<p>“Fatal Storm” by R. Mundel tells the story of the Sydney Hobart Race disaster.</p>
<p>i also think Readers Digest did a short story from one of the survivors. That incident is what I was thinking about as I have been reading this thread. The sailor was trapped in his sailboat which was upside down in the ocean and unable to get out. He was rescued by another sailor at a great risk to his own life.</p>
<p>I gathered from MNK’s posts that power is needed to deal with large waves, and the engine on Abby’s boat was not up to this. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine that CPS would be able to do anything here - it is not obvious how dangerous this activity was, and Abby is 16.</p>
<p>Here is an article from January (Sailing Anarchy)</p>
<hr>
<p>Born again Christian Abby Sunderland headed off on Friday in her bid to become the world’s youngest circumnavigator, though she’s got a longer trip than the other teenaged girl currently on the high seas, and will have to push if she’s to finish at a younger age than Watson.</p>
<p>As we’ve sad numerous times, the record itself is inane. After all, midshipmen younger than either girl effectively commanded square riggers 'round the horn 200 years ago. But there’s a mild fascination with these kids that keeps us watching, and in Jessica Watson’s case, she’s a genuinely interesting girl, with a humble style and storytelling skill that’s held out attention, and that of thousands of fans around the world.</p>
<p>But after watching this video of Abby and her family, we’re left wondering if she has the slightest chance to make it. Sure, Reid Stowe proved that even the most ■■■■■■■■ sailors can drift around the world eventually, and Abby’s dopey brother Zac made it around in his many-stop voyage on an Islander 36. But Abby’s sailing an Open 40 - not the kind of forgiving ride the others have - with a questionable history, and she has precious few days practicing or qualifying the boat for the kind of heavy weather she is bound to face. And a flat-assed Open 40 is an entirely different beast when running downwind in the Southern Ocean in 60 knots and 10m waves like Jess did the other day. Jess got knocked down a few times and took it all in stride with a wisdom far beyond her years, but an Open 40 like Abby’s is harder to control and far more likely to pitch pole, and does anyone think the inexperienced Abby can handle that? Even more unnerving is her family’s reliance on God and prayer to help them get to the end of this one - not the traditional place that solo sailors look for inspiration, and not someone likely to lay down the storm when she needs it. And we just can’t help but be put off the her comment that her doing this is “The Lord’s will.” So if she fails miserably, or worse, is that too the Lord’s will? Puuleeese…</p>
<p>Realistically, if her sat phone and e-mail hold up, Abby should have all the advice she needs from a large group of supporters to make it around the world. And to us, a young girl accomplishing a solo RTW is a net positive for mainstream exposure to our sport and not a bad thing at all. But there’s something creepy about the whole thing, and we don’t know if it’s the bible-thumping, the weird brother-sister dynamic, or Abby’s ridiculous line of commemorative shoes, boots, and shirts. Whatever it is that is making us so uneasy, we hope Abby doesn’t end up doing the one thing guaranteed to get top exposure in the world media…dying. Thread here.</p>
<p>2010-01-25</p>
<hr>
<p>I did just recently read about Reid Stowe. He is the kooky sailor who has been adrift at sea without reaching land for something on the order of 800 days (maybe longer), intentionally. His girlfriend has had their child and he is still sailing until he gets the inspiration to come home. He is not sure when that is. It is something he needs to get out of his system, he has said.</p>
<p>His son is two…and he hasn’t seen the child. </p>
<p>I couldn’t imagine choosing to be away from my child for that long. It happens all the time that our troops have become fathers while away on deployment…and they can’t wait to come home. </p>
<p>Reid, however, has chosen a different path. </p>
<p>To each, his own, I guess.</p>
<p>The video linked in the article above is from the LA Times:</p>
<p>[–</a> latimes.com](<a href=“http://www.latimes.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=5d353ed4-44f5-4358-afd9-ada9669edb68&src=front]--”>http://www.latimes.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=5d353ed4-44f5-4358-afd9-ada9669edb68&src=front)</p>
<p>There are some very disturbing comments from the mother. She says that they decided that Abby should do a nonstop voyage because it would be safer - some of the ports her brother stopped in were dangerous. She referred to Abby as “this young blonde thing.” Wasn’t she worried that with this well-publicized voyage, some creeps in a powerboat would go looking for her? Or would it be too difficult to find her, even if her general location were known?</p>
<p>nymom. Yes. I was thinking pirates,too. Although in the open ocean she is probably a needle in a haystack unless of course the public could follow this trip on line. Who knows.</p>
<p>Anyone alone in a very expensive, awesome sailboat would be attracting attention from “bad guys” who are interested in $$$$ hardware.</p>
<p>I was actually worried about something other than the expensive hardware. </p>
<p>You are probably right that even if her general location were known, it would be very difficult to find her. Do pirates have radar?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, I know, I figured that’s a given.</p>
<p>cartera45,
They were endangering life of minor under their care. What if she actually has died? They would have not been charged? I do not see any difference in thier actions in case of survival vs death. At this point they have removed themselves from position of being able to help their minor child.</p>
<p>Miami - I understand the concern, but the police typically don’t file charges against people who “allow” their kids to do dangerous things. Where would we draw the line as to what is endangering a life and what is an acceptable risk? The government does its best to stay out of the business of second guessing parenting choices and that is they way the majority of the people want it to stay.</p>
<p>The case under discussion is way beyond acceptable risk if one use common sense. Some parents went to jail because they left kids alone at home. I do not understand how is leaving 14 years old at his one home could be much more dangerous than allowing 16 years old a boat trip alone around the world? I just do not get it.</p>
<p>Talking about filing child-neglect charges or the equivalent against the Sunderlands is nice rhetoric, but as a policy matter it’s silly. The state can barely pay attention to the thousands of kids out there who are really neglected and abused – malnourished, denied education and medical care, physically beaten or raped, parents or foster parents diverting money intended to help the child. It shouldn’t get involved in second-guessing the judgments of engaged parents, even when their judgments are ultra-questionable, and especially when the child is 16 and an enthusiastic participant in the questionable activities. By normal child-neglect standards, this case wouldn’t deserve 30 seconds of court time before getting dismissed.</p>
<p>The probability of her dying was much higher than “malnourished, denied education and medical care, physically beaten or raped” and occasionally left home alone kids whose parents paid dearly by going to jail for it. Anybody with common sense would figure it out. Actually it is miracle that she is alive.</p>
<p>Is leaving 14 year olds home alone illegal? I didn’t know that.</p>
<p>Here is part of a rating system concerning child endangerment developed to assess CPS decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note that it may be a life threatening environment for a toddler to be left unattended near a swimming pool due to high frequency of drowning deaths for that age. Without actual deaths to solo circumnavigationists to go by to establish “high probability” of death from the activity, CPS has little on which to base interference. If you go look at all the under age soloists, not one drowned. </p>
<p>What is CPS going to say–well, if she fell out of the boat she might not have been able to get back in and if she could not get back in, at some point she would have drowned? </p>
<p>Keep in mind the number of sports related injuries and deaths each year to under age kids. Can you imagine if letting your kid play HS football could bring CPS to your door since there are real and documented deaths or paralysis from this activity.</p>
<p>BTW–there are over 300,000 under age children who work annually on American farms. The stats reveal that there were 907 work related deaths to kids on farms between 1995-2002. In 2004, there were 27,600 significant injuries to kids working on farms. Having a kid work on a farm exposes the kid to the very real risk of death and/or substantial injury. CPS does not remove rural kids when they find out they work on the farm.</p>
<p>I’m not into any child endangerment charges in this case (though I do think the family should have to pay for rescue expenses much like is often done in my area for those who ski out of bounds). </p>
<p>However, I still think that 07Dad’s point that no other underage solo circumnavigators have lost their lives is a weak point. Not only has there been very few such minors who have done this, their circumstances have not been identical and in fact, if you read the sailing forums, there were aspects to Abby’s voyage that were more dangerous than some of the other teens who attempted this. It was not an apples to apples comparison, in other words.</p>
<p>While I am not into charging the parents for child endangerment and also I am NOT a lawyer, I quickly perused CA Child Endangerment Laws. </p>
<p>A few things that could apply I suppose might be (I just copied some excerpts here):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe the magic age in California is 12. You can be 12 and left without parent supervision.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean for 24 hours at a time, of course. That means time of shorter duration.</p>
<p>Has anyone seen any indication that any solo circumnavigationist, even an adult, has lost his or her life in the last say, 25 years, in an attempt at this? I could not find it. In fact, the design and contruction of modern solo sail boats, the safety features added to them and the means of giving distress signals and location information is staggering. These efforts provide the reason no one can tick off the names and dates of death of unsuccessful circumnavigationists. </p>
<p>Jon Sayer built the very boat that Abby sailed. He built it for Alan Paris who sailed it solo around the world and won the Around Alone in 2002(3?) in that boat. While Sayer says that Abby did not have the necessary strength to sail it, he contends (and the sailing websites seem to all agree) that the boat could not sink. Nor has he or any other expert indicated that the mast would not have broken if Abby was an older male. </p>
<p>So, at worst, Abby had an increased risk of needing assistance in the event of a problem, which she got, not an increased risk of death. To constitute a circumnavigation requires that the route have streaches of thousands of nautical miles in the very middle of the ocean. Assistance (or rescue) during these parts of the voyage is never going to be close at hand. As such, Abby had to wait for the rescue, which she did: with food, water and heat.</p>
<p>How nobody gets it, that it is a miracle that she survived? Parents risked their child’s life for personal enrichment, there is nothing else in this story. Sensation that produces dough.</p>