World Sea Fishing Forums banner

what were they thinking

1K views 23 replies 20 participants last post by  sandi 
#1 ·
A Frenchman and his seven year old son were rescued this afternoon after their rowing boat was seen heading out to sea at Skipness near Loch Fyne.


Clyde Coastguard received a 999 call from the owner of holiday cottages at Skipness reporting that some of their tenants had taken a small rowing boat out and
were now out of sight. Clyde Coastguard diverted Rescue Helicopter 177 from RNAS Prestwick, which was flying on exercise in the area and requested the attendance of Tighnabruaich RNLI lifeboat. The helicopter crew located the small boat over a mile offshore and diverted a nearby yacht to the scene, which took the two people who were cold and wet on board until the lifeboat arrived on scene. Tighnabruaich life boat took the two casualties and their dinghy back to shore. The occupants of the boat were a French man and his 7 year old son who were staying at one of the holiday cottages. They took the 10 foot dinghy out to go fishing and after heading out to look for mackerel found they were unable to get back to shore and began were taking in water in choppy seas.
 
G
#6 · (Edited)
Sorry, hui 5016, but your attitide is wrong. No more wrong than the French who complain about the cost of rescue missions for British speleologists (cave explorers to troglodytes) who get trapped almost every year in French subterranean caves.

I know ignorance is no excuse, but what limits adventure from foolhardiness and then plain stupidity? As a (moderately) civilised nation like most others in Europe, we save people irrespective of intelligence,colour, race, creed or faith, political leanings or, unlike Bushland, credit worthiness. It's called respect.
 
#8 ·
Stupid? Yes. Ignorant? Yes
I doubt very much he will do something so silly again to endanger the life of himself ANDhis son.
Everyone makes mistakes, especially in unknown habitat.
Let's be grateful he was lucky this time.
 
#9 ·
The real hero here was the owner of the holiday cottages who had the foresight to call the services at the correct time, - as well as the people who put their lives on the line to go and fetch them.

Well done that holiday cottage owner!
 
#10 ·
Sorry, hui 5016, but your attitide is wrong. No more wrong than the French who complain about the cost of rescue missions for British speleologists (cave explorers to troglodytes) who get trapped almost every year in French subterranean caves.

I know ignorance is no excuse, but what limits adventure from foolhardiness and then plain stupidity? As a (moderately) civilised nation like most others in Europe, we save people irrespective of intelligence,colour, race, creed or faith, political leanings or, unlike Bushland, credit worthiness. It's called respect.
If you are rescued by chopper in France you are liable for the cost of rescue ,hence the carte neige system or your own specialist outdoor persuit, insurance,Unless you are French and have a carte mutuelle
i would imagine that most cavers,climbers,have some sort of insurance to cover this.I dont know if this applies to the marine sector
 
#14 ·
Sorry, hui 5016, but your attitide is wrong. No more wrong than the French who complain about the cost of rescue missions for British speleologists (cave explorers to troglodytes) who get trapped almost every year in French subterranean caves.

I know ignorance is no excuse, but what limits adventure from foolhardiness and then plain stupidity? As a (moderately) civilised nation like most others in Europe, we save people irrespective of intelligence,colour, race, creed or faith, political leanings or, unlike Bushland, credit worthiness. It's called respect.
The French do charge!! had friends lifted off mountain in the Alps one had been struck by Lightning and had no insurance, had to pay thousands to the rescue services.
 
#15 ·
Sacre Merde! What a numpty, I get scared taking myself to sea with a 35hp engine and a 3hp backup, never mind a seven year old boy!

Thankfully all was well though, well done the rescue services!:clap2:
 
#18 ·
I wish that charges could be made for every numpty that made a 999 call and called out the fire services when I was in the service. Also its time that anyone taking part in activities that may require the use of the emergency services carried insurance. Rescue is costly and we cant go on supplying it for free. Even no the RAF has withdrawn a fifth of the SAR facility as they are needed elswhere in the world.
 
#19 ·
I wish that charges could be made for every numpty that made a 999 call and called out the fire services when I was in the service. Also its time that anyone taking part in activities that may require the use of the emergency services carried insurance. Rescue is costly and we cant go on supplying it for free. Even no the RAF has withdrawn a fifth of the SAR facility as they are needed elswhere in the world.
Be less call outs for you then - Think about it! Would you really want someone not calling over cost?
 
#21 ·
Be less call outs for you then - Think about it! Would you really want someone not calling over cost?
If you had to attend some of the stupid calls made by so called members of the public to the emergency services you would charge them for them. I have happy memories of refusing to help a guy get into his house after he 999'd us to help and even happier memories refusing to get a cat down from a tree. As to someone not calling over cost, in this day and age, I dont think that would be a problem.
 
G
#22 ·
Sorry, hui 5016, but your attitide is wrong. No more wrong than the French who complain about the cost of rescue missions for British speleologists (cave explorers to troglodytes) who get trapped almost every year in French subterranean caves.

I know ignorance is no excuse, but what limits adventure from foolhardiness and then plain stupidity? As a (moderately) civilised nation like most others in Europe, we save people irrespective of intelligence,colour, race, creed or faith, political leanings or, unlike Bushland, credit worthiness. It's called respect.
I would have thought that if anyone knew the meaning of "speleologist", it would be a troglodyte:laugh:
 
#23 ·
If you had to attend some of the stupid calls made by so called members of the public to the emergency services you would charge them for them. I have happy memories of refusing to help a guy get into his house after he 999'd us to help and even happier memories refusing to get a cat down from a tree. As to someone not calling over cost, in this day and age, I dont think that would be a problem.
I take it you are talking about the Fire service,You are being paid a reasonable wage ,for doing what you are doing,apart from attending fires and emergenencies,unlike,mountain rescue,or the RNLI boys who are volunteers,so think about it ,you are being paid ,by the public purse to respond to emergencies, so what is the problem? as I said I dont think you get paid enough for attending fires or road accidents.
 
#24 ·
I take it you are talking about the Fire service,You are being paid a reasonable wage ,for doing what you are doing,apart from attending fires and emergenencies,unlike,mountain rescue,or the RNLI boys who are volunteers,so think about it ,you are being paid ,by the public purse to respond to emergencies, so what is the problem? as I said I dont think you get paid enough for attending fires or road accidents.
It’s not the wages I was paid when I was in the fire service that I commented about, it’s the waste of tax payers money that occurs when persons take risks that are absurd or use of any of the emergency services, paid or volunteer, for insignificant non emergency call outs. An emergency service means that, an emergency. OK to go to the aid of the Frenchman and his 7 year old son was an emergency, but when viewed against the risk he placed his own life in and that of his son and the risk he placed the RNLI crew in he should be made to contribute to the cost of the rescue. If a member of the RNLI was injured, or god forbid, killed while attending the rescue there would have been a hue and cry on about it. People should carry insurance for these activities and part of that should be for payment in full or part for rescue and if you have no insurance then find another way of paying. The cost of the non volunteer services is not minimal in salaries, training or administration and this has to be borne out of the public purse i.e. council tax. Both the statutory and volunteer emergency services should be allowed to claw back the cost of rescues to allow them to cover the costs of equipment and training for their members if it is found that the risk of the activity was not considered prior to taking part. This is common sense and nothing to do with health and safety.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top