OT - Over it

That would be fine John if he and his sponsors bore the costs of rescue (several thereof), but they don't :(((((

Yes I understand where you are coming from in that regard, but you asked in your original post what the point was in doing the attempt, hence my answer.

Its his time and money to waste unless he gets into trouble then its some poor tax payer. :-)

I may be wrong but didn't I read or hear somewhere that he has now obtained insurance of some sort to cover the cost of rescue???
Maybe someone can enlighten us?

John,

Understand your reply. Sorry if mine sounded short. Insurance to cover the cost of rescue? Given his recent record, I would'nt touch him with a barge pole :))))

Bruce,

I don't doubt the man's courage only his judgment at times.

LOL he'd probably be followed out by every vessel and quite a few aircraft that have gone missing in that area :)))))

I would'nt want him captaining any cruise vessel I was on :))))

John.

That's about what I thought as well.

A couple of Aussies had to be rescued from a boat off South Africa (iirc) a few weeks ago - I don't recall hearing any cries for us to repay the South African government the cost of the rescue?

Mike Harding

Mike,
The Aust Navy went to Bullimore's rescue without a wimper, and did a fantastic job (as the SA Navy did).
The difference is before the RAN ship got back to Fremantle, a commercial TV station had dropped their leech on board and negotiated an exclusive contract with Bullimore for his story. He came off that ship tight-lipped and refused to even acknowledge what the Navy had done till he was safely in the confines of that TV station. He made a lot of money out of that with his contract with the TV station. All the kudos was for Bullimore, not the brilliant job the Navy had done.
Not a penny from those royalties went back to the Navy (the cost to the Navy was about $2M). If he had just walked off the Navy ship and said to the media what a great job they had done and how glad he was to be rescued, and left it at that, without pocketing a fortune, we would have been happy.
Got no sympathy for the guy.
Gerry

How could it possibly cost $2,000,000?
We had the ship & we had the personnel, most probably doing nothing. If that cost 2 mil then what do the war games cost us?
As said before, it was invaluable real life practical experience!

Shaker,
I wish I could use that argument when Nissan do a service on my vehicle; I could say to them "you've already got the staff there sitting around, think of the experience they get servicing my vehicle!"

That $2M was the figure quoted by the RAN so I guess they do have a handle on costs.
Gerry

Shaker,

Don't tell everybody about the Navy's great secret! If people find out that all they do is sit around waiting to rescue yachtsman, everyone will want a piece of the action.

It is just as well that the ship was doing 'SFA' as it gave them plenty of opportunity to respond, they probably welcomed some (extra) time away from their families. Don't forget the RAAF P3 crews who actually found him, they didn't have much on either. The Navy tanker that was sailed in support of the operation wasn't particularly busy (just as well). I'm just glad that all the support and planning personnel (including the Maritime Safety Authority) weren't particularly busy at that time so they could chip in and lend a hand.

Invaluable real life practical experience? Yep, if you are happy as a taxpayer to have a Defence Force that specialises in plucking yachtsmen from the Southern Ocean and not much else.

I must remember to tell the Navy people who are spending up to 40 weeks a year away from their families how lucky they are to be doing SFA, it could be worse for them.

Matt.