Posted on 06/12/2010 9:41:43 PM PDT by naturalman1975
THE Rudd Government has confirmed Australia can't seek to recover the cost of rescuing US teen sailor Abby Sunderland after her boat was demasted in the Indian Ocean.
Abby, 16, is now on the French fishing vessel Ile De La Reunion, which is heading to the French archipelago Kerguelen Islands.
Transport Minister Anthony Albanese says Australia couldn't send Abby and her backers a bill even if it wanted too.
"That's not the way the law works," he told Channel 10.
"The Australian taxpayer at the end of the day makes a contribution.
"But we have to put this in context - if there was an Australian lost at sea we would want ... every effort to be made to save that person."
A chartered Qantas plane was sent from Perth early on Friday to search for Abby about 3700km off the coast of Western Australia.
It located her 12m yacht, Wild Eyes, that afternoon. It's been reported the Qantas charter cost $10,000 an hour.
Mr Albanese said the episode proved Australia was a world leader in search and rescue.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
At least this time, it looks like it will be a happy ending. And to any Americans worried about the cost to the Australian taxpayer - well, consider it a partial payback for all the times the US taxpayer has wound up bailing people out around the world. The fact is, this is what rich, industrialised nations do. At least this time we’re doing it for another rich, industrialised nation. The vast majority of foreigners Australia pulls from the sea are ‘asylum seekers’ sailing here illegally in leaky boats
Really? They’re this cheap?
When you go out to rescue somebody at sea, so many times it ends in tragedy.
Nothing can replace the feeling you get when you get one back from the brink.
Charge her family. The morons deserve it.
I’m sure.
My thoughts exactly. I can’t even believe this was brought up.
The Airbus was nice, but not necessary. The fishing boat that picked her up was being told the lats/lons continuously being chirped out by the GPS in the EPIRB.
All they got from the plane was “yes, I’m okay” on a handheld shortrange VHF radio.
The fishing boat could have done a sail past look see, and picked her up not one minute later than it did with the “help” of the Quantas Airbus.
The Quantas jet did not “find” Abbey. She was never lost, with her GPS/EPIRB bleeping.
Well now, see? see? It's cheap advertising!
The airbus did not “locate” her. She was never lost. Her position every minute was known to a few yards, via her sat EPIRB.
All the airbus did was fly past her known location, to chat with her on VHF and get the “I’m alive.”
It didn’t “locate” her. It was not “searching” for her. It was just flying directly to her known position.
Send the bill to her dad. He owns a yacht business, so he should be able to afford some of it. And if they don’t, as irresponsible as he is, he will send her out again.
Of course she wasn't. She had every modern amenity and technology at her disposal. It would have taken a miracle for her to truly get lost or die as a result. But the 'damsel in distress' made better headlines.
Yes, and if she hadn’t been in the yacht, every plane the Australian government could have got airborne with the range would have been sent out to search for her.
The point of the flypast was to see if anything else needed to be done. It didn’t, thankfully. It doesn’t mean there was no point to it.
Meanwhile, three dozen teens will die or be maimed on American roads this weekend, and each will rate only 30 seconds on local news.
She abandoned her original attempt to sail around the world nonstop. She had to pull into a port because the boat’s autopilot failed, thus ending the “nonstop” part...
The fishing boat could find her, and would have, just as quick without the high price fly-by.
Not one thing could that airbus give her except a cheeri-o, chin up lass.
The airbus did not “find her.” GPS/EPIRB took them straight to her, to the yard. Ditto the slow but sure rescue vessel.
And which one picked her up? Trust me, the fishing boat never saw the plane or talked to them.
The plane was an expensive ornament.
I suppose you’re suggesting it was false advertising as well as cheap advertising, but advertising is advertising.
Anyway, I guess we’re agreed they shouldn’t be complaining about the expense of a plane flight. Stop me before I get onto the subject of the Copenhagen Climate Conference ...
Same as two Orions were put on station in case they were needed. Everybody knew they probably wouldn’t be, but you check to find out.
The ADF Force and AMSA have been doing this a long time - Australia has one of the largest maritime rescue zones in the world, including some of the most treacherous and isolated ocean. We know how to do it.
Hope for the best and plan for the worst.
I think it’s likely I have a bit more experience and expertise in ocean rescue than you do. I also know what Australia’s protocols are in this regard and how they exist.
You always send a plane out to look, because it gives you more information. Sometimes it just confirms what you already expect. That doesn’t make it a waste of time or money.
Spoken like a true "politics-of-envy" nanny-stater.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Charging for rescues—something which is sometimes advocated and even put into practice in the US—only means that people in possible danger put off calling for help, knowing they can receive a bill for thousands of dollars.
And using the same logic, how soon before rescue workers are expected to ask the relatives of the missing if they can pay for the rescue before any search teams are dispatched?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.