<p>You got it lololu.</p>
<p>MichaelNKat is right on almost everything, and still dead wrong as far as I can tell. The system he or she describes is one based on mutual obligation and rational behavior. It was not rational behavior to be sailing a racer-cruiser solo across the Southern Ocean in the high 40s latitudes in June. What’s more, with her limited supply of space, speed, fuel, and strength, Sunderland was in no position to offer mutual assistance to anybody. If it had been the French fishing vessel in distress, no one would have considered Wild Eyes the nearest boat capable of rendering assistance. What she was doing was sheer freeriding, and no legal system permits that for long.</p>
<p>I am not at all opposed to risk-taking, and I have argued above that it’s silly to suggest that the parents could be prosecuted or sanctioned for this. But in my mind not all risk-taking is created equal. This was not reasonable risk related to personal growth. This was an elaborate, expensive stunt to make money. People who do that should expect to pay the full costs of their activities. Maybe they can rely on the kindness of strangers, but they should expect a bill for the strangers’ costs.</p>
<p>I would acknowledge that, yes, there was surely some personal growth involved, too. But I feel critical of that as well. The notion of travelling around the world without hardly so much as seeing land, or speaking to anyone you don’t already know, disgusts me. It’s so narcissistic! It’s the complete opposite of the system of mutual reliance that MichaelNKat describes, with people who earn their livings on the seas acting collectively to save each other’s lives.</p>
<p>07Dad, I just am not understanding your arguments on this topic. I haven’t seen a single person on this thread say that it is not reasonable to assist others in distress. Every person has said that that is the right thing to do and they would do so themselves. You keep asking if one would not help others if they had an emergency and nobody is saying that people like Abby should not be assisted and rescued, etc. Everybody commends the fishing boat that did so in this case. It was the right thing to do. </p>
<p>Some have argued that when a person takes known major risks at great peril and odds of needing a rescue and when those who must rescue them who are private citizens and not rescue crews must step in (who all agree that they should step in) to help at great expense to themselves in time and money, that it is the right thing to do for the rescued person to help compensate them for their time/money. This is not the same as a car accident and those driving by stop to help. </p>
<p>I also don’t know why you would assume that someone like calmom has no interest in donating to disaster relief. Such actions are voluntary and can cost a small amount. In the case of Abby’s rescue, while it was voluntary for the fishing boat to travel a great distance at some danger to help Abby, it was the conscionable thing to do and the level of cost to do it was not as voluntary, but more due to what it cost them to help. When you donate to Katrina relief, you can opt to donate $5 or donate $5 million.</p>
<p>I agree with JHS. The situation is different when one embarks on what many would consider unreasonable or reckless behavior. That is the notion used here where it costs people to be rescued who make a choice to ski out of bounds and then want to be rescued. Or say someone chooses to ski or hike where signs are posted that the avalanche danger is high. </p>
<p>The risks for Abby’s voyage in the way that it was undertaken (just the season alone in that location of the world) were high and known. The fact that they made that choice with the strong likelihood that a rescue might be necessary, seems to me to involve some obligation to compensate private citizens who lost their own money to rescue her. That fishing boat had to have lost revenue during that time period and a lot of it was due to some unreasonable choices that the Sunderland family made in this instance.</p>
<p>When my D was seriously injured in a car accident, we were so eternally grateful to those who stopped to assist her and call rescue personnel. However, it cost us a great deal of money for her to be rescued, money that in fact, we did not have but had to pay (two ambulances).</p>
<p>It seems rather odd to me that we had this hardship to pay for D’s rescue and that Abby’s family didn’t have to pay a cent.</p>
<p>In skiing, I gather that the line between in-bounds and out-of-bounds is reasonably clear and knowable.</p>
<p>What will determine, and who will decide, whether a sailor’s conduct is “reckless” or not?</p>
<p>Reciprocity does not screen out, it is inclusive. As MichaelNKat has described, the very act of going to sea is “dangerous.” The reciprocity does not turn on why a person went to sea. Abby’s actions were not suicidal. </p>
<p>Fame and profit seeking solo circumnavigations may require assistance more often than profit motivated gigantic ocean liners and profit motivated ocean going oil tankers, but the ocean liners and tankers can need assistance on occasion (Titanic isn’t the only one).</p>
<p>I have to chuckle to think of using how many ports a ship stops at as the measure the “legitimacy” of the sailor’s motive for going to sea. If you get around men who have chosen life on the ocean, many of them will tell you they really have a problem being on shore. Also, most profit motivated ocean going enterprises chart direct routes.</p>
<p>BS, 07DAD. With the exception of the idle rich, real sailors go to sea to do a job, or to get from point A to point B for some actual reason. It doesn’t matter that some of them prefer ship to shore; they go where their jobs tell them to go, for the most part.</p>
<p>Sunderland’s project was inherently bizarre. The most direct route between Huntington Beach and Huntington Beach (or Cabo San Lucas and Cabo San Lucas) is not to leave in the first place. In an important sense, a circumnavigator isn’t going anywhere. But of course, that isn’t really true. We value circumnavigation for the experience it provides, the challenges to overcome, the skill it demonstrates, and because the idea is cool. It’s perhaps the purest proof of the aphorism that the journey matters more than the destination. It’s just that, given the alternatives, non-stop circumnavigation via the Southern Ocean seems to be designed to provide the least experience possible. I admit completely that I am imposing my personal values here, but my personal values lead me to think this is not a project that I care about. </p>
<p>I make that as a side point, not a policy prescription. But I don’t know anyone who thinks what this kid was doing was inspiring or valuable. And that includes some pretty serious sailors.</p>
<p>May be of interest…</p>
<p>Court will keep supervising Dutch sailor, 14</p>
<p>[The</a> Associated Press: Court will keep supervising Dutch sailor, 14](<a href=“http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i2PUhRibN-l9UVKecyuyuzHrexIwD9GD2TO80]The”>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i2PUhRibN-l9UVKecyuyuzHrexIwD9GD2TO80)</p>
<p>Here is an article on the topic of the rescue and no compensation…</p>
<p>[Abby</a> Sunderland rescue bill no big deal, France and Australia say](<a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_abby_sunderland_rescue_bill_no_big_deal_france_and_australia_say.html]Abby”>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/17/2010-06-17_abby_sunderland_rescue_bill_no_big_deal_france_and_australia_say.html)</p>
<p>By the way, it does mention that the fishing vessel lost thousands in fuel and lost wages. </p>
<p>The conclusion reminds me of much of what 07Dad has to say on this topic…that there is no alternative as it would be inhumane to not rescue those lost at sea. </p>
<p>What it fails to realize is that there is a happy medium …it is not an either/or situation…rather, of course one would expect any humans to do all they could to rescue those lost at sea (or anywhere else for that matter). But it would be reasonable to expect those who are saved to make an attempt at some restitution when someone embarks on a highly risky venture as many agree Abby’s endeavor happened to be (solo on that type of boat in a winter storm season in the Indian Ocean).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why don’t they just say NO! The girl has said that her goal is to beat Jessica Watson to the record of youngest girl. It’s clearly a stunt. </p>
<p>I see the humor that the Dutch court is concerned that the 2 year trip is BAD for an underage female because it is TOO LONG. I guess they would disagree with the CC sailing pros that a longer indirect, see-the-sites trip is GOOD. </p>
<p>I think the governments of the world ought to set up an official website and let everyone in the world vote on any trip proposed by any under age child. Flying from Chicago to LA alone? Yes/No? Majority vote “wins.” Make it binding.</p>
<p>07Dad, actually when it comes to flying alone on US airlines, there are rules Under a certain age, you must be accompanied/supervised by someone at the airline as well as handed off to approved people on the other end. Even if a parent of a certain aged child didn’t want this supervision, they’d have to have it in order to put their kid on the plane. I mean even the airlines care about the welfare of minors.</p>
<p>PS, many airlines charge a fee to supervise unaccompanied minors.</p>
<p>To heck with the rules if they allow the unaccompanied minor to fly (even for a fee) or what the parent wants or the 16 year old is comfortable with. Don’t you think we, as concerned people, ought to be able to stop this practice? </p>
<p>Its totally unacceptable. Anyone can see that. Don’t you recall that there were children on the flight that the terrorists crashed into the Pentagon? Gravity is always at work trying to pull these airplanes out of the sky! Dangerous, dangerous. “Real flyers” only fly as a job. They don’t take their kids on these planes as part of work.</p>
<p>Having these kids on these planes without the parent along is just convenience for the parents, probably to save a little money from taking off work. It’s bad parenting. If the parent can’t afford to take off work and fly with them, the kid shouldn’t be allowed to go on a plane.</p>
<p>Stick um on a Greyhound bus, That assures that they won’t fall out of the sky. Besides, that way it will take longer and they will get to see the sights (and the “real” America) Why, all these kids flying alone is just to get there faster, can’t you see! </p>
<p>Its almost like a stunt. And when the planes crash think of all the expense! Local fire departments, FAA and sometime even nearby people get involved in the assistance. Do these parents have insurance to pay these people back?</p>
<p>07Dad,
Obviously you don’t really understand the point of view of some of us. Some of us feel that everyone should take risks. I know my kids take a lot of risks. People may even raise an eyebrow on what our kids have been allowed to do. You keep acting as if those who oppose your viewpoint are against risk taking. That is not so. </p>
<p>Where some draw the line is when it comes to some very very very high risk ventures where the chance of danger is so great that it is hard to fathom a parent putting their kid at grave risk. It is not as if we are against risk taking. </p>
<p>There is reasonable risk and then there is reckless risk. They are not the same. Perhaps they can’t be defined but most reasonable people know the difference.</p>
<p>Also, nobody said that kids flying alone is a problem. My kids did it from a young age. The point earlier is that even the airlines have rules about it and insist on accompanying children below a certain age, and on their connections, and charge a fee for that. It doesn’t matter what parents think. There are policies set up around this.</p>
<p>Imagine for a moment that Abby was under 15. She would not have been permitted to make a connecting flight on JetBlue (per their policy) if she were not accompanied by an adult. But I suppose she’d be allowed to sail around the world solo and during the winter in the Indian Ocean. :D</p>
<p>Also, as a 15 year old (in my state), she would not have been permitted (by law) to drive alone without an adult, even if her parents wanted her to do so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt every unaccompanied 12 year old is mature enough to sheppard a 5 year old from Seattle to Miami through Atlanta. But, I think I’d leave that evaluation to the parent of the particular kid.</p>
<p>Southwest only started charging for unaccompanied minors in 2009. Bags fly free for all passangers. I asked a ticket agent about the bags fly free issue since it is a big part of SW’s advertizing. She told me “honey, with the number of kids we ship around between divorced parents we have started charging for that first.” I then asked the steward about the charge for kids when I got on the plane. I implied the kids must require a lot of extra work. He said an adult passanger is always way more work and that it was a revenue source that impacted fewer passangers than the bag charges. BTW–SW doubled the charge effective April 2010. I doubt kids became twice as much work over that time.</p>
<p>DC does not allow you to get a license until you are 21 without a course. South Dakota allows a restricted hours drivers license at 14 years, 3 months. Laws and rules like these are based on lots of different factors, many of which have nothing to do with the child’s abilities or the danger of the activity. Look back at the post on under age kids who work on farms. A farm kid can work legally years before other kids, just because its farm work.</p>
<p>07Dad, forget the charges the airlines charge to accompany minors. On many airlines, you must be a certain age to fly unaccompanied. And for certain ages, you must have a flight attendant supervise the child and hand the child off to approved people on the other end as well as accompany the child during the connections phase. Some airlines don’t even let kids under a certain age fly solo if it involves connections. My point was not so much the fees, though I mentioned those were also involved. </p>
<p>My mention of driving is that while you can get a permit here at 15, you may not drive solo without an adult accompanying you. </p>
<p>So, in some spheres, there are rules about these things. So, even if a parent wants to let their child do certain things or risks, there are actual policies in place. You mentioned letting kids fly and was sarcastic that nobody should let their kids go on a plane and I was saying that while we let our kids do that, there are rules/policies about it and so the welfare of children is something considered by businesses or governments. The latter decides what age can drive and under what circumstances.</p>
<p>Well, I went to the US Coast Guard website and it indicates that Vermont law does not require an adult to be on board when a minor operates a motorized vessel.</p>
<p>Nor do Alaska, Hawaii or Florida. And Alaska, Hawaii and Florida do not set a minimum operator age for operating motorized vessels or sailboats or require mandatory boat operating licenses. Vermont doesn’t set any minimum age for operating a sailboat. </p>
<p>California sets 16 as the minimum age to operate a sailboat over 30", so Abby was “legal.” Only 4 states, including California, have a minimum age for any size sailboat and California is the most stringent. So, Abby was “good to go” nationwide.</p>
<p>According to one report today, California CPS interviewed Abby prior to her departure to make sure she was “on-board” with the trip. </p>
<p>So, if you look to the state and federal laws and the institutional checks, Abby was both “legal” and “ship shape.” But, does that matter? Shouldn’t everyone get to vote on these issues, at least as to bad parenting?</p>
<p>Do most of you pole your friends and acquaintences before you decide what legal activity is appropriate for your child? Or do you assess your own child and make that decision?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, a little OT, but I put D on a plane alone 2 days after her 5th birthday. They allowed me to board with her early, and after 2 minutes of tears (on my part only) she said “Mom,you should go now and compose yourself!” What a priceless moment!</p>