This may be one of the tougher calls to make, but considering that the captain left his friends a message saying he had an emergency on board, and the Coast Guard deemed the vessel unseaworthy, we’re going to side with the USCG on this one. They had to take into consideration the fact that if they let him continue on, there’s a good chance they would be called out for rescue again, potentially risking the lives of their own. Read on and let us know what you think in the comments.
Dennis Howard, an experienced sailor who is legally blind, sailed out of San Diego on Nov. 1 after many months of preparation for what was supposed to be a life-affirming, around-the-world solo voyage, lasting two years.
Four days later, about 60 miles off the coast of the Baja peninsula, the U.S. Coast Guard ended Howard’s journey by removing him from his boat after a storm broke his boom and left him with only his foresail.
The Coast Guard’s version of the story is that it was dispatched on a rescue mission by Howard’s friends, who received an emergency message from the sailor during the storm.
Howard’s version is that the Coast Guard forced him off his boat, a 20-foot Pacific Seacraft Flicka called Avalo, without properly inspecting it for seaworthiness. They left the uninsured vessel there, along with most of his worldly possessions.
Now he wants the federal government to compensate him for the $150,000 loss, and the Coast Guard called out for overreaching. He has filed a claim, the first step toward a lawsuit.
For the complete story, go to www.sail-world.com.
I have never seen the Coast Guard do anything that would be considered unprofessional nor have I seen any unwarranted actions by them. From what little I did read the boat was damaged in a storm and it is an around the world trip by a blind man. I would have to err on the side of caution since I did not see what was going on I assume that the Coast guard say something they felt made it not unsafe to let this man continue his trip.
These are people who spend more time at sea than most and do the job for other reasons than a paycheck they deal in situations everyday and have a lot of experience in what to do.
SO if I look at it this way if it where my boat would I be mad about leaving it? Sure I would but then again the US Coast Guard are the best there is and if they felt it unsafe I would tend to believe them . I figure it is better to be safe than sorry at sea and the only thing worth risking you life for are those that are not object.
I completely understand the compassion and caring that prompted the Skipper of that
Coast Guard vessel to order his crew to essentially take Dennis into custody for his own safety.He was wrong. The nature of single-handed, blue water sailing is such that risk is inherent in the endeavor. The gentleman apparently accepted that condition as a part of his quest. Two thoughts: First, at what handicap, or degree of perceived handicap, do we argue that an individuals right to make choices has been abrogated and lost. A very slippery slope folks. Second: Since the days of Joshua Slocum and on through, God rest their souls, many wonderfully brave and adventurous souls who have sailed east or west or south and simply disappeared those of us who sail or admire these sailors have accepted the fact that they knew what they were doing and likely accepted their final fate as unfortunate, but appropriate. The man was the master of his own vessel. The arbitrary decision to suspend his rights as a master was wrong and he should be compensated.
I agree. This fellow was a victim of the new nanny state’s decree that the federal government must take care of you cradle to grave whether you like it or not. Don’t laugh, you may be next.
First, let me say that I’m a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. I have a great deal of respect for the service and the men and women who devote their careers to it. Mr. Howard bears considerable responsibility for these events. He may not have issued a Mayday or activated his EPRB but he left a message that was sufficiently ambiguous and alarming as to induce his contact ashore to call for help on his behalf. The Coast Guard responded to that distress call at taxpayer expense and at some risk to the personnel involved. A suit seeking to have the Coast Guard “called out for overreaching” for what was undoubtedly a selfless act in response to an alarm that he himself initiated is “overreaching”.
That said, the government has become too paternalistic and too quick to use coercive force to compel compliance with its “better judgment”. Nothing in the article suggests that Howard is incompetent. The Coast Guard might disagree with the wisdom of his decision to remain aboard but, absent mental illness rendering him a danger to himself or others, the decision was his to make. Removing him from the vessel without scuttling it did nothing to prevent the boat from becoming a hazard to navigation or to safeguard the environment from contamination should it sink. He carried no passengers. The only issue was whether he should be permitted to gamble his own life. Sailing is inherently dangerous. If the government can substitute its appraisal of the odds of survival for that of the person placing the bet in international waters off a foreign shore, what prevents it from presuming to decide that merely departing from a dock in US waters or sailing more than x-miles from the shore or in winds greater than y-knots is too dangerous to be tolerated? I question whether We the People really want the government to have that much control over the conduct of our individual lives.
So here is my question how did he manage to get his message to his friend and why did his friend or Coast Guard did not return his call to verify the nature of his emergancy other than the broken boom? I persoinally think this was a major fubar on behalf all parties, lack of proper communication! Ultimatly he ought get compensated!
It is important to understand safety it is imperative and as we sail the world, we do it for pleasure. we are there because we want, not because we have to. It is selfish from our part to risk somebody’s else life because of something we want to do. I agree with the coast guard, day in and day out they offering their assistance, some times puting their life’s at risk. We should respect that and reward their service. It is very unfair for this man to behave this way.
Jofre
Individuals who place other individuals in a life threatening position because of foolhardy decisions should be made aware of a ‘no-recsue’ policy. Have written to a newspaper re/ a situation when, in the month of Nov., when the North Atlantic is very unforgiving, an elderly chap took on a solo trip to Europe from Halifax. He got into big troiuble about 100 miles off-shore. A
Canadian CG rescue helicopter hauled him up after several attempts at the risk of losing the aircraft and its 2 crew members. It was a harrowing performance in 50 knot winds. Total cost to the tax payer (never-re-imbursed), approx. 100 grand. People must take responsibility for their own foolish decisions.
Ok he sent a message to his friends, part that is not told, did he ask for help or did he just send them a message that he had trouble. Did the friends make the call to contact the Coast Gaurd or was it at Dennis’s request. A lot of things here to consider. I work sith some disabled sailors and they work at being independant as possible. In Dennis’s position did they take him off his vessel with his belongings left behind, it sounds like it. Was the vessel sinking or not, engine powered or not, fuel on board, rig solid, sails good, many things to think of. Yes if they pulled him off the boat without him putting out the request for help then they should pay. What was left behind that had a value that can not be replaced? Are the friends held responsible for the call, was the call made for them to just check on him? I value Coast Gaurd’s contribution to the safety of boaters but I have seen times when they have over stepped their bounds just as many law officers have and become the authority and make demands simply because they can without it costing them anything. I veiw it just a traffic ticket which is a bad one and it cost the officer nothing for a bad ticket, but we pay for the defense. In this cause there are many things to know whether it was a good call or a bad one. To let a man died at sea is not a bad thing if that is what he would rather do if it indeeed was that type of situation. Just because a boom is broken is no reason to deem the vessel unsafe, knowing the type of vessel says a lot to how it maybe still floating some where and someone will find it on shore some where with a free boat load of goods. It is an awsome decision to make to pull someone or let them go in a venture that we might feel is on safe but is that our call. Do we decide the call on our lack of being able to cope with the tast at hand or do we rely on his detrimenation of his ability to handle the situation. Tough call but to error on his behalf and let him seek his own path is the way I think I would go. Isn’t they something about the right to one own direction as long as it doesn’t directly effect another person in what our country stands for any more. This leads us to another direction but won’t go there now.
If I remember correctly, those around at the time also thought Joshua Slocum’s vessel was un-seaworthy. In my opinion, the US Coast Guard is extreamly professional and the best at what they do. However, this a policy decision and not one that represents technique or capability. My opinion on a proper policy would be to encourage the sailor to leave his vessel and inform him that if he did not, they would not respond to any future request for assistance. The decision would be his to make and would not put CG efforts in future jeopardy.
Well if the man said to leave him on his boat the USCG was wrong in taking him off, probably even more so since it looks like he was in international waters. I could sail around the world on just my head sails, and if Dennis felt comfortable sailing on his head sails to his next port then he should of been left alone. Evidently the coast gaurd has not taught these coast gaurd skippers very well, or they know very little about sailing. Did this man change his story after voluntarily getting off his boat? We all know the Flicka could continue until the man got to his next port for repairs with just his jib, or genoa sails. More big brother unecessary actions. Were his friends to over active on screaming the sky is falling when the man was telling them about his journey, or did this man call for help from his friends and then change his mind? Without a recording at the boat scene during the rescue it is very hard to tell what went on. A Flika and a blind man, leave the guy alone, and the US government can replace his boat they took him off of. What is this Russia and the KGB.
I can feel for the captain of the USCG vessel. He was thinking not only about the risk to Mr Howard but also the risk to his crew if they left him there and then had to go out again in the worsening storm. But the loss of the boat and all possesions is pretty hard to swallow. I wonder why, with such a large USCG vessel, they wern’t able to take the boat in tow?
A second Jeff agrees with the first Jeff about this. The boat was partially disabled but still watertight, so there was no reason to not take the boat in tow. By leaving the boat behind, they now just created a hazard to navigation for other ships in the area. It is a tough call whether to remove the crew for their own safety but better that decision over the CG having to come back out later for a risky rescue…but unless there is a risk to the rescue ship, they should make every attempt to bring the boat back as well.
After reading the more complete story, it seemed to me that Dennis knew what he was doing. He reportedly had a sea anchor deployed in anticipation of the coming storm. He had a sail plan that could return him back to land, which was his intent. He was a very experienced sailor who had prepared his boat for 2 years. If this man wasn’t blind, I wonder if the USCG would have removed him from his boat. In this age of technology, being legally blind isn’t the sailing disability it use to be. Of course, we can’t judge the case without all the unbiased facts, but I do feel for him losing his boat and possessions.
It would seem to me that if the Coast Guard got a call from his friends saying he was in distress, and knowing that people act irrationally in times of extreme stress the Coast Guard made the right decision. If they had received the call and not attempted to rescue him then they also would have been at risk of getting sued by his surviving family members. I believe there is a good chance that he did call is friends in distress then after the fact when he remembered that he did not have insurance he went into a panic and decideed to sue. It is brave of him to try the solo sail BUT really stupid not to carry adequate insurance. And no I do not not work for an insurance company.
The Coast Guard was proper. At least in my opinion. If you are out at sea in your own boat my yourself. You are in control of the situtation. If you have an emergency and want to take care of it by yourself, do so. If you communicate your emergency to someone else you now are sharing the control. You should expect the first responder to use separate judgement which you may or may not agree with.
I agree with many of the fine comments already made. I’m of the opinion that the Coast Guard made the right decision to send a rescue party but, if and when a sailor asks to be left on his boat and not taken home, I think his wishes should be honored, especially when he’s not risking anyone else. I think it should be like an ambulance call. They come to you, give assistance and transport you, unless you refuse. And you should pay for the service if they transport you. Maybe they could have you sign a release and you can proceed at your own risk. Of course, every situation may have extenuating circumstances, so there may not be a written policy to cover every rescue mission.
How about an alternative ending and headlines screaming “Coast Guard leaves Blind Man to Drown!”? The USCG has missions mandated by the Government and they are responsible to an oversight body for their successful performance. They are an overcommitted and under resourced facility, trained to make decisions on the sport, based on policy established by both their operational superiors and the Government, who also controls their funding. Guided by policy, the limited time available for any single mission, traditions and knowledge of the sea, they make the best decisions available to them at the site. Mistakes are sometimes made, but they are not the rule. Before we critique the Coast Guard in this case, it might be time to review the rules and conditions they were operating under. There are simply not enough data available to fully understand, let alone second guess, a SAR commmand decision. If it was a bad call, the due process will rectifiy it.
USCG gets a call from friends of a sailor saying he’s in distress. The sailor has let his friends know that he’s been in a storm and has lost boom and main. He does not say he’s in distress, apparently. But he’s blind and alone.
The friends get worried. They call USCG. Unclear if they asked that the sailor be rescued. Unclear if USCG took it upon themselves to initiate action.
My take. If the call to USCG from the friends amounted to a request for rescue, the sailor has no cause of action against the USCG — the Coasties then acted properly on what they considered an informed party, and when they found the sailor, they rescued him. The sailor might then have an action against his friends, if they took it upon themselves to ask for his rescue, without the sailor having asked to be rescued. If, however, the friends called the USCG and either (i) wanted to alert them to a possible rescue situation involving their friend, or (ii) asked for advice about how to handle it, given that they were nervous. Then, perhaps, the sailor has a claim against the Coast Guard. But I don’t think he’ll win that one.
This man was on a suicide mission to start with. That boat was too small for blue water sailing. I am not one who is prejudice against the handicap, but this trip was foolhardy. I commend him for being self sufficient with such a limited ability, but I do believe this was beyond him limit. The Coast Guard was within their rights to make him abandon ship. As someone else said, can you imagine what would have happened if they didn’t make him leave that boat and he died? His family would have brought suit against the Coast Guard and would have won.