Posted on 06/18/2010 4:27:54 PM PDT by James C. Bennett
ADELAIDE, Australia – Countries involved in the rescue of an American teenager adrift in the southern Indian Ocean have brushed off questions about the rescue's cost and have no plans to seek compensation.
They explain that rescues at sea are a no-cost agreement under global conventions regarding maritime search and rescue operations.
"The Australian taxpayer at the end of the day makes a contribution," Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said. "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."
On the first day Sunderland was stranded, Australia's rescue agency chartered a jet to fly over the area where her emergency beacon was activated. The 11-hour flight cost an estimated $94,500.
The second day, after locating her, the agency sent another plane to coordinate her pickup by ships racing toward her damaged and drifting yacht. The Australian military also deployed two Orion aircraft to wait on an Indian Ocean island in case an airdrop or further assistance was needed. An Orion costs tens of thousands of dollars an hour to operate.
The French territory of Reunion Island diverted three ships to Sunderland's location. The fishing vessel that first reached her lost at least three days of work.
Sunderland did not have insurance for her trip, and her mother has said there is no way the family could pay the rescuers even if asked.
Australian Immigration Minister Chris Evans said last week that the risk of one person's adventure could be too costly to the public: "Obviously, when someone is at risk, you have to respond. But I personally have a view that we should be more careful about what we allow people to do in these circumstances."
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Good for Abby.
Atta girl.
Yes this silliness of expecting private citizens to pay the cost of services that are provided in emergencies has gone a little crazy.
I blame the parents.
When a ship puts out a distress signal, all ships and rescue operations in the area that are sufficiently equipt are morally obligated to respond no matter the cost.
That has always been the long-standing rule of the sea.
They can't just send in the marines, rescue the person, and then send them a bill for $1,000,000.
There should be levels of rescue at different prices so that it isn't an all or nothing proposition.
It turned out that Abby was OK. Using no planes at all and just sending a ship or two toward the beacon may have been enough to get there in time to save her, at considerably less expense.
Also, some of the expense is money that would have been spent anyway. If the planes that tracked her down would have been up in the air on some other training mission, then no real additional cost was incurred. In fact, her rescue might have been a benefit to Australia providing them with a real-life rescue situation, rather than simulated ones they might normally run.
She had no business being out at sea on her own. They should have told her to wait until she’s an adult.
She wasn’t going to hear that from her parents. They previously let her older brother sail around the world. It’s idiotic to plan to sail around the Cape of Good Hope during the southern hemisphere winter.
Good for you! This thread was entirely incomplete without SOMEBODY jumping in to play “The Blame Game.”
Smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em, boys!
The shelling begins right about...now.
If there were 15 people in the boat when the rogue wave hit and broke the mast, would everyone still be gnashing their teeth about paying for the rescue?
How about all the money that was spent looking for the millionaire that went missing going round the world in a plane? Did they bill his estate? How about the people who camped along a river in Arkansas during a rain storm? Will the families of the dead get a bill?
Lots of stupid people set out in groups (freedom flotilla) and some smart people may set out alone (her brother didn’t need to be rescued, also age 16). She had bad luck - better luck next time!
No question that all nations should cooperate when lives are at stake, that’s not the issue.
The issue is, whether the parents acted responsibly in allowing this to happen. It’s NOT like letting your kid drive a car, because while there is a risk, it’s much lower and there is a corresponding benefit to driving a car. This stunt presented a much higher risk, and there was no benefit - other than exploitative publicity. No different than the idiot Heene family and the “UFO Boy”. Parents are supposed to exercise judgement, not view their kids as a profit center for some kind of reality TV show.
When it involves dammed fool/unjustifed stunts for profit they should be charged
She was 16 years old.
Inexcusable.
If insurance was too expensive they should have gotten a clue that it wasn't a good idea to attempt the voyage.
From what I hear .. The father was ready to ‘ink’ a contract for a reality show!
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.