A drop in the ocean?

By Jennifer Quinn
BBC News Online Magazine

It costs a boatload of cash to rescue sailors from the ocean. Should people who have tried daring jaunts at sea be made to pay when they make it back, or is it just tradition to sail to the rescue?

It was 1998 and Richard Branson was in a hot air balloon over the Pacific Ocean. He and two other men were floating well above the waves - at least for a while.

Hampered by bad weather, they were aiming for the Hawaiian Islands, and missed. Quite badly, in fact - by more than 200 miles.

So instead of being able to make a safe, soft landing on one of the idyllic tropical islands, Mr Branson and friends made a hard one in the angry sea and required the services of the United States Coast Guard, who steamed out into the Pacific Ocean to fetch them.

The rescue operation cost US taxpayers more than $130,000, which is a fairly serious amount of money for regular folk, but which is literally a drop in the ocean for an entrepreneur like Mr Branson, founder of the Virgin group of companies.

Though Mr Branson made a donation to the coast guard in thanks, the splash landing sparked a debate, which continues today, over who should pay to rescue adventurers from themselves when their quests go wrong.

Inspiration or inconvenience?

Should the taxpayers of any nation foot the bill for swashbucklers like Mr Branson or the crew of the Pink Lady, the British foursome who were trying to row across the Atlantic Ocean?

Some say people who try bold trips should be made to pay the costs of getting them out of trouble. Others point to the spirit of adventure, and say their derring-do enriches us all.

Happy now

It's estimated the cost of the rescue of the Pink Lady rowers was £120,000. Bob Barnsley, who managed the team from solid ground, defended the voyage - and the rescue.

"I believe it was worth it," he told the Independent. "None of them went out there to get rescued, just as no fisherman or merchant ship does.

"It was undertaken in the spirit of adventure, and it is people like these four guys that should motivate us all."

Still others - like the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the government agency which looks after the UK's waters - say it's simply their job to go out into the ocean and bring back people in trouble.

It's a belief echoed by their sea-faring colleagues around the Atlantic. Both the Canadian and US Coast Guards say to charge people for rescues - adventurers, or ordinary folk - is anathema to what they do.

'Semper paratus'

The former commandant of the US Coast Guard defended the position just months after Mr Branson's Hawaiian splashdown.

"Why," Admiral James Loy hypothesised, "did the Coast Guard spend so much money to rescue a millionaire thrill-seeker without asking to be paid back?"

In a piece in the Washington Post, the admiral said it was because everyone in trouble, be they millionaires or refugees, should be treated with the same care.

The Blue Book says we've got to go out and it doesn't say a damn thing about having to come back US Coast Guard skipper on the service's obligations

"You won't hear any of my Coast Guard radio operators say, 'Roger, sir. I understand you're taking on water and preparing to abandon ship. Can you tell me your position and the number of a major credit card?'"

Spokespeople for the American and British rescue forces say the thinking behind this is simple: They don't want people to mull over whether or not they can afford a rescue - thinking they'll have to pay for it - and then get themselves into worse trouble.

"It's totally against the ethos and ethics of the organisation," says a spokesperson for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

"We'd rather people would contact us as soon as they realise they're having problems.

'Always ready'

"Obviously, the longer they stay out there - thinking they can't call us because there might be a charge - they stay out there longer and get themselves into greater trouble, which ultimately could mean greater trouble for the volunteer lifeboat crews when they go out."

The US Coast Guard - which includes "You have to go out, but you don't have to come back" as one of their catchphrases - spends nearly half a billion dollars on search and rescue operations.

Does derring-do do the business?

And that $467,000,000 doesn't include the cost of equipment, only things like fuel and salaries and other operating costs.

Because so many different agencies are involved in rescues, it's harder to put a figure to what the UK government spends on search and rescue, according to the Ministry of Defence.

In 2003-04, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency had a net operating cost of £105,095,000. The agency was called out more than 10,000 times to assist more than 25,000 people who were in trouble in UK waters.

Though people can donate to organisations like the RNLI, a charity, no one is asked to pay for their rescues either by them or by the coastguard or navy.

"It would be like being asked to contribute to the NHS if you have an operation," says a coastguard spokesperson.

"It's paid for out of your taxes. And it's a service provided by the UK government."

---

Should adventurers pay for their own rescues? Here are your comments.

We need to draw a line between sailors/fishermen and daring adventurers when it comes to paying for rescue. I am sure the adventurers took up insurance policies for their life/equipment before sailing off. Why not extend the insurance cover to include cost of rescue?
F Choudhury, UK

Just to be a devil's advocate, why don't we just give the charity the cost of the rescue at the outset and not bother with the activity. It cost us what £120,000 to rescue these guys who were raising £50,000 to give to charity. Well done them for trying, but something has gone amiss here!!
Brad Fastta, UK

I have been rescued by the RNLI twice now, after getting caught in tidal currents at Exmouth. I support them all the way, and regularly give to them when I can afford it. Branson made a massive donation to the US Coastguard, and I would suspect that the crew of the Pink Lady either have done or will do the same. Their spirit of adventure, and that of their predecessors, are what made cross-Atlantic and speca travel a possibility - without tedious insurance. They put their lives on the line to stretch the boundaries of human capability, and I for one will be donating £5 to the RNLI to cover part of their costs today. I would hope others would give these brave men and women (both adventurers and rescuers) the support they deserve, whether financially or otherwise.
Steve D, Wales

I am presently sitting in a ship off shore Malaysia. If something happened to our ship I would be very upset not be rescued because we could or could not pay. All people are created equal and in a life and death situation should be treated so by any rescue party. Perhaps the question should be are people well equipped and qualified enough to go to sea? This is where resources should go.
Anthony Knott, Australia

I've never yet heard of an effective sea rescue performed by accountant.
Martin, Northern England

As hinted at by the statistics in your article, only a tiny fraction of search & rescue spending goes towards saving the few who get into trouble on global adventures. Much more significant is the money and effort expended for those who need rescuing from what begin as more modest pastimes such as a trip round the harbour or a swim off the beach. Of course this should be freely provided, irrespective of circumstances. Talking of which, isn't it about time that some taxpayers' money was given to the RNLI?
Adam, United Kingdom

Are the crew of the Pink Lady adventurers? They are repeating a feat performed more than a hundred years ago, with far superior equiptment and resources. Of course they were likely to beat the record. The ease with which they were rescued from such danger shows just how little peril they effectively faced. If they were trying to do something for the first time I might understand but this voyage was just not worthwhile.
Paul B, UK

The free provision of rescue services whether on the sea, mountains or in caves is a wonderful thing and should be protected. Taken to its conclusion these places would become available only to the rich and this would be a sorry state of affairs. The headline grabbing cases such as Richard Branson are the exception not the rule. Most rescues are for ordinary people such as fishermen or walkers who have merely been unlucky not reckless. As a member of a mountain rescue team I regularly give up my own time to help others and am reassured that should I ever be in their position I can rely on the same free treatment.
Gareth, UK

As an "adventurer" myself (Spirit of Cardiff - official powerboat transatlantic world record, 2001; Around the World, 2002; fastest RIB across the Atlantic, 2003) I have seen emergency services first hand, both volunteer RNLI, and service - Canadian Air Force. Do those who criticise think that the rescue services sit back at base twiddling their thumbs waiting for a call? The point is that all rescues are training exercises. The only way they get to be as good as they are is by getting out there and doing it. Rescuing the occasional adventurer helps make them better able to perform other rescues. I seriously doubt you would find rescuers willing to take the risks they sometimes do if they were working on a pay-per-rescue basis. Tax-payers' money well-spent, in my opinion.
Clive Tully, UK

Where would you put the boundary between someone who was paddling off a beach and got into trouble and someone who, for example, was trying to row across the Atlantic? You can't, its impossible.
Sylvia, UK

I live on the coast and know some of our RNLI chaps. Many of their 'shouts' are because of lack of forethought and can involve towing in the same boats. There are some local boats they know they are never called out to because of engine problems or running out of fuel - there are others that they are not surprised to be called to... Need I say more. We are raising money to support these reckless sailors - if there are repated rescues, such as that guy some time back who was navigating with the aid of a road atlas - yes they should be charged.
Suzanne, England

Taxpayers pay for the coastguard service, the RAF air sea rescue and other similar units. They are trained and ready to do the job. Everything has been paid for in advance. The only additional cost involved in a genuine emergency rescue is some fuel and possibly overtime. Explain to me how we hear these ridiculous sums quoted of additional costs for actually doing the job they are there for. Would an emergency plumbing service charge twice for actually having to turn out for an emergency?
Stewart, United Kingdom

So it costs us each what £2 a year to fund this? Quite frankly I'm more than happy to give up a pint of beer to save the lives of those that need it.
Jack, England

As a serving member of the Royal Navy, I feel compelled to give to charitable organisations such as the RNLI as a matter of course. As I was told in basic training "You never know when you might need them!" I believe that if you are attempting something out of the ordinary, such as rowing across the Atlantic, a substantial donation should be made in advance as part of the expedition's outlay costs. People who are carried in an Ambulance after a 999 call who subsequently turn out to be fine are asked to pay. So why not people who put themselves in deliberate harms way do the same. This I feel should apply to any person whether a weekend paddler to an experienced adventurer, we all have a responsibility to look after ourselves and not rely on thinly stretched rescue services.
Adrian Pike, Bristol

Most pleasure craft rescues in UK waters are carried out by the RNLI, a charity. The role of the Coast Guard (paid for by tax payers) is to coordinate. HM Forces, usually in the form of helicopters, are used in the most serious incidents. This represents good value for money for tax payers, because when the equipment & pilots are not required to fight wars, they can be put to this role. Most committed watersports participants contribute voluntarily to the RNLI in one way or another. It would be sensible for those who do big, comparatively risky adventures, such as rowing across the Atlantic, to take out a bond to cover the cost of a contribution to the cost of rescue should it be required.
William Lewis, UK

I'm happier paying for people to be rescued than seeing innocent people lost at sea because they "can't afford" a rescue (and yes, I do pay my taxes). I think asking people to pay for a rescue sends out the wrong message to people. Full stop. It also demeans the brave men and women who risk their lives to help others.
Charlotte Saunders, London, UK

If I break my leg skiing in the French Alps and have to be helicoptered off I have to pay, or my insurance has to pay. Why should it be any different if you choose to spend your leisure time at sea?
Jason, UK

Oh great... Now the boring accountants that make the decisions want to stop anyone else challenging the norms and giving us all something to look up to and to dream of! The reality is that many of these sort of ventures require mandatory insurance to cover these costs. If you want to fly your light aircraft across the Atlantic, you need insurance to cover rescues around Greenland, for example. Leave well alone, is my advice. Let those who want to push out the boundaries of man's achievements do so. And let those who don't see the need to ask "Why?" continue to rescue them.
Jeremy Davey, England

Whenever I hear about the "cost" of activities such as rescues, I wonder how these costs are arrived at. In the case of the Coastguard, the salaries and equipment cost pretty much the same if the Coastguard are sitting in port waiting to rescue someone or if they're out at sea battling a mountainous sea. Granted there extra costs for fuel and other consumable items but generally speaking, the marginal cost of a rescue shouldn't be much different than no rescue. I'd suggest there bigger fish to fry when it comes to wasted money!
Geoff Marsden, Canada

Why should the sensible majority subsidise the irresponsible? People who operate boats, planes etc. should have compulsory insurance covering the cost of rescue services. Let the insurers weigh up the risk and charge accordingly. Maybe road transport as well?
Paul Schindler, UK

If we charge for rescues then we can't simply charge "adventurers" we must charge everyone who is rescued and that's the problem. For commercial vessels insurance could cover this cost, but what about the family nipping down to the beach for the day. Do they really need insurance for a day trip? What happens if they don't have insurance or can't pay the costs? Do we just let the sailors who risk their lives to bring us container loads of things we buy and what about the children taken out to sea by strong currents, etc.? Do we let them die because their parents haven't got insurance or the money to pay to find them. Our society is based on the "nanny" state, sad tough this may be, we are now at a point where it's almost impossible for the people to do anything out of the ordinary and if they do, it's impossible for the Authorities not to get sued because common sense has been replaced by legal recompense.
Andy K, UK

Part of the costing for any dangerous record attempt should include rescue cost. If the people taking part in these 'record attempts' can afford the time and money to partake in then; then pay for your rescue service. The public should not have to dig into their pockets.
W. Cowell, UK

How about insurance companies foot the bill in the same way they do for road traffic accident callouts? Fair enough, the premium might be higher for round-the-world trips - but I bet a lot of companies would slash the price for a bit of advertising with any other sponsors.
Ray Supple, Nottingham, UK

I believe that we should foot the bill. We have to pay for when other people want to risk their lives by drinking excessively or smoking so why not when someone is lost at sea?
Luke Corcoran, Yorkshire, UK

Yes, of course they should pay. After all, they're just exercising their own macho desires. No one benefits from their 'adventures' except them, and it's up to everyone else to pay when things go wrong. They should be forced to cover themselves by buying insurance to cover the cost of being rescued - or by raising the money against such an occurrence - if nothing happens the money goes to charity. Big boys and girls playing games shouldn't cost anyone else anything.
Peter Keen, England

We should encourage explorers and adventure seekers. Without such people we would probably still believe the world to be flat and the moon to be made of cheese. Taxpayers' money is well spent on rescuing those who have the guts to push the boundaries on behalf of mankind.
Graeme, United Kingdom