events tend to require insurance. Even thoroughly low-risk events, like in this season your village christmas gathering open to the public. I'm sure that applies to high-profile ocean adventures.

Though I don't know how that would work in relation to public or voluntary rescue services. I imagine they would at least sometimes seek recompense from event organisers, who would then submit the actual claim.

[Itsallaguess]

Four members of the National Guard, backed by a Navy warship and 177 sailors, parachuted into the Pacific Ocean to pluck out a couple and their two daughters, one of them a seriously ill 1-year-old.

What a bunch of idiots!

Agreed.

And don't even get me started on some of the types of idiots who decide to climb mountains and then decide that they need rescuing....

At least sea-rescues require the filter of people mostly needing some sort of boat - but unfortunately it seems that anyone with just a pair of flip-flops can class themselves as mountain-climbers nowadays....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[bungeejumper]

And don't even get me started on some of the types of idiots who decide to climb mountains and then decide that they need rescuing....

My sister-in-law had to be helicoptered off Pen y Fan after she broke her leg on the way down. (Yes, she was wearing proper gear at the time!) She was never asked for any contribution toward her rescue, but she spent the rest of her life helping to raise funds for the RNLI lifeboats. Which seemed no less than appropriate, really.

I'd like to think that the well-bred, well-moneyed types who tend to dominate ocean yacht racing would do the same. For some reason I have my doubts. Am I being unfair?

BJ

[Dod101]

My sister-in-law had to be helicoptered off Pen y Fan after she broke her leg on the way down. (Yes, she was wearing proper gear at the time!) She was never asked for any contribution toward her rescue, but she spent the rest of her life helping to raise funds for the RNLI lifeboats. Which seemed no less than appropriate, really.

I'd like to think that the well-bred, well-moneyed types who tend to dominate ocean yacht racing would do the same. For some reason I have my doubts. Am I being unfair?

I do not think the RNLI are involved in helicopter rescues but I guess she was contributing to a rescue service. Good for her.

I see no reason for your cynicism re 'well bred, well moneyed types' but I have not the slightest idea whether they would be charitably minded or not and so have no idea if you are being unfair. I daresay that like the rest of society there will be some who will contribute and some who expect others to do so for them (or get the Government to do so)

Dod