From: "Fischbein, Mike" <mike.fischbein_at_gs.com> To: <michaeldaly_at_home.com> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 11:13 AM Subject: [Paddlewise] Hull speed and Olympic Kayaks > A problem with your analysis lies in your assumptions. > Not my assumptions - they're others' assumptions. Folks were stating things about the traditional formula and I said (paraphrasing) "it isn't a speed limit... watch the Olympics in a couple of weeks to see paddlers exceed it." > The 1.43*sqrt(LWL ft) = hull speed (kts) is a thumbrule, > not an absolute. It's an average, based on typical > displacement hull forms. Actually, it's based on the relationship of wavelength to velocity of waves: wavelength = 2*pi* velocity squared/ g (g = acc. of gravity) which is 0.557 * velocity squared, for velocity in knots. Swapping the equation around gives: velocity = 1.34 * sqrt(wavelength) (See my memory is bad. I wrote and figured with 1.43 instead of 1.34... <blush> numbers don't change much, though.) If the wavelength is equal to the LWL, you can substitute. My point was to show that the rule has limited applicability in the case of kayaks, as can be seen in the paddlers speeds. > I, also, was unable to find actual specs on a K1; but > the ICF rules have a max length for K1 of 520cm and > a minimum beam of 51cm, which is pretty close to > ten for a L/B ratio for the real boats. > All I could find was that and the minimum weight limit of 12kg. I figured there must be more restrictions than that. Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
John Winters wrote: [...] >Olympics don't have any specs, (some would say thank God) and the boats are >governed by the ICF. The horns just behind the cockpit are rule cheaters to >make narrow boats that still meet the beam minimum. The ICF has a tradition >of illogical rules and even more illogical enforcement. Some time ago I asked the ICF about their rule that only concave lines where allowed, which to my memory used to be: no convex lines allowed? Since I cannot understand the only concave lines rule, because I see a lot of convex or straight lines on the racing boats, and maybe the only sort of canoe that could somehow compy to these rule might be a Grumman for instance? I never got any explanation from the ICF... Dirk Barends *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
My question is: when did you manage to see kayaking? I have been recording the shows and checking the NBC site here in the US and have yet to see *any* sprint kayaking. The NBC site at one point had some scheduled, but it wasn't on and now the site doesn't show any on its broadcast stations. As I feared, the coverage has been crap. NBC won't even post an accurate time table of what it's showing. Oh well, now they're just about over and I managed to see nothing that I was interested in seeing. -Patrick >John Winters wrote: > >[...] >>Olympics don't have any specs, (some would say thank God) and the boats are >>governed by the ICF. The horns just behind the cockpit are rule cheaters to >>make narrow boats that still meet the beam minimum. The ICF has a tradition >>of illogical rules and even more illogical enforcement. > >Some time ago I asked the ICF about their rule that only concave >lines where allowed, which to my memory used to be: no convex lines >allowed? Since I cannot understand the only concave lines rule, >because I see a lot of convex or straight lines on the racing boats, >and maybe the only sort of canoe that could somehow compy to these >rule might be a Grumman for instance? >I never got any explanation from the ICF... > >Dirk Barends *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
In spite of wonderful fall weather, great for paddling, I've been grounded the last few days, thanks to a blown fuel pump in Smoky Joe, my kayaking van. Out of sheer boredom, then, I've been doing some net surfing, mostly revisiting pages than I've seen in the past, just checking to see if there's been any updates or anything I missed. One of my favorites is Tasmanian Laurie Ford's home page, http://www.tassie.net.au/~lford/ Ford has been at it a long time, and has a reputation for being a cranky son of a gun, a little outside the mainstream, perhaps. I'd like to meet the guy some time; maybe someone organizing a symposium sometime might give some thought to bypassing some of the usual English imports and go for someone exotic . . . but I digress. One of the things that caught my attention is Ford's rescue proposal. He's concerned, nay, incensed, at "adventurers" that take off on various harebrained expeditions with inadequate preparation -- and this includes novice kayakers that get in over their heads. Simply stated, his proposal is that if someone calls for a rescue, via radio, flares, ERPIB, or whatever other means, their kayak is impounded once they've been returned to land until they pay a $2000 rescue fee. If not paid, the kayak and gear siezed is auctioned off to pay the fee. If someone else calls in the authorities, like a bystander seeing someone "in trouble", the charge doesn't apply. Ford's position is that if you have the fee hanging over your head, you're going to be a lot more careful about preparation and decision making; if you do everything right and still need help, then $2000 is a small price to pay. My own theory is that having a fee like that hanging out there is going to make people more reluctant to call the coast guard until it is far too late. But, it's an interesting thought, and charging for rescues is a topic that has frequently come up in several venues of late. Thoughts, anyone? -- Wes *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Good Post Wes! My reply is that I already pay for rescues. At least a small part of the $$ that I pay in Federal taxes should actually work. Lee *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
At 10:30 PM 9/29/00 -0700, Leroy E. Laskowski wrote: >Good Post Wes! > >My reply is that I already pay for rescues. At least a small part of the $$ >that I pay in Federal taxes should actually work. Actually, I agree. But . . . go to a national park, and they've got their hands out. Camp in a national forest campground, and they've got their hands out. User fees, everywhere you turn, and they're getting worse -- yet we've paid for all them with our tax dollars. Big deal. They'll get you however they can. -- Wes *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
I seem to recall that they did something like this a few years ago in certain parts of the Rockies w/r/t rock climbing. I have this vague recollection that it resulted in people having insurance against the charges -- in fact, I seem to recall that in some areas insurance became required. Hrmph. Another boon to the insurance companies. Just what we need. . . Generally, I am opposed to the idea (paid rescues). For one thing, it would just make the sport even more expensive and inaccessible (remember our brief excursion into issues regarding *who* is in this sport?). I don't think the cost to society that results from having to rescue a few people off the seas every year is all that great, relatively speaking. I can think of a whole lot more important things to be worried about (like, say. . . global warming?). Also, I think it might tend to edge us toward delegating rescue to private operations, which would be a bad thing, IMO (less accountability, greater expense, less predictable quality, different attitude, less pride on the part of the operation and its members, etc). Moreover, the proposal as described would probably involve more transaction costs that it would yield in economic benefits. In other words, it would probably cost at least $5,000 in tax dollars to administer each impoundment, sale, etc., and would yield a maximum benefit in each case of only $2,000. Rough guesses, of course. But you get the idea. There would probably also be constitutional challenges to the rule, resuling in astronomical costs, utilization of judicial resources, etc. What was that Jefferson said about the government that governs least. . . I kinda like the Coasties just the way they are. I wonder what they think of this question. . . Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Hi Wes and All, > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net > [mailto:owner-paddlewise_at_paddlewise.net]On Behalf Of Wes Boyd > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 9:02 PM > > One of the things that caught my attention is Ford's rescue proposal. He's > concerned, nay, incensed, at "adventurers" that take off on various > harebrained expeditions with inadequate preparation -- and this includes > novice kayakers that get in over their heads. Simply stated, his proposal > is that if someone calls for a rescue, via radio, flares, ERPIB, or > whatever other means, their kayak is impounded once they've been returned > to land until they pay a $2000 rescue fee. If not paid, the kayak and gear > siezed is auctioned off to pay the fee. If someone else calls in the > authorities, like a bystander seeing someone "in trouble", the charge > doesn't apply. > ********* I like the idea. Too many paddlers are playing fast and loose and getting in over their heads, others seem to think the CG is a Water Taxi. $2000.00 is cheap, I would consider that a real bargain for having my butt pulled out of the drink. I am totally opposed to any kind of mandatory licensing or certification of paddlers; I think folks should be free to do as they please, but that freedom doesn't exempt them from responsibility for their actions. If you want to do a long exposed solo crossing go for it, just don't expect me to pay for your mistakes. Cheers, Rob Cookson "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Wes Boyd wrote: > > At 10:30 PM 9/29/00 -0700, Leroy E. Laskowski wrote: > >Good Post Wes! > > > >My reply is that I already pay for rescues. At least a small part of the $$ > >that I pay in Federal taxes should actually work. > > Actually, I agree. > > But . . . go to a national park, and they've got their hands out. Camp in a > national forest campground, and they've got their hands out. User fees, > everywhere you turn, and they're getting worse -- yet we've paid for all > them with our tax dollars. Big deal. They'll get you however they can. No problem with the user fee concept here, Wes, if the fees are reasonable. (But see my caveat below re: Coast Guard). In fact, probably paddlers need to toss some money into the hopper for launch facilities, inasmuch as many of the traditional boat ramps are funded in part by taxes extracted from the sale of fuel for power boats (at least here in Oregon). Yeah, sure, there is some "general fund" support, and I am taxed for that, but if we were contributers to funds exclusively devoted to the development and maintenance of marine facilities, we would have more clout when it came time to design and site new ones. I have beat that drum regularly on this forum, and I think we are naive to expect public entities to do stuff for us unless we have some visibility in the money stream which feeds those governments and agencies. That said, however, **by far** more money is spent rescuing power boaters than is spent rescuing paddlers. In fact the Coast Guard has a mandate to make the waters safe for commercial and other traffic on marine waterways and navigable rivers. AFAIK, those funds come from my Federal taxes, and as a paddler, I betcha I have contributed a lotta bucks over the years. I figure I am "owed" a rescue -- which I never plan to need! I see funding of rescues in a different light than the funding for launch facilities, etc. I live at the mouth of the Columbia River, which entertains a horde of salmon fishers in pleasure boats (sometimes up to 5000 at one time!), who demand several "rescues" every day that horde is out there. Admittedly, the number of sea kayakers and canoeists out on the River around here never reaches the population of power boaters, but a rescue now and then seems just part of what we already paid for. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> That said, however, **by far** more money is spent rescuing power boaters than >is spent rescuing paddlers. In fact the Coast Guard has a mandate to make the >waters safe for commercial and other traffic on marine waterways and navigable >rivers. AFAIK, those funds come from my Federal taxes, and as a paddler, I >betcha I have contributed a lotta bucks over the years. I figure I am "owed" a >rescue -- which I never plan to need! I see funding of rescues in a different >light than the funding for launch facilities, etc. Dave, Bit of a correction there ... the Coast Guard is actually part of the U.S. Customs Service (is/was), part oof the U.S. Treasury Department ... and as such, their primary job is/was to stop smugglers. Somewhere down the line .. the duties of 'nav aid maintenance' and 'rescue operations' was added to their agenda. Rescues, per sie, is the sworn duty of all professional seaman and mariner worldwide ... in every maritime law book in the world ... you are 'obliged' to do your best to assist in any manner possible .... (by the way, this actually applies to the 'weekend warriors' ... anyone that is in 'command' of a vessel of any type) ... BUT, in that also comes the 'law of salvage' or 'salvage rights' ... we can really get this 'thread going' if you understand what that implies .... technivally, if I throw you a line ... and you accept a tow .... I've got the right to 'claim salvage' on your vessel ... the actual monetary award depends on just how much I do and how much I have to go out of my way to assist you. And how much trouble you were really in ... Those that have ever been saved in emergency situations or assisted by the Coast Guard certainly appreciate their efforts ... as a professionl master with over 37 years at sea ... I have myself been assisted by the U.S. Coast Guard in a very serious situation several times ... in areas where I would have never expected them ... once off the southern coast of Cuba where our tow was sinking, once earlier in my career (I was a yacht captain then) when one of our pasengers has a severe heart attack, and last year when I myself had a stroke on board the vessel. The U.S. Parks Service is another supposed to be 'federally funded' operation ... Laws are made, budgets planned, etc. by politicians ... and there is a lot to say about some of the stupid decisions they make ... in order to please the voters ... Most countries do not have a separate Coast Guard ... these services are performed by their Navy or the Military. I presently (since retired) serve on some Coast Guard committees ... Regards, Capt. Donald R. Reid - Master Oceans not more than 1,600 Tons Representative - Merchant Vessel Personnel Advisory Committee (MERPAC) STCW work group (U.S. Coast Guard Advisory Panel), as a representative of licensed Masters above 500 Gross Tons. Gulf Coast Mariners Association **. Master Marine Surveyor - U.S. Surveyors Association - Professional Mariners Association .. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
The Coast Guard is now part of the Department of Transportation -- though at its inception it was a part of the Treasury Department. Check out their site for some fabulous historical inf [www.uscg.mil] -- and detailed mission information -- missions that go well beyond stopping smugglers. Jim Tynan Pike Road *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
"Sailboat Restorations, Inc." wrote: > > I seem to recall that they did something like this a few years ago in > certain parts of the Rockies w/r/t rock climbing. I have this vague > recollection that it resulted in people having insurance against the > charges -- in fact, I seem to recall that in some areas insurance became > required. Hrmph. Another boon to the insurance companies. Just what we > need. . . > > Generally, I am opposed to the idea (paid rescues). For one thing, it would > just make the sport even more expensive and inaccessible[snip] > I kinda like the Coasties just the way they are. I wonder what they think > of this question. . . I bet they would welcome some funding from a source other than the capricious House and Senate. However, would we then see solicitation from the other armed services for protection from foreign invasion? To wit: " ... didn't pay your Self Defense tax, eh? Well, then I guess we won't defend your house ..." <grin> Where I live, the CG is held in very high esteem, and their presence is vital to the lifeblood of commercial traffic on the Columbia, and for offshore activities, also. They are underappreciated when it comes to funding from the Feds, however. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
At what point does the Coast Guard take over from various local marine patrols? When I was in The Keys in January preparing to launch from a rocky shoreline with a 1' chop, some kind of Florida marine patrol vessel (not USCG) with a frogman standing on the bow did a "drive by" to make sure I was ok. I gave a friendly wave to let them know I was all right. I see various local authorities like that all the time. Usually a marine branch of the local police or sheriff's department. Any of them charging for rescues? -Bob Matter Hammond, IN *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Robert J. Matter wrote: > When I was in The Keys in January preparing to launch from a rocky > shoreline with a 1' chop, some kind of Florida marine patrol vessel (not > USCG) with a frogman standing on the bow did a "drive by" to make sure I > was ok. > > I see various local authorities like that all the time. Usually a > marine branch of the local police or sheriff's department. Any of them > charging for rescues? wandering away from the question... Haverhill Massachusetts is in the running for the most overprepared harbormaster. I believe he supplies all of his own equipment. He's got a air boat, a hovercraft, at least one large wheeled amphibious vehicle, and a helicopter. And that's just the equipment I've seen in use. Haverhill is about 15 miles from the ocean. All of this equipment is used on a river that is about 100 yards wide as it flows through town. I would guess 25 boats are moored in the area he protects. I've been in a couple of canoe races that run through the area. The harbormaster and his assistants are by far the most dangerous aspects of paddling through the area. They've come close to swamping me a couple of times. kirk *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
You may find that the marine patrol and diver were looking for lobster poachers or drugs. cu -- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
There goes my Kayak. Is there any chance I could get the difference in the value of my boat and the taxes I paid refunded? *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Just a quick thought on charging for rescues: I seem to remember this issue coming up in the climbing/mountaineering community due to the large increase in participants in the 70's. The SAR and Parks organizations were trying to grapple with the increased demand for rescues. I think for everyone involved that there was no desire to charge people for "legitimate" rescues, i.e. for circumstances beyond the control of the victims or where reasonable judgement could not have prevented. The rescue people were just getting tired of pulling people off the mountain that simply got in over their heads or were ill equipped for the conditions. This wasted resources and also put rescue personnel and volunteers at unnecessary risk. One of the ideas proposed was to charge the people who got into trouble because of their own lack of preparedness or inexperience. This in theory would give a financial incentive to get proper instruction and be properly equipped for the conditions. And on the surface this seems a reasonable thing to do--make the irresponsible individuals pay for their own rescues. however I think the practical reality of allowing a government agency or decided what was reasonably unforeseeable and what was not (especially to the general public) could make them face even more costly litigation. I have never heard of anyone ever having to pay under these rules except in cases of out right criminal negligence and reckless endangerment. I know in some places where they had control over the activities they would issue a permit. This happened to me in 1980 when a few climbing buddies and I went to climb mount Rainier. A specially trained climbing ranger would inspect our equipment, interview each of us to determine our experience and intended route, and then issued us a climbing permit. It was a very reasonable interview and I actually felt good about it to know there was at least some kind of a process to reduce the risk of being exposed to someone else's stupidity (I have put myself at risk more than a few times pulling someone else's butt off a mountain they should have not been on). Unfortunately there are not very many places where such policing is possible in wilderness situations and I do not know if more rigorously enforcing regulations with citations and fines would help much. I think this would simply result in more complaints than actual compliance. Peter *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
On 7 April 2000 I did the stupidest thing I have ever done in my life. I was skiing at Mt. Bachelor, Oregon. It was a gorgeous sunny day and the snow was quite good. At about 3:30 pm (when any sensible person should be thinking about getting back to the car), I was getting off the highest chairlift, feeling high from the sun and the snow and my terrific Vokl race skis, when I suddenly and on an entirely irrational impulse decided to... SKI OUT OF BOUNDS. To make a long story short, I could not get back to civilization and had to spend the night out. My old Army training enabled me to survive the night. I managed to get back to civilization around 9:30 the next morning. Since I got out by myself, I did not have to pay the fee the ski patrol charges for searches. (They had started a search at about 8 am, after my roommates notified them that my bed had not been slept in.) I was a fool to have skied out of bounds - especially since there were big boundary signs warning of the danger of skiing past them, and specifying the hourly rate (I don't remember the amount but it was fiercely high) the ski patrol charges for searches. In my opinion the ski patrol is fully justified in charging. It takes a great deal of time and effort to search through a thickly forested wilderness (such as exists on the lower flanks of Batchlor), and if someone gets lost there not through circumstances beyond his control but through his own foolishness, why shouldn't the ski patrol charge him? The only problem I see is if the person can't afford to pay the fee, which can come to a very large amount if it is a long search. I assume the mountain would arrange some kind of time payment. If anyone is interested in the full story, let me know and I'll email the file to you. Specify whether you want plain text or MS Word. Jack Fu 47°38'N 122°08'W *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
At 07:47 PM 10/2/2000 -0700, Peter A. Chopelas wrote: >remember this >issue coming up in the climbing/mountaineering community due to the large >increase in participants in the 70's. The SAR and Parks organizations were >trying to grapple with the increased demand for rescues. Peter is correct. We flew air rescue and Search and Rescue in Washington at a time when the local authorities did not have access to the resources available to the US Military. Thus after Vietnam, MAST was born: Military Assistance to Safety and Traffic. It was seen as a way to provide live training to the troops and assistance to the civilian population that wasn't available through any other means. There were extreme risks taken by all: the victims and the rescue parties, but the job was done and done well by volunteers and professionals in the Park Service, Law Enforcement, EMS and the US Army and Air Force. Mountain rescues were growing at an alarming rate in the Pacific Northwest at that time. The cost to launch a full scale medical evacuation or search and rescue operation was far beyond $ 2,000 then and now. The operating cost of one helicopter alone was above $ 750 dollars per hour not including the crew, which had millions of dollars worth of training invested by the tax payer. Tacoma Mountain Rescue (I believe the first and oldest in the US), Seattle Mountain Rescue, Everett, Yakima Search and Rescue, etc. are made up of volunteers that are far more professional than one would ever expect from a all volunteer organization. Many lives have been saved by these fine organizations and ones like them both with the use of tax payers dollars and without. Can we really put a price on a rescue or ever determine the value returned by those lives plucked off the mountain side. I think not. I do find it interesting, however, that in areas with a lot of paddlers there isn't a similar organization of volunteers for sea kayaking or sailing, fishermen and boaters in general. Funded by donations and staffed by volunteers. The use of existing resources from the Coast Guard combined with private boats staffed by volunteers could be a dent in the cost to the tax payer and hopefully create a means to emphasize the need for proper training and preparation prior to embarking on a risky trip. Don't the British have something similar for their Life Boats, kind of like Volunteer Firemen? An Auxiliary Coast Guard on Steroids. Fred T. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> Peter is correct. We flew air rescue and Search and Rescue in Washington > at a time when the local authorities did not have access to the resources > available to the US Military. Thus after Vietnam, MAST was born: Military > Assistance to Safety and Traffic. In some areas, there was such demand for the services of this organization that a second organization had to be formed -- the Benevolent Association for Traffic Extrication (BATE). Thus, if you were in trouble you had an option: MAST or BATE. Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mark: Were you ever a Air Rescue Medic knocked 20 feet down the mountain by 25,000 volts of static electricity from a Breeze Hoist because you forgot to let it touch the ground first? On Mt. Rainier no less! If not, you would have certainly fit in with the guys I flew with! I've got to hand it to you - I mean ..................................... Fred At 09:42 AM 10/4/2000 -0400, Sailboat Restorations, Inc. wrote: > > Peter is correct. We flew air rescue and Search and Rescue in Washington > > at a time when the local authorities did not have access to the resources > > available to the US Military. Thus after Vietnam, MAST was born: >Military > > Assistance to Safety and Traffic. > >In some areas, there was such demand for the services of this organization >that a second organization had to be formed -- the Benevolent Association >for Traffic Extrication (BATE). Thus, if you were in trouble you had an >option: MAST or BATE. >Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Sorry, but I discovered some mixups in my probably to hastly written previous reply, (did it between other activitities...) so here it is again, hopefully right this time: John Winters wrote: [...] >Olympics don't have any specs, (some would say thank God) and the boats are >governed by the ICF. The horns just behind the cockpit are rule cheaters to >make narrow boats that still meet the beam minimum. The ICF has a tradition >of illogical rules and even more illogical enforcement. Some time ago I asked the ICF about their rule that only convex lines where allowed, which to my memory used to be no concave lines allowed? Since I cannot understand the only convex lines rule, because I see a lot of straight lines or even concave lines on the racing boats, and maybe the only sort of canoe that could somehow comply to these rule might be a Grumman for instance? I never got any explanation from the ICF... Dirk Barends *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Dirk wrote: > Some time ago I asked the ICF about their rule that only convex lines where allowed, which to my memory used to be no concave lines allowed? Since I cannot understand the only convex lines rule, because I see a lot of straight lines or even concave lines on the racing boats, and maybe the only sort of canoe that could somehow comply to these rule might be a Grumman for instance? > I never got any explanation from the ICF... This rule caused enormous problems because it specified convex waterlines and sections. You can see the loop hole in that. How do you establish the waterline and section planes? The ICF failed to think of that. When I designed the Stealth canoe I took advantage of that and the boat had definite concavity aft but as long as you measured the waterlines and sections relative to "MY" base line everything had convexity. The boat control people passed the boat but when one of the German measurers saw it perform he tore off the passed sticker and declared it an illegal boat. It took many months of appeal etc. but finally the boat was passed a week before the Barcelona Olympic. Too late for the paddlers to train in the boat (it had unique handling characteristics) Oddly enough some of the German and French boats had similar shapes. :-) Strict interpretation allows the horns since all waterlines are convex. If the hull surface extended up to the horns it would be concave so everywhere it might become concave they just cut away the hull. Clever fellows those designers. :-) John Winters *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:17 PDT