Site Administrator Graeme Posted June 10, 2010 Site Administrator Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) Teen solo sailor feared lost A reminder from real life on how dangerous solo sailing can be. I hope Abby Sunderland is found safe and sound.... Edited June 10, 2010 by Graeme
C James Posted June 10, 2010 Posted June 10, 2010 Teen solo sailor feared lost A reminder from real life on how dangerous solo sailing can be. I hope Abby Sunderland is found safe and sound.... She's approximately 2000 miles west of Australia's southwest corner. That's part of the Southern Ocean, mentioned in chapter 29 as being very hazardous. She's set off two EPIRBS. and they're the ones that have to be activated manually. So, she survived the initial emergency (she was in a storm) but help is days away. Abby is the sister of Zac Sunderland, who completed a solo circumnavigation a year ago, finishing at the age of 17. (16 when he started). Hopes and prayers for Abby and her family.. I hope she makes it and is found alive.
C James Posted June 10, 2010 Posted June 10, 2010 Here's a map showing her route and location... The nearest inhabited land is Rodreguez island, about 1500 miles northwest. She's about 550 miles north by northeast of Amsterdam island, but there's only a small weather and research station there. There is no possibility of a helicopter reaching her. There are estimates that a nearby boat might reach her in 40 hours, but the bad weather will be an issue. My guess; a knockdown followed by capsize. Her boat, Wild Eyes, was in very heavy seas, running 40 foot, and was having engine trouble. (It's a sailboat, but in heavy weather an engine is often used.) In a storm like that, a large or even a rogue wave is a major danger. She's right in the heart of the vast empty expanse mentioned in 29; far from land. OKAY, I can't link the image, so I'll link the LA times story; the map is about halfway down the page.
Site Administrator Graeme Posted June 11, 2010 Author Site Administrator Posted June 11, 2010 (edited) Thanks for the link to the article with the map, CJ! I noticed that the original article I linked has been updated with a map, too. As the article from Melbourne's Herald-Sun newspaper site said, Australian authorities are chartering a jet to go look for her. Unlike Trevor's trip, Abby is attempting an official non-stop solo circumnavigation. That has certain rules associated with it, which is why she went around the southern tip of Africa, rather than through the Suez. As I understand it, to make an official circumnavigation, you can't use either the Panama or Suez canals, you have to have travelled in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and you have to have travelled a certain minimum distance. The article I linked mentions an 'unofficial' record by the Australian Jessica Watson. It's unofficial because she failed to meet the minimum distance requirement (from memory, she was a few hundred nautical miles short). Edited June 11, 2010 by Graeme
C James Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 Thanks for the link to the article with the map, CJ! I noticed that the original article I linked has been updated with a map, too. As the article from Melbourne's Herald-Sun newspaper site said, Australian authorities are chartering a jet to go look for her. Unlike Trevor's trip, Abby is attempting an official non-stop solo circumnavigation. That has certain rules associated with it, which is why she went around the southern tip of Africa, rather than through the Suez. As I understand it, to make an official circumnavigation, you can't use either the Panama or Suez canals, you have to have travelled in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and you have to have travelled a certain minimum distance. The article I linked mentions an 'unofficial' record by the Australian Jessica Watson. It's unofficial because she failed to meet the minimum distance requirement (from memory, she was a few hundred nautical miles short). Thanks Graeme! That position is different from my estimate; I placed her 550 miles NNE of Amsterdam island, but she's apparently only 90 miles WSW (I think that plot is more accurate than what I had). Amsterdam has a research station and about 20 scientists, but it does not have a harbor, so it is unlikly that they have anything more than a skiff and could not reach her. Abby originally set out on a solo unassisted attempt; that means non-stop (and she was trying to be the youngest ever to do it). However, she had to pull into Cape Town due to problems with her autopilot (quite common) and thus abandoned the solo unassisted attempt weeks ago. She was continuing on, however, with her solo attempt. The rules state that you must equal or exceed the circumference of the earth at the equator, and also cross a line of latitude antipodal to your departure point. (so, if you sail from a port that's 25 degrees south, you must reach 25 degrees north). Abbey Sunderland sailed from Southern California, so she'd met the latitude requirements before rounding Cape Horn. All she has are the distance requirements, plus reaching her starting point. Abby Sunderland and Wild Eyes were in at least 70 MPH (almost hurricane force) winds and very heavy seas. A few months ago, Jessica Watson, who completed a solo unassisted circumnavigation, suffered seven knockdowns in that stretch. (A knockdown is when the boat heels hard over, so that the mast is parallel to or oven touching the water.) We'll know more when the Qantas search plane does the overflight in a few hours. They'll be able to find the beacon; one is GPS enabled (like what Trevor is described as having on Atlantis).
Site Administrator wildone Posted June 11, 2010 Site Administrator Posted June 11, 2010 So I went online to see if I could find anything more up to date and found she had a facebook page. Hoping for more accurate and up to date information, there is a link on postings to her blog. It was updated by her mom about 9 hours ago. It seems her mom was talking with her and they had spotty reception. Later Mom was contacted by the rescue officials because her manual transponders were activated. The parents are hopeful that her automatic water activated transponders are not transmitting at this point. I will probably be watching this story as well. I hope she is okay
hh5 Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 Trevor will save her ... "two will arrive to governor graeme for dinner"
Site Administrator Graeme Posted June 11, 2010 Author Site Administrator Posted June 11, 2010 So I went online to see if I could find anything more up to date and found she had a facebook page. Hoping for more accurate and up to date information, there is a link on postings to her blog. It was updated by her mom about 9 hours ago. It seems her mom was talking with her and they had spotty reception. Later Mom was contacted by the rescue officials because her manual transponders were activated. The parents are hopeful that her automatic water activated transponders are not transmitting at this point. I will probably be watching this story as well. I hope she is okay According to one of the newspaper websites here in Australia (they're all covering the story), the chartered Qantas plane should be there in about twenty minutes from the time of this post. Hopefully, we'll have some more news sometime in the next hour.
C James Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 The Qantas plane is reported to be on decent now... something in the next hour they should know more. At most, they can spot her and communicate via VHF (assuming she has a working radio handset). Spotting her visually will be difficult, even with the exact location known; the weather conditions are very poor. I've been reading some threads on some yachters boards, including posts by the guy who was the last to talk with her. All they have is speculation at this time, but one of the two EPIRBs triggered is on her survival suit. Her latest position is 40.513s 74.457e per the coast guard (at least one of the two active EPIRBs is GPS-enabled). There is some speculation, coming from her father, that the keel tore loose and the boat is overturned. I have no idea what the basis for that is, but it has happened before. It is probably the best chance unless the boat is upright; the keel of a boat like Wild Eyes has about 7000 pounds of lead weight in it... with all that weight, an overturned boat can soon sink. If the boat has overturned and the keel is gone or there are flotation tanks intact, there will be livable space inside. a yachtsman parcipating in a round-the-world race capsized not too far from there a few years ago, and lived for (as I recall) two weeks inside the overturned hull. One complicating factor; if the hull is made of carbon (and it may be) then the EPIRBS would not be heard from inside. (carbon is conductive and blocks radio waves). However, they are still being heard. My hope is that the boat is upright but dismasted. That poor kid, all alone, thousands of miles from anywhere. I hope she's okay.
hh5 Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 With all that technology is should be a slam dunk finding her. Compared to Mercy Mission: The Rescue of Flight 771 http://www.airodyssey.net/movies/movie-flt771.html Try being found without all that High Tech Stuff. If she's hard to find lets hope the pilot is as experienced as Gordon Vette So aren't those that do this circum ... work on training for these mishaps? Its even worst if you're boat is hit by whales http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105499/plotsummary Survive the Savage Sea The only scary thing is if she's not with the boat or with the tracking devices but I bet she has one attached to her life vest and survival thingy right
C James Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 Fast update: The Qantas jet found her, made radio contact; she's alive, her boat upright and dismasted. She still has about two days before help can arrive, but it looks like she'll survive. (the weather is easing) Now comes the grilling: why the hell did whomever did her course planning route her through the Southern Ocean in June?!?! She was below 40S... in winter, in the southern ocean... that's a bad, bad place to be. HH5, thanks for the links... Edit: Graeme, thank you for spotting this and for the links
Site Administrator Graeme Posted June 11, 2010 Author Site Administrator Posted June 11, 2010 I just heard a news report on the radio that said she'd been found. According to that report, the nearest boat is about a day away. That first link above is being updated by the newspaper website as new information is received. It reports that a 50m French fishing vessel (presumably the IDE DE LA REUNION in the top graphic) will be there tomorrow to pick her up.
hh5 Posted June 11, 2010 Posted June 11, 2010 I just heard a news report on the radio that said she'd been found. According to that report, the nearest boat is about a day away. That first link above is being updated by the newspaper website as new information is received. It reports that a 50m French fishing vessel (presumably the IDE DE LA REUNION in the top graphic) will be there tomorrow to pick her up. Thats great news ... CJames can now "beeetttaaaaa" goat cheer
Site Moderator TalonRider Posted June 11, 2010 Site Moderator Posted June 11, 2010 The report I've heard is, a French fishing boat is about 70 hours away from her.
Site Administrator wildone Posted June 11, 2010 Site Administrator Posted June 11, 2010 Funny how we all hear different things. Today I heard a reporter say that their is a French fishing vessel (we all in agreement here) that will be picking her up tomorrow. The only catch is, the boat wants to continue fishing so she may not be going home right away. Unless another boat comes to pick her up from the fishing boat, then she may have to still be at sea for a while. The next thing that I have several outlets is the question of what kind of parent would let their child try to circumnavigate the globe. It is funny that I didn't even think of this until after she was safe. Now that we know she is essentially safe, now I have some questions. I won't ask about the parents letting their child go and if it was a responsible choice. I am just hoping that the family will be receiving a bill for the search and rescue operation and don't balk at the cost. I believe if you are putting yourself in peril for an 'adventure', then you should be willing to pay for anything that happens. Nuff said My question is regarding the actual search. Maybe Graeme can help us out here. I am going by how I know the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Armed Forces operates when it comes to Search and Rescue operations in regards to Plane disappearances and Boat disappearances. I do believe the US operates much the same way with the exception I believe the Coast Guard is an arm of the armed forces. When an emergency beacon is picked up from either aircraft or boat, or if a radio distress call of mayday is made, immediately an Hercules aircraft is dispatched from one of several Search and Rescue air bases. They cover the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Arctic oceans and everything inland. The aircraft is equipped with search and rescue equipment in addition to survival equipment. If the plane can not land or if Search and Rescue personal cannot safely 'jump' to assist, then survival equipment will be dropped. In marine cases it would be life rafts with survival suits and more powerful beacons and radios. I know that the Indian Ocean is a much more vast ocean and I believe that Australia is charged with most of it's search and rescue due to the economic ability of Australia opposed to the more 'poor' countries that border the Indian Ocean. My question is, does not the military/coast guard look after search and rescue operations? I was surprised when a Quantas jet was chartered to do the search aspect of the operation. Would it not been easier to scramble military resources for this? Or is it that it is such a vast area and the number of 'adventurers' who need help, the military have said no more. I could easily accept this if they did. I feel that people sometimes don't think before they take on one of these adventures. Not only are the risking their lives, but they seem to forget that if something does happen, they may be putting others in peril too. I guess everyone has the right to do these adventures, but they must accept any and all costs associated with them. Well I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to end this here.
C James Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 Funny how we all hear different things. Today I heard a reporter say that their is a French fishing vessel (we all in agreement here) that will be picking her up tomorrow. The only catch is, the boat wants to continue fishing so she may not be going home right away. Unless another boat comes to pick her up from the fishing boat, then she may have to still be at sea for a while. The next thing that I have several outlets is the question of what kind of parent would let their child try to circumnavigate the globe. It is funny that I didn't even think of this until after she was safe. Now that we know she is essentially safe, now I have some questions. I won't ask about the parents letting their child go and if it was a responsible choice. I am just hoping that the family will be receiving a bill for the search and rescue operation and don't balk at the cost. I believe if you are putting yourself in peril for an 'adventure', then you should be willing to pay for anything that happens. Nuff said My question is regarding the actual search. Maybe Graeme can help us out here. I am going by how I know the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Armed Forces operates when it comes to Search and Rescue operations in regards to Plane disappearances and Boat disappearances. I do believe the US operates much the same way with the exception I believe the Coast Guard is an arm of the armed forces. When an emergency beacon is picked up from either aircraft or boat, or if a radio distress call of mayday is made, immediately an Hercules aircraft is dispatched from one of several Search and Rescue air bases. They cover the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Arctic oceans and everything inland. The aircraft is equipped with search and rescue equipment in addition to survival equipment. If the plane can not land or if Search and Rescue personal cannot safely 'jump' to assist, then survival equipment will be dropped. In marine cases it would be life rafts with survival suits and more powerful beacons and radios. I know that the Indian Ocean is a much more vast ocean and I believe that Australia is charged with most of it's search and rescue due to the economic ability of Australia opposed to the more 'poor' countries that border the Indian Ocean. My question is, does not the military/coast guard look after search and rescue operations? I was surprised when a Quantas jet was chartered to do the search aspect of the operation. Would it not been easier to scramble military resources for this? Or is it that it is such a vast area and the number of 'adventurers' who need help, the military have said no more. I could easily accept this if they did. I feel that people sometimes don't think before they take on one of these adventures. Not only are the risking their lives, but they seem to forget that if something does happen, they may be putting others in peril too. I guess everyone has the right to do these adventures, but they must accept any and all costs associated with them. Well I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to end this here. Getting her aboard the fishing ship won't be easy in heavy seas, and there's the matter of what to do with her boat. My guess is they'll have to try to sink it (it's a hazzard to navigation), but if it has foam flotation tanks, that won't be easy. Multiple incompatible version of events are sadly the norm for a fast-breaking news story like this. The issue of her parents is an interesting one... Personally, I see nothing at all wrong with letting a teen circumnavigate, PROVIDED they are properly equipped, advised, and have extensive experiance. Sadly, I do not believe that to be the case here. The boat, Wild Eyes, and open 40, was extensively modified to make it capable of a solo non-stop around the world sail. That entailed major changes and additions to electrical and mechanical systems. However, Abby set out on her voyage with NO shakedown cruise at all. As a result, she had to put in to Ensenada, MExico, for extensive reworking of her electrical system, and Cape Town South Africa (thus ending the "unasisted" part of her attempt) due to autopilot issues. It is sadly common for solo circumnavigators to buy a boat, refit it, and then sail off on their attempt, and thus run into problems. These issues could, in most cases, be brought to light with a three day shakedown cruise. Abby, like her brother (who completed a solo circumnavigation a year ago) had zero solo long range experiance before setting out, and in both cases, there was no serious shakedown cruise. The other issue I have is with her route. Her route planning (we've seen some of how this is done in Circumnavigation) is done for her, by a team that includes her parents. Why on earth anyone would think it is a good idea for her to be below 40 south in June (about the worst month, the southern ocean tends to have its worst storms in late fall, which it is down there) is beyond me. A far more prudent move would have been to wait in South Africa, or even Rodreguez, for a weather window; a chance to cross when the westerlies were further north. This is basically what Trevor was advised to do in chapter 29 of Circumnavigation. So, while I think it is fine for a teen to Circumnavigate solo, I do have major issues with the preparations and routing. I suspect they were racing the clock so she'd still be young enough to claim the unofficial record when she completed the trip, and that's not a supportable motive IMHO. For the SAR opps, the problem in this case was distance (approx 2400 miles each way). A C-130 would have been good, but the issue is range; a C-130 would not have had enough fuel to fly out to her position and return (and there is nowhere else it could have landed within 200o miles). Air-to-air refueling would be an option, if the Australians had any air to air refueling tankers in operation, which they currently don't. Theoretically, they could have rigged a buddy transfer from one C-130 to another, but that would have been risky as hell. They do have P-3 Orions (anti-sub and maritime patrol aircraft) that do have the range, but they are slow, and we don't know if they had one in the area. So, to get there the fastest (they had to get there in daylight), the airliner was the best option IMHO. That airliner, even though carrying just a few people and no cargo, only had a max two hour loiter time over her position, and that would be reduced further by their need to descend at her location (which they did). I fully agree that adventurers need to take more responsibility, and accept adverse consequences. There was a major debate over this when a yacht, part of the Vendee around the world race, overturned in this area a few years back. It took an Australian Friggate 5 days to reach the boat and save the sailor, who was inside. It put a lot of AU navy lives at risk (those seas are bad enough that even US Navy Aircraft Carriers avoid them) both from the seas, and getting the guy out. Incidentally, the Vendee around the world race, a yearly event, has a 4.5% fatality rate for participants.
C James Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 An interesting development... There was a reality TV show about the family in the works. I find that disturbing, given the extremely perilous move of going deep in the Southern Ocean in winter. (or very late fall, to be exact)
Site Administrator Graeme Posted June 12, 2010 Author Site Administrator Posted June 12, 2010 According to this report, the rescue boat and another chartered plane are due to be in the vicinity of the stricken yacht in approximately three hours time.
C James Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I wish they would say what kind of a plane it is... At that range, there are very few aircraft that can do it. Maybe another run by the Qantas jet?
Red_A Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 Funny how we all hear different things. Today I heard a reporter say that their is a French fishing vessel (we all in agreement here) that will be picking her up tomorrow. The only catch is, the boat wants to continue fishing so she may not be going home right away. Unless another boat comes to pick her up from the fishing boat, then she may have to still be at sea for a while. The next thing that I have several outlets is the question of what kind of parent would let their child try to circumnavigate the globe. It is funny that I didn't even think of this until after she was safe. Now that we know she is essentially safe, now I have some questions. I won't ask about the parents letting their child go and if it was a responsible choice. I am just hoping that the family will be receiving a bill for the search and rescue operation and don't balk at the cost. I believe if you are putting yourself in peril for an 'adventure', then you should be willing to pay for anything that happens. Nuff said My question is regarding the actual search. Maybe Graeme can help us out here. I am going by how I know the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Armed Forces operates when it comes to Search and Rescue operations in regards to Plane disappearances and Boat disappearances. I do believe the US operates much the same way with the exception I believe the Coast Guard is an arm of the armed forces. When an emergency beacon is picked up from either aircraft or boat, or if a radio distress call of mayday is made, immediately an Hercules aircraft is dispatched from one of several Search and Rescue air bases. They cover the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Arctic oceans and everything inland. The aircraft is equipped with search and rescue equipment in addition to survival equipment. If the plane can not land or if Search and Rescue personal cannot safely 'jump' to assist, then survival equipment will be dropped. In marine cases it would be life rafts with survival suits and more powerful beacons and radios. I know that the Indian Ocean is a much more vast ocean and I believe that Australia is charged with most of it's search and rescue due to the economic ability of Australia opposed to the more 'poor' countries that border the Indian Ocean. My question is, does not the military/coast guard look after search and rescue operations? I was surprised when a Quantas jet was chartered to do the search aspect of the operation. Would it not been easier to scramble military resources for this? Or is it that it is such a vast area and the number of 'adventurers' who need help, the military have said no more. I could easily accept this if they did. I feel that people sometimes don't think before they take on one of these adventures. Not only are the risking their lives, but they seem to forget that if something does happen, they may be putting others in peril too. I guess everyone has the right to do these adventures, but they must accept any and all costs associated with them. Well I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to end this here. English Maritime states that you have to respond to a Mayday, and if you cannot you have to jusrtify why you cannot. You have to rescue people but you do not have to rescue the ship/boat The law then allows you to carry on with your voyage, and implies encouragement for you to do so. I believe this is common to most maritime countries. The French trawler is only doing what is common practice. Would I allow a teenager to circumnavigate the world. That depends on the indivual. From the information available I would not have allowed the current girl to do so, BUT I would have allowed my god daughter at the age of 16 to sail arouind the world. At 16 although smaller than most members of our sailing club, she could out row all the other members of the sailing club. She could outsail all the members of the sailing club and a lot of professional yachtsmen. And had rescued her father in a man overboard situation. I agree with CJ in that a chartered Quantas jet was the best choice, as the most important thing was to get imformation. Australian military aircraft would be at the edge of their range, if not beyond. The australian Orions have a drop facility, but in seas of 10m 33feet (not unusual), this would be extremely difficult for a sailor to actually get hold of. Even in the average 5m 15feet swell, getting hold of dropped items would be difficult, and probably have a low sucess rate. Also the orions are primary designed to stay in the air at low speeds for long times, although do have the all the facilties for Rescue and Control. The range problem is increased in that the runways on the various India ocean islands are short which reduces the fuel load that can be carried.
C James Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 English Maritime states that you have to respond to a Mayday, and if you cannot you have to jusrtify why you cannot. You have to rescue people but you do not have to rescue the ship/boat The law then allows you to carry on with your voyage, and implies encouragement for you to do so. I believe this is common to most maritime countries. The French trawler is only doing what is common practice. Would I allow a teenager to circumnavigate the world. That depends on the indivual. From the information available I would not have allowed the current girl to do so, BUT I would have allowed my god daughter at the age of 16 to sail arouind the world. At 16 although smaller than most members of our sailing club, she could out row all the other members of the sailing club. She could outsail all the members of the sailing club and a lot of professional yachtsmen. And had rescued her father in a man overboard situation. I agree with CJ in that a chartered Quantas jet was the best choice, as the most important thing was to get imformation. Australian military aircraft would be at the edge of their range, if not beyond. The australian Orions have a drop facility, but in seas of 10m 33feet (not unusual), this would be extremely difficult for a sailor to actually get hold of. Even in the average 5m 15feet swell, getting hold of dropped items would be difficult, and probably have a low sucess rate. Also the orions are primary designed to stay in the air at low speeds for long times, although do have the all the facilties for Rescue and Control. The range problem is increased in that the runways on the various India ocean islands are short which reduces the fuel load that can be carried. Red raises a good point; dropping supplies would be near impossible because there is no way for her to retrieve anything from the sea (she can't maneuver). Looks like the current charter is a long range air freight plane. The plane and fishing boat should be arriving any miniute now. The nearest runway to the location is on Rodreguez island, about 1500 miles to the NW. The only closer inhabited islands are Amsterdam, about 200 miles NE, but it has a research station and no runway. The same is true of the Kergulian Islands about 400 miles to the SSW of the rescue. Some of the press coverage makes me roll my eyes... For example, one report is referring to the PC-3 Orions as "jets". Another is suggesting that the fishing boat can drop Abby off on St. Paul island, as it's the closest at 200 miles away (a bit problematic; it's uninhabited). I guess reporters don't know how to use Google. LoL. I don't think its fair for the Australians to have to foot the bill for what they've done. In Arizona and some other places in the US, you get hit with a bill for your rescue if you're doing anything adventurous.
Site Administrator Graeme Posted June 12, 2010 Author Site Administrator Posted June 12, 2010 I don't think its fair for the Australians to have to foot the bill for what they've done. In Arizona and some other places in the US, you get hit with a bill for your rescue if you're doing anything adventurous. Based on what I've researched, Australia doesn't generally try to recoup costs. We're signatures of the Hamburg Convention and we take that responsibility seriously. Statement regarding costs on this rescue attempt. Statement regarding costs on a 2008 rescue. I found links to other rescues and they all seem to say the same thing -- we expect other nations to rescue our citizens, and we do the same for theirs.
hh5 Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 I feel that people sometimes don't think before they take on one of these adventures. Not only are the risking their lives, but they seem to forget that if something does happen, they may be putting others in peril too. I guess everyone has the right to do these adventures, but they must accept any and all costs associated with them. Well I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to end this here. It appears that she did do the responsible thing out at sea - calling for help That does show she's earn her right to sail and must have prior to this adventure She won't be able to claim being the youngest that be left to someone else Will that person be as lucky ,.. we don't know CJames has a point about the path taken - its like how can someone make that decision In hindsight - it showed it wasn't the wisest path and it cost the title of being the youngest Ultimately she is the captain of her boat - she bares responsibility of not winning but she has proven she can survive as a consequence of her actions. --- CJames story Trevors out there - maybe he could have been picked up by the italian gov't as a runaway. But we can only hope he does the right thing out at sea. --- Its only the parents that can help or stop their teen from doing something if they feel they can't do the trip. But anything good or bad can happen out there. Its good that there is something there to improve the odds of survival and that the parents vested in that technology. If she sailed in an old 1950s yaught without all the safeties - i bet some one would stop her.
Recommended Posts