Round-the-world teen sailor feared lost at sea

My oldest sister was cooking dinner almost every night for her 9 siblings when she was 8 years old. Dad built a custom step for her so she could reach the stove.

I was mowing grass with both a push and riding lawn mower when I was 9.

I was regularly driving mom across Missouri on road trips of about 320 miles beginning when I was 13. And, of cours, I'd be driving too fast when the speed limit was 55. She'd occasionally look up from her knitting and tell me to slow down so I wouldn't get her in trouble.

The only reason 16 year olds aren't mature enough to make decisions is because the parents don't make them be.

Coddle kids and they'll be just as unable to manage risk as adults. Just as keeping infants clear of all germs and bacteria will produces sickly adults.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with being a teenager outside of the fact that the parents hold legal liability. I don't care how old they are, it ain't right.
 
TMetzinger said:
I remember being inspired by stories of a boy who sailed around the world alone at a similar young age.
Click to expand...

Was it her brother? Press reports that her brother did the same thing. I am in the camp that believes this is all about the publicity (and CV building for college?). I think that they should be billed for the SAR.

Wells
 
timwinters said:
My oldest sister was...
Click to expand...
Which of these is not like the other? Which of these does not belong?
A ) cooking dinner
B ) mowing the lawn
C ) driving a car
D ) sailing solo around the world​
I mowed the lawn, too. I never needed a S&R team. There was no point where I was mowing the lawn, and nobody knew if I was alive or dead.
-harry
 
wabower said:
My friend Jim Bayham was 18 when he entered cadet pilot training, 19 when he started flying combat missions as commander of a B-24. He was shot down, so he must not have been very good at it.
Click to expand...
Yes, our priorities change in war-time.

This girl wasn't making the world safe for Democracy, she was working towards a book deal, an appearance on Oprah, and gigs as a motivational speaker.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
...
I'm happy to accept the possibility that a 16-year exists that is ready for this responsibility, and grudgingly willing to accept the possibility that one set of parents might crank out two of these, but when your kid is being rescued from a disabled boat in the middle of the ocean, I think it's fair to re-evaluate the premise in the context of the results.

What I'll never understand about these "I want my kid to be the youngest to..." is that it p*sses on any form of sensible risk management, clearly rationalizing it in the name of glory.
-harry
Click to expand...

On the first - the fact that the kid was alive to be rescued shows that she dealt with the event (hey, stuff happens) well.

On the second, I'm in full agreement. I understand wanting your kids to have it "better" than you did. But a parents job is more to encourage and equip a child to follow THEIR dreams then follow YOUR dreams. I know I hope my daughter will love to do some of the things I do but expect that she'll want to do other things as well.
 
TMetzinger said:
I remember being inspired by stories of a boy who sailed around the world alone at a similar young age.
Click to expand...

W. Stewart said:
Was it her brother? Press reports that her brother did the same thing. I am in the camp that believes this is all about the publicity (and CV building for college?). I think that they should be billed for the SAR.

Wells
Click to expand...
Answered in the quote below:
catmandu said:
Tim: Robin Graham and The Dove? I must have read that book ten times in my youth.
<SNIP>
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lee_Graham


Henning said:
This has nothing to do with being a teenager outside of the fact that the parents hold legal liability. I don't care how old they are, it ain't right.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong...but the world has changed from the days of Robin Graham's trip.
 
TMetzinger said:
On the first - the fact that the kid was alive to be rescued shows that she dealt with the event (hey, stuff happens) well...
Click to expand...
I guess, but looking back at my own misspent youth, I survived a whole lot of stupid things, and I have to confess that in most cases the survival wasn't proof of good judgment so much as good luck. And the fact that I describe the results of those events in terms of "survival" is more likely to suggest that I was guilty of some dubious judgment.

In other words, if find yourself in a situation where you could be successfully rescued, is that a sign of your good judgment or a sign that you put yourself in a situation where death was a likely outcome, one avoided less through your own actions than through the application of superior skill, judgment, care, and experience of those who bailed you out?
-harry
 
mantakos said:
In other words, if find yourself in a situation where you could be successfully rescued, is that a sign of your good judgment or a sign that you put yourself in a situation where death was a likely outcome, one avoided less through your own actions than through the application of superior skill, judgment, care, and experience of those who bailed you out?
-harry
Click to expand...

Good question. If it weren't for the 406 EPIRB/PLB technology, would she ever have been rescued? This technology makes it possible to to get the distress message out wherever on the globe you are. That is both good (I own a PLB ) and bad - encourages risky behavior.

-Skip
 
I've got a PLB too, but can't point to any additional risks I take now vs. before I bought it. What differences do you notice?

Skip Miller said:
Good question. If it weren't for the 406 EPIRB/PLB technology, would she ever have been rescued? This technology makes it possible to to get the distress message out wherever on the globe you are. That is both good (I own a PLB ) and bad - encourages risky behavior.

-Skip
Click to expand...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Answered in the quote below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lee_Graham




I'm not saying you're wrong...but the world has changed from the days of Robin Graham's trip.
Click to expand...


Correct, he did it in 1965. In 1972 IMO held a convention that produced the 72 COLREGS where Part B, Rule 5 contained this verbiage:

Part B - Steering and sailing

Section I (for any visibility)

4. ApplicationThe rules apply in any visibility (e.g. in sight or in restricted visibility).
5. Look-out: Every vessel must at all times keep a proper look-out by sight, hearing and all available means in order to judge if risk of collision exists.
Click to expand...
That effectively made what Robin did illegal. IMO (International Maritime Organization, a branch of the U.N.), unlike most bureaucratic organizations, is made up of maritime professionals with millions of aggregated miles at sea. Any nation which is signatory to IMO (which all seafaring nations are) is bound to these regulations. I'm not a rules maven as most people know, but there is nothing I can find in the COLREGS that I find fault with.
 
May violate the rules, yet the risk to international shipping from his 24ft boat was probably modest.

Also, it is fine as long as everyone else is keeping a lookout. Millions of retired folks in Florida navigate the roads based on that principle every day :yinyang: .
 
weilke said:
May violate the rules, yet the risk to international shipping from his 24ft boat was probably modest.

Also, it is fine as long as everyone else is keeping a lookout. Millions of retired folks in Florida navigate the roads based on that principle every day :yinyang: .
Click to expand...

What part of that rule is unclear??? There is no may about it, it is a clear violation, there is no room for interpretation, and actually, IMO reads that rule to mean that there has to be 2 persons on watch, because part of the definition of a lookout is that they are to have no other duties, like driving the boat. Lots of little boats out on the ocean as well, and it is never fine. Even if running over some idiot kid (or adult for that matter) just leaves me a few scrapes, that's $10,000 worth on these types of boats, plus I've got a ton of hassles with authorities to deal with to the point I'm not sure I'd report it, f-em.
 
Last edited:
nddons said:
I know kids develop at different rates, but whether its flying, voting, fighting, or giving consent to have sex, society has determined that 16 is too young for all of these activities.
Click to expand...

You're only batting .500 on your facts there, Stan. You can fly at 16 (solo in a powered aircraft, fully licensed in a glider), and the most common age of consent in the United States is 16.
 
Henning said:
What part of that rule is unclear??? There is no may about it, it is a clear violation, there is no room for interpretation, and actually, IMO reads that rule to mean that there has to be 2 persons on watch, because part of the definition of a lookout is that they are to have no other duties, like driving the boat. Lots of little boats out on the ocean as well, and it is never fine. Even if running over some idiot kid (or adult for that matter) just leaves me a few scrapes, that's $10,000 worth on these types of boats, plus I've got a ton of hassles with authorities to deal with to the point I'm not sure I'd report it, f-em.
Click to expand...

So any vessel with less than 6 qualified crew better stay off your ocean, right :dunno:.

And as YOUR vessel keeps a proper lookout and radar watch, you'll just maneuver around the little sloop (just like you go around all those little fishing boats that dare to clutter up shipping lanes here and there in defiance of colreg).
 
weilke said:
So any vessel with less than 6 qualified crew better stay off your ocean, right :dunno:.

And as YOUR vessel keeps a proper lookout and radar watch, you'll just maneuver around the little sloop (just like you go around all those little fishing boats that dare to clutter up shipping lanes here and there in defiance of colreg).
Click to expand...

I don't care if they run 2 12 on 12 off so long as someone is on lookout. I run a minimum of 6 six for multiple reasons not least of which it's normally dictated by the MSM(Minimum Safe Manning) orders of the vessels I run. As for no fishing in the shipping lanes, please indicate to me where in the COLREGS you find that? Fishing vessels have ROW (this means commercial fishing boats with gear out displaying lights or day shapes appropriate to them, not guys out fishing) over an unencumbered motor vessel. There are charted areas of Traffic Separation Schemes that are charted "no fishing allowed" but there is nothing in the 72 COLREGS associated with that. Rule 10 IIRC covers that and it merely states that crossing the traffic separation schemes should be done at right angles, and nothing more. If you are talking about a confined channel (no "no fishing" rule there), and I'm in a vessel constrained by her draft, I give them 5 and keep on steaming, they get out of the way.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
You're only batting .500 on your facts there, Stan. You can fly at 16 (solo in a powered aircraft, fully licensed in a glider), and the most common age of consent in the United States is 16.
Click to expand...

Fine, Kent. You got me good. OK, let me rephrase. How about "getting a pilot's license in a powered aircraft and flying as far away from home as you want."

As for the age of consent, perhaps you know that better than me. I don't think it diminishes my point that much, does it? If I substitute consent for drinking alcohol, for example, will you call it a push?
 
nddons said:
If I substitute consent for drinking alcohol, for example, will you call it a push?
Click to expand...
The drinking age in most of western Europe is 16-18 years old. Why are the kids in Europe able to handle liquor at that age, but American kids have to wait to 21?

Are American kids so much less mature than their European counter parts? Or are Americans over protective for no real good reason?
 
ScottM said:
The drinking age in most of western Europe is 16-18 years old. Why are the kids in Europe able to handle liquor at that age, but American kids have to wait to 21?

Are American kids so much less mature than their European counter parts? Or are Americans over protective for no real good reason?
Click to expand...

Because they won't let them have drivers licenses till they are 18, and they spent a lot of money to get those licenses and the punishments are much more severe for 1st offense DUI, so drinking and driving while learning your alchol limits over there is not the issue it is here where many kids are learning to drink and learning drive at the same time.
 
Henning said:
Because they won't let them have drivers licenses till they are 18, and they spent a lot of money to get those licenses and the punishments are much more severe for 1st offense DUI, so drinking and driving while learning your alchol limits over there is not the issue it is here where many kids are learning to drink and learning drive at the same time.
Click to expand...

Bingo. There are different ways of doing things, and I for one am glad that these parents are doing something different and are not simply raising a generation of kids that are afraid to do anything but sit at home playing Grand Theft Auto because they might get hurt. The greatest rewards in life usually start with the greatest risks, and if we continue to coddle our kids and make their lives as safe as possible, they will not learn of those rewards. I'm afraid of what this country will become if we don't teach the next generation how to "go for it" and accomplish great things. :frown2:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Bingo. There are different ways of doing things, and I for one am glad that these parents are doing something different and are not simply raising a generation of kids that are afraid to do anything but sit at home playing Grand Theft Auto because they might get hurt. The greatest rewards in life usually start with the greatest risks, and if we continue to coddle our kids and make their lives as safe as possible, they will not learn of those rewards. I'm afraid of what this country will become if we don't teach the next generation how to "go for it" and accomplish great things. :frown2:
Click to expand...


So, it's ok to put others at risk? Is that what parents should teach children? "It's ok to break the rules and endanger others lives and property as long as it gets you a book deal and some TV coverage." ??? There's limits to everything.
 
Henning said:
So, it's ok to put others at risk? Is that what parents should teach children? "It's ok to break the rules and endanger others lives and property as long as it gets you a book deal and some TV coverage." ??? There's limits to everything.
Click to expand...

Henning, sure she broke the rules, I don't think anyone can argue that she didn't. But put others at risk? Very slim possibility of that. Her boat would be a fly on the windshield of 99.9% of other ocean going vessels.

I'm sure our kids would all be much better off if we were all helicopter parents:
attachment.php



attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • helicopter-2.gif
    helicopter-2.gif
    78 KB · Views: 100
  • helicopter-3.gif
    helicopter-3.gif
    35.6 KB · Views: 103
timwinters said:
Henning, sure she broke the rules, I don't think anyone can argue that she didn't. But put others at risk? Very slim possibility of that. Her boat would be a fly on the windshield of 99.9% of other ocean going vessels.
Click to expand...


You do realize that the supermajority of vessels on the ocean are boats of <30', many under sail, with no radar running, right? That includes the number of commercial ships. All over the world, people sailing here and there properly crewed on small boats, not looking for publicity or records... just looking for surf and dive spots or whatever. Many of them have small children onboard as well.
 
Last edited:
Jack Spectre said:
Many older and more experienced sailors have died doing what she attempted to do. Her parents earn a FAIL for letting her do something so incredibly risky.

You can raise a child to be mature and responsible without including this level of risk. The minute she turns 18 it's her call...but this whole "youngest person to do (insert dangerous activity)" is ludicrous.

Her parents have exhibited an appalling lack of judgment and should face consequence for what has happened here. They should also have to pay the full SAR bill as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...

What is so magical about the arbitrary age of 18?
 
On MSNBC this morning, they were equating this to the "balloon-boy" stunt. The father is saying they don't have the money to pay for the rescue, is trying to get paid for tv news coverage.
 
At 16, I was too busy chasing fur in Elk City, OK, to even think about getting out of town, let alone sailing somewhere, and the only definable life-threatening risk was my girlfriend's father.

The fact that there weren't any sailboats within a hundred miles might have had something to do with it.

Skip Miller said:
None that I notice, Wayne. But a teenager?

-Skip
Click to expand...
 
AuntPeggy said:
On MSNBC this morning, they were equating this to the "balloon-boy" stunt. The father is saying they don't have the money to pay for the rescue, is trying to get paid for tv news coverage.
Click to expand...

I can't quite buy that argument. If they could afford to buy a 40 foot sailboat and equip it for a round the world voyage then they should be able to pay for the rescue.
 
TMetzinger said:
300 grand for the rescue? BS. Someone picks her up, and they can salvage her boat.
Click to expand...

No, you missed that, it was $300,000 to charter the plane to find her, the boat isn't going to be salvaged most likely, not from where it is, it would be too expensive to do. Most likely they sink her. She's on a French fishing boat right now that's working in the area, and most likely another ship is going to pick her up enroute from them and bring her to their next port. This is what the whole GMDSS system is about. You get broadcasts over the NAVTEX and INMARSAT C that notify you about this stuff, and if you're close and willing, you assist. Most rescues at sea are done by commercial vessels, and you can't ask them to slow down and salvage some POS little boat, they have schedules to meet with millions of dollars riding on them. They are not in the salvage business, and there's no way they can tow her 40' sailboat at 20kts. Even if they had a strong enough hawser and the little boat had strong enough fittings, they'd sink her, and they sure as heck arent going to slow down to 8 kts.
 
They chartered a jet to find her? Who is "they"? If "they" chartered the jet, "they" better have the money.
 
TMetzinger said:
They chartered a jet to find her? Who is "they"? If "they" chartered the jet, "they" better have the money.
Click to expand...
"They" is the people who respond when somebody calls them for help by pushing the button on their EPIRB, as this girl did.
-harry
 
AuntPeggy said:
Did they just say the Qantas airliner dismasted her boat?
http://yachtpals.com/rescue-costs-9094

The cost is around $300,000. Here is the reason people are calling it another "balloon boy" stunt.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/sail_kid_parents_set_cour_for_tv_crGRuKCVBcBCM5v3s23ULK
Click to expand...

Pregnant wife and 7 kids? Why not just do another "Eight is Enough" show, or another one like "Eight Plus Kate" or whatever the hell it was called. Has to be easier than risking one of your kids.
 
Is that where we are now, risk your kids life for reality TV and the lure of money? :crazy:
 
Henning said:
You do realize that the supermajority of vessels on the ocean are boats of <30', many under sail, with no radar running, right? That includes the number of commercial ships. All over the world, people sailing here and there properly crewed on small boats, not looking for publicity or records... just looking for surf and dive spots or whatever. Many of them have small children onboard as well.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. And if this is true of boats on the open seas then I agree with you. However, if 99% of these ships are recreational and remain close to shore then I don't think someone circumnavigating the globe in open water poses much danger to them.
 
Rescue at sea when life is at stake is the responsibility of every seagoing vessel and her crew, not just the Coast Guards of the world.

Salvaging a vessel is not.

It would be nice if they could salvage Wild Eyes, both for her own value and for whatever historical value she may have (which is probably minimal, as Abby didn't succeed at breaking the record). But Henning is right. Merchant mariners have responsibilities and deadlines that don't allow for it, and salvaging boats is not their responsibility in any case.

-Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top