We all pay the premiums for SAR. Its called taxes. Unless you are just not paying those. These assets exsist whether you use them or not.
You don't think police and firefighters are in danger or have been injured or killed attempting to rescue someone. That is absurd.
I think it is safe to say that everyone here hates to think of some inexperienced sailor going out and hitting an epirb at the first uncomfortable roll of the boat.
If you want to go offshore solo with no epirb or safety equipment, have a nice trip, if you arrive at the other end thats great, if you do or if you don't, I could care less.
We really don't have a lot of info as to what is going on here, the boat maybe servicable, but if they have a critical injury why would they not try and get help for the person.
No, I pay zero taxes to any South Pacific nation. Furthermore, I do not expect the taxpayers of those nations to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to mount an air/sea rescue for me when I fuck up hundreds of miles off their shore. While the assets may exist, it costs a lot to use them!
Ambulance crews responding to the fender bender in the intersection rarely incur much risk. On the other hand, firefighters take risks. They do so to protect people and property from arsonists, risks of fires spreading through neighborhoods and cities, brush and forest fires, etc. Most of their work is to protect people who did nothing to place themselves in peril. Police take risks to protect us from criminals. Can you sense an important distinction coming?
That is completely different from the risks of flying a couple minutes beyond fuel capacity and dropping a swimmer in 50 foot waves to save a couple who placed themselves in peril 200 miles offshore purely for recreation.
Its a Kiwi woman according to the article that the NZ SAR is trying to reach.
I didn't see anything about the pilot flying a couple minutes beyond his fuel capacity to find them or drop a raft. also didn't see the them dropping a rescue swimmer.
I would imagine there is certain risk flying around in a storm of that magnitude, but they seem to do it quite often.
Not to take anything away from SAR techs they are highly trained and do amazing things, but you are giving the impression that every time they move they are at risk of dying. You could say the same thing about any person in any situation.
I did see that the one NZ naval ship was doing exercises in the gulf. I would suspect that it cost NZ tax dollars to do that, now it is on route to the distressed sailboat. How much extra money is being spent if this ship is sent out to do exercises for 2 weeks and in that time makes a trip to rescue somebody in its fuel range. Even out of its fuel range, is the cost that prohibitive.
When I say the assets exsist, what I am saying is that they are in functional role, the people are being trained and the money is being spent. these assets aren't just sitting at a dock with the operators at home off the tab waiting for a call.
If you don't think those assets should exsist, that is another issue, it would save a lot of money and who really cares if a couple of people go missing off shore anyway. There is usually enough death and destruction on shore that they would not be noticed.
The fact is, we as a civilised society have decided that we would like to preserve life as much as possible and therefore have put such measures in place to try and achieve this.