Erpib

[Rambler]

Coast Guard rescues boater and cat off Ga. coast

Associated Press – published Saturday, January 19, 2013
BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — The Coast Guard says a man and his cat are safe after they were rescued from a sinking sailboat off the Georgia coast.


Kevin Savage and his cat, Tommy Girl, were sailing 38 miles off the coast from Brunswick when their boat began taking on water as the ocean was whipped by gusty winds. Coast Guard officials say the conditions automatically activated an emergency radio beacon aboard the 37-foot sailboat Friday morning.
The Coast Guard launched a helicopter rescue crew from its station in Savannah. The crew hoisted Savage and his cat from the sinking boat. Neither were injured.
Cmdr. Gregory Fuller, commander of Coast Guard Air Station Savannah, says the rescue shows that ocean-going boats of any size should be equipped with emergency radio beacons.

----------------------------

There was a thread here earlier about erpib and/or other radio beacons. and I believe there's a push to get these on all vessels that venture out beyond a certain number of miles off the coast. Mainly I recall to save S&R time, which should in turn save lives.

Glad the boater and his cat are Ok.

 

[Cyclone]

Take a look at the Feb Soundings. There is a great article on this subject.
As a person involved with water safety and first responder issues I feel it is about time that regulators are viewing this issue in a positive light. Yes we all pay taxes but those taxes should be used to fund legitimate SAR issues. We the pleasurer boater and small commercial fleet account for too large a portion of the dollars expended on SAR. Lets get on with it and assist our regulators to develop a meaningful,enforceable and practical regulation to reduce SAR cost. One life saved would fund devices for us all. Bill

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. Cyclone. What are the non legitimate SAR issues being funded by tax dollars and why are pleasure boaters and small commercial fleets a problem? I didn't read the Feb soundings so I obviously don't understand the issues.

 

[Cyclone]

RTF. You and I along with rest of this group usually go to sea well prepared and have available the tools to survive. We have MMSI numbers and likely a locator system. Unfortunately many SAR issues relate to vessels that are more than ill prepared for the voyages they embark upon. We are not dealing with SAR on small bodies of water but areas where multi heavy resources are required. The issue is simply that given a device which provides the lat and log resources will be able to affect recovery faster and result in less cost to you and I.
As you know I am from north of the boarder. We have an internal SAR issue with the paddle community. These folks go out into very remote areas, get in trouble and the resources needed to affect rescue require heavy air support as well as ground support. A PLB would reduce considerably SAR costs.
I know we cannot speak for all, but given our knowledge of the related issues we can support the regulatory arena in reducing SAR costs to us all. Bill

 

[timjet]

When I first read this article and Bill's response to it I was thinking another supporter of more govt regulation. But I think Bill has a valid point. No one argues the wisdom of PFD regulations at least as they are now defined. With the very high expense of SAR operations being paid for with tax dollars it makes sense that those folks who put them selves into a position where they are likely to need help if something goes wrong then perhaps regulations written that require a PLB for those folks makes sense.

Let's just make sure the CG writes the regs not the bureaucrats.

An added benefit is if PLB's are required for offshore voyages then the cost of PLB's should go way down.

I hope I never have to use my EPIRB or PLB or use my MMSI enable VHF for emergency purposes.

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
OK, I missed it PLB? Personal locator beacon perhaps?

 

[Rambler]

PLB = Pabst Lite Beer?



The whole point from what Ive read is that the faster the "S", the more successful the "R", and we all like the "R"'s.

 

[BruceK]

PLB = Pabst Lite Beer?
The whole point from what Ive read is that the faster the "S", the more successful the "R", and we all like the "R"'s.

That answer may be especially for the enigmatic.
The boring answer is probably Personal Locator Beacon, a kind of mini personal EPIRB, often worn by sailboat/yacht crew on deck, along with a safety lifeline clipped to a strong part of the boat.

 

[psneeld]

it comes from take the search out of rescue ... SAR - (S)earch and (R)escue.....

 

[Blue Heron]

My take, If you want a PLB buy one. If you want an EPIRB, buy one. If you want to pay more taxes, pay them.

Don't try to force the rest of society to bend to your desire.

Socialist always do this. Demand for the sake if safety that we regulate or require.

 

[caltexflanc]

My take, If you want a PLB buy one. If you want an EPIRB, buy one. If you want to pay more taxes, pay them.

Don't try to force the rest of society to bend to your desire.

Socialist always do this. Demand for the sake if safety that we regulate or require.

I apologize, but I don't understand your take, come again? TIA

 

[Blue Heron]

Simple. No need to regulate anything. Once you give or ask govt to regulate, you have issues and problems. You WANT PLB and EPIRB, fine buy one but don't force others to have to comply because you feel a need to justify your purchase.

 

[BruceK]

EPIRBs are compulsory offshore here. I probably choose one anyway.
Not required in USA I gather. Alain Delord, solo sailor just rescued from a life raft in Antarctic waters by an expedition cruise ship, guided by rescue co-coordinators, would be pleased with his.
But it is an individual choice. Does US CG make any recommendation?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. Blue Heron. There should be SOME regulation in place. Australia seems to be addressing Mr. Cyclone's point of being prepared (post #4) which I agree with. What would be the big deal to require that those boaters going, say 20 miles, offshore be required to be outfitted with an EPIRB and a PLB for each necessary life jacket? In FL, by law, you have to have a whistle on your approved PFD everywhere as well as the safety equipment called for determined by your size boat.
I do not have an EPIRB or PLB nor do I think I'll get one based on the type of boating I do BUT if I ever intend to venture offshore, I'd seriously consider the purchase.

 

[mahal]

Simple. No need to regulate anything. Once you give or ask govt to regulate, you have issues and problems. You WANT PLB and EPIRB, fine buy one but don't force others to have to comply because you feel a need to justify your purchase.

What's the difference between a government epirb requirement on boats and a government requiring all cars to have bumpers? If you are also opposed to bumpers being required, don't bother responding as I get it, and we also don't want to politicize this very good thread about safety.

 

[caltexflanc]

Personally, I don't think it has the least bit to do with "justifying my purchase". It has a lot to do with saving the tax payers a bunch of money and not putting SAR personnel at needless risk. The proposal is specifically for off shore use, so canal, ICW and river boaters need not worry about sacrificing a few hundred dollars at behest of the nanny state.

For that matter then, why not repeal the requirement for running and anchor lights and sound signals? I suppose another alternative would be to deny off shore SAR services to anyone without an EPIRB, but that's just not going to happen.

 

[Rambler]

Lots and lots of small boats can and do run pretty far off shore, most with little to no communication or other safety gear, save for the life jackets, fire extenguisher, and maybe a flare gun. The wise ones would have a radio, AMFM at that. We kept a smallish dive boat in Panama City Beach and would go out 15 miles give or take, longer runs that parallel the coast. This, back in the glory days of LoranC.

I don't see the harm in requiring some better form of locating device for boaters that go out, but how does one enforce that? Inspections 20 miles off shore?

 

[SomeSailor]

No, but just like DSC, no harm comes from it. It simply allows rescuers to have your last known position in their charts. They can "roll back time" and see where you left, what direction you headed and when you called for assistance.

 

[Blue Heron]

Have at it guys. Go ahead and demand Goverment regulation in the name of safety. Nanny states never give up power they demand more. Don't complain when the govt takes your big gulps and salt away either. Hey all in the name of safety.

Bumpers on cars is a stupid analogy. It is a choice on a small craft to have an EPIRB or not. I find it very interesting how the countries that are already forced to comply, then demand that the Rest of the world follow their utopian lead.

Puke.

 

[caltexflanc]

Have at it guys. Go ahead and demand Goverment regulation in the name of safety. Nanny states never give up power they demand more. Don't complain when the govt takes your big gulps and salt away either. Hey all in the name of safety.

Bumpers on cars is a stupid analogy. It is a choice on a small craft to have an EPIRB or not. I find it very interesting how the countries that are already forced to comply, then demand that the Rest of the world follow their utopian lead.

Puke.

So I take it you are all in favor of eliminating the requirement for running lights and sound signals? And no off shore SAR for non EPIRB equipped vessels? I mean, what seaman worth his salt needs Momma Sam coming to save him at all? Flares/schmares, why require those either? PFDs are for pussycats. I'm a little more than half serious.. you go out there, you take your chances, if things go bad let the Good Lord sort it out. Maybe a move to somewhere like Somalia would be a good idea.. no government to screw with you at all. Cheap too.

 

[Delia Rosa]

It is a choice on a small craft to have an EPIRB or not.

Unfortunately, those who choose not to have an EPIRB or PLB still need to be rescued occasionally, sometimes putting the safety of the SAR teams at greater risk than if that individual could have been more quickly/easily located...

And then there is the actual cost of the rescues to be considered.....

If anyone is interested, here is a link to an article about who pays for SAR operations.
HowStuffWorks "Who pays for search and rescue operations?"

 

[psneeld]

Might as well give up lights and sound signals.....most agree that small boats you can't either hear other sound signal because of engine noise or the installed horns are so wimpy and here's a great example why lights are a joke....

 

[Blue Heron]

Guess I just depend less on a rescue and more on prudence. I have equipped my vessel with an EPIRB but I don't feel compelled to demand fhat everyone else do the same. It's called personal responsibility.

As for your stupid nav lights analogy, nav lights are superb for anti collision but really prove their worth in the inland and coastal waterways. EPIRBS are for open ocean beyond line of sight if shore.

Again I don't follow along like a sheep and Demand a Nanny State take care if me.

As for the SAR crews and risk if life... I was a helicopter Aircrewman for 14 years. We got paid a pretty good premium to be SAR assets. Never thought I was risking my life, never needed the pity. It was what we do.

 

[RickB]

Again I don't follow along like a sheep and Demand a Nanny State take care if me.

Except when you believe it implies the government will mobilize the taxpayer's military resources to come rescue you from mean and nasty dictators ...

In case you have forgotten:

"One good reason to be US Flagged" 09-06-2012 Post #1

 

[Blue Heron]

I didn't forget that post Rick. I still stand by it. Documented US vessels being protected at sea is an Enumerated Power in my opinion. Far and away from forcing all boaters to have EPIRBS

 

[timjet]

Not forcing all boaters to have EPIRBS, only those who put themselves into a position that they may need them. The FAA requires all commercial aircraft to have them, the ones I fly have two.

But Blue Heron has a point, our current politicians want to regulate everything and some would love to see the US put an end to recreational boating and aviation which has largely at least in Europe been accomplished though high taxes and fees. In Florida just look at all the anchoring regulations!

So, since the politicians probably won't be able to ban boating in the near future look to see a ban on the sale of anchors.

 

[psneeld]

Not forcing all boaters to have EPIRBS, only those who put themselves into a position that they may need them. The FAA requires all commercial aircraft to have them, the ones I fly have two.

But Blue Heron has a point, our current politicians want to regulate everything and many would love to see the US put an end to recreational boating and aviation which has largely at least in Europe been accomplished though high taxes and fees.

The point in red is the problem....put lifelong professionals in a room with politicians and lawyers and what pops out on paper is nowhere near reality....

 

[timjet]

The point in red is the problem....put lifelong professionals in a room with politicians and lawyers and what pops out on paper is nowhere near reality....

+1

 

[Rambler]

Didn't mean to start an argument about government intrusion.

Around these parts, the volunteer fire department bills the insurance company for call outs, and they get paid either on the fire policy or the medical policy, or both sometimes. It doesn't cover the cost of a new pumper truck, but it helps keep the guys and gals in gear. So, maybe, for the boaters that have insurance, just like for other vehicles, and let the SAR team bill the insurer for the costs, or even a fraction of them. Then you stop boating when you can't get insured because you take extreme risks or do stupid things when boating. Your policy premiums would be cheaper with the ERPIB or PLB or AIS or other devices which may help mitigate the risks of loss. No government needed.

 

[psneeld]

There are very few "extra" associated costs with much of the SAR that the USCG does. They are budgeted for a multi-mission operation of which SAR isn't all that much. If they don't fly on SAR...they burn up the fuel costs in training missions or something else....or lose that money next budget go around (blame the goofy budgeting system)

I have seen it in my career and lifetime...on the boat side of things....assistance towers and so many good Samaritans have lessened the SAR load to the point that actual experience for many SAR crews is often only when the conditions are so extreme...they are at greater peril and there's a higher chance of losing/damaging expensive equipment than ever. In fact we have all seen where they are very reluctant to do certain thing that 40 years ago would have been second nature to the organization.