What WOULD the Coast Guard charge?

Yesterday, we wondered aloud about the question of whether the USCG would ever actually charge for a non-emergency response to rescue foolish, or reckless boaters. I ended that post with "I wonder what the hourly costs for running a 47' MLB are?" The question somewhat rhetorical in nature, as I figured that the answer was buried someplace deep in a CG spreadsheet.

I forgot about the new, digital age where so much information is readily available. Even better is the participating in the new age of blogging, where sometimes information comes to you.

Charlie Meyer over at TowBOAT/US Lake Ozark sent me the link to this very interesting document. It seems that the USCG has published the hourly rates they would charge for all their assets like boats, ships, aircraft and personnel. Enclosure 1 (pasted here, click on it to see a bigger version) is titled "Hourly Standard Rates for Cutters, Boats & Aircraft" - how handy is that?

So, not only did my rehtorical question get anwered, but an even better number is presented here: how much would the USCG actually charge a non-government customer (like an insurance agency) for providing service. These are hourly rates, and they include the costs of paying the "normal" crew.

According to the chart, a 47' MLB is charged out at the non government rate of $4189/hour. The sailboat that was towed in from south of Block Island on Dec 19th was towed for 7 hours. Lets say 2 hours to get on scene, plus 2 hours to get back to base from Montauk (where they towed the boat); a total of 11 hours of service. That's $46,079! We are not even close to the total yet. The official report states that the CG also launched a helicopter from Sta Cape Cod. Figure another 4 hours for a HH65A at $9855/hr = $39,420 for the aircraft. So far, I'm up to $85,499 to find and tow a sailboat about 20 miles. That doesn't include any costs for the SAR center costs.

The sailboat from the story, the MOONSHINE, was a 45' Starratt sloop. Here is one for sale in FLA asking $39,000. Why is the USCG spending $85,000 to tow a $40,000 boat? Because they don't put a price on saving lives, and the act of towing this boat was their way to get these seasick sailors home. Okay, I get that.

Suppose, however, that the CG policy was to send a bill if it turns out that the rescue operation was necessary because the boater was reckless or negligent in his duty to conduct a safe voyage? Unforeseen circumstances are one thing, but leaving a safe harbor to begin an ocean crossing when a winter Nor'easter is bearing down on New England is acting with reckless disregard for the lives of everyone involved.

If the USCG started charging for services that were deemed 'non-emergency', what would that achieve? First, it would lower the burden on taxpayers (I admit, not much, but it's the principal of the thing) and shift the costs of non-emergency rescues to the boat owners and their insurance companies, where it belongs; 2) it would punish reckless behavior with a financial dis-incentive, and; 3) it would drive more boaters to use private sector solutions like our industry. The owner of the MOONSHINE could have hired an ocean tug out of Providence RI for $10,000/day

This marks the 100th blog post for 2008. 100 is a nice round number, so I'll make this my last post of this year. See you next year!

Will the Coast Guard ever charge for service?

Two news items caught my attention this week. First was this USCG story about the search and towing of a disabled sailboat just south of Block Island last week. [the story is also covered here with a picture, and here with comments; searching Google News returns more of the same] From the USCG news page:

BOSTON - The Coast Guard rescued four people aboard a storm-ravaged sailboat Friday, about 7 miles south of Block Island, R.I. The crew of the 45-foot Moonshine left East Greenwich, R.I., Friday morning, bound for Puerto Rico, when they were caught in an offshore storm, which ripped their sails and disabled their propulsion. They activated their emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB)....

Gosh, where do I begin? One common thread through all the eight separate news reports I've seen is that this boat was "caught in a storm," or even "caught in an offshore storm". That is total bull, as the Nor'easter that slammed New England on December 19th was well predicted; no competent sailor would have been caught by surprise by that storm, nor was it somehow offshore. It dumped snow all over Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Every account of this rescue says the boat left their marina on Friday morning. At 0607 that morning, the NWS issued this weather forecast for the area:

HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE TAUNTON MA
607 AM EST FRI DEC 19 2008

NORTHWEST PROVIDENCE RI-SOUTHEAST PROVIDENCE RI-WESTERN KENT RI-EASTERN KENT RI-BRISTOL RI-WASHINGTON RI-NEWPORT RI-
607 AM EST FRI DEC 19 2008

...WINTER STORM WARNING WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 10 AM THIS MORNING TO 3 AM EST SATURDAY...

THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR NORTHERN CONNECTICUT....NORTHERN RHODE ISLAND AND SOUTHERN RHODE ISLAND.

COASTAL WATERS FROM MONTAUK NY TO BLOCK ISLAND RI TO MARTHAS VINEYARD MA TO NANTUCKET MA SOUTHEAST TO 20 NM
607 AM EST FRI DEC 19 2008

...GALE WARNING IN EFFECT FROM NOON TODAY TO 7 AM EST SATURDAY...

These weather forecasts alone are enough to establish that these sailors were not caught in a storm - they began their voyage in only one of two ways. Either they departed despite the forecast, or they never listened to the weather at all. It's hard for me to argue which of those two options is the more despicable. In any case, due to a raging blizzard and gale winds, the USCG performed admirably and towed these fools from the deep-doo back to safe harbor (atta-boys to the crew at PJ and he helo pilot, you know who you are!). Meanwhile, the family of the of the sailboat's captain claim that the MAYDAY was merely a result of a seasick crew [see end of this story] and there was nothing wrong with the boat. Photos of the boat after the tow shows what looks like a nicely flaked mainsail wrapped over the boom, indicate to me that the vessel was probably capable of making way on her own power despite the shredded jibs.

Bonus question: did the Coast Guard really tow that boat for 7 hours with the foresails hoisted like that, just flapping in the breeze?

Now, on to the second story, which is this article in the NYT : Those Lost in Wilderness May Find Bill for a Rescue.

In response to the multitude of hikers, cross-country skiers and others who venture unprepared into the wilderness, become lost and have to call for help, the State of New Hampshire is billing people for rescues stemming from their own negligence, like not taking a map on a hike, wandering away from a group or going out in dangerous conditions....
Since 1999, 20 groups or people have been rescued and charged, and the state — which collects only what it costs in equipment and personnel for a rescue — has recouped $47,000. Officials said only two people who were rescued have not paid. Those billed who do not pay could face civil charges.

I find it interesting that many of the private comments left by readers of the sailor saga mention that they should be charged for the Coast Guard's response. Count me in for that idea! Can someone please explain the difference between a mapless hiker and a clueless sailor? Who can argue that the master of the MOONSHINE hasn't acted recklessly, even negligently? Why should this guy get a free pass, yet a hiker with no map gets charged?

The irony here is that most hikers don't have any ready access to an insurance policy that would cover the costs of rescue and probably end up paying the bill out of their own pockets -- unlike most boaters, who actually have at least one, if not TWO (counting hull insurance and membership towing) sources of funds to help offset the costs of getting help. So if the Coasties started to charge for situations like the one above, the boater could probably send the bill to his insurance company.

I wonder what the hourly costs of running a 47' MLB are?

Sunk Costs - by David Axe

Here a rather lengthy but well reasoned summary of the overall state of the USCG, and particularly the Deepwater Program: click here for Sunk Costs - David Axe (one quick quote)

The ultimate result of Deepwater’s travails is that a well-respected agency—the only one, in fact, to perform admirably during Hurricane Katrina—is now finding it increasingly difficult to carry out its core mission. Even before Deepwater sprung leaks, the Coast Guard was struggling to be both an overseas counterterror force and a domestic safety and law enforcement agency.

This is a pretty long article, but definitely worth the time.

USCG Commander keeps his job after collision with BI Ferry

Text of official USCG press release today:

BOSTON - The commanding officer of Coast Guard Cutter Morro Bay will remain in command today following the review of an administrative investigation regarding the collision between the Morro Bay and a Block Island ferry July 2, 2008.
Admiral Dale Gabel, the commander of the First Coast Guard District, presided over an Admiral’s Mast in which he determined that Lt. Douglas Wyatt will remain in command.
“After reviewing all of the facts of this case, I have confidence in Lt. Wyatt’s ability to command the Morro Bay and carry out the Coast Guard’s missions,” said Gabel.


http://coastguardnews.com/morro-bay-commanding-officer-to-remain-in-command-after-investigation/2008/09/05/

....hmm, I wonder if they exonerated the captain of the ferry?

USCG SAR Meetings

All the commercial salvors and assistance providers should be attending twice annual meetings with their local USCG units. The meetings are intended to provide a forum to discuss operational issues between the Coast Guard and private enterprise, and to foster cooperation between all those acting within the local SAR system, like local fire, police & sheriff departments, and any other agencies that regularly respond.

These meetings are generally scheduled for the spring and fall, so perhaps yours is coming up soon. One item that inevitably appears on the agenda is a review of the Coast Guard MARB proceedures. The Maritime SAR Assistance Policy (MSAP) is the actual document that articulates the MARB concept.

The opening sentence of the MSAP reads:

This section sets forth policy and procedures for handling requests for any type of Search and Rescue (SAR) assistance from the Coast Guard and defines Coast Guard relationships with other possible sources of assistance.

The text of the MSAP then opens with the very first section (4.1.1):

The MSAP is the result of an effort enacted by Congress in 1982. It directed the Commandant to “review Coast Guard policies and procedures for towing and salvage of disabled vessels in order to further minimize the possibility of Coast Guard competition or interference with...commercial enterprise.” The review was directed because of congressional concern that Coast Guard resources were being used unnecessarily to provide nonemergency assistance to disabled vessels that could be adequately performed by the private sector.

The MSAP represents more than a decade of development of relationships among the Coast Guard, Congress, the commercial towing industry, and the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Each iteration of the MSAP has received close scrutiny. It has been a give-and-take process that has culminated in a policy that is equitable to all stakeholders.

Those are perhaps the two most important paragraphs ever written about commercial marine assistance.

The first is a reminder that the U.S. Congress recognized that CG resources were being used unnecessarily (i.e. wasting tax payer dollars), and I think that fact sometimes eludes the local agencies who continue to spend tax dollars on tasks that "could be adequately performed by the private sector."

The second paragraph refers to an equitable relationship to all stakeholders. The equity, however, is directly dependant on all the parties striving to follow the MSAP as rigorously as possible. If the local Lifeguards, for instance, ignore or discount the spirit of the MSAP, or otherwise refuse to recognize the validity of the concepts the MSAP embodies, then a situation of inequity will probably exist.

So, back to the meetings. I think that you should ask that your CG meeting begin with a reading of the above quotes. Heck, its their policy, so they shouldn't balk at saying it outloud. Maybe the local agencies (hopefully in attendance) were not aware of this policy, or the reason for its existance. With the regular promotions and career changes inside the CG, its a good bet that many of the junior USCG staff attending the meeting have never heard those two paragraphs either. Furthermore, the "close scrutiny and give-and-take process" is the reason for the meeting in the first place, and I can think of no better words to explain what the meeting is for than those two paragraphs.

Coast Guard volunteer boat runs aground

Google found this story : Press-Telegram - Coast Guard volunteer boat runs aground

LONG BEACH - A 51-foot Coast Guard volunteer boat ran aground Saturday while on patrol in Long Beach Harbor, a Coast Guard official said. // The Moonlight Express, a pleasure vessel, ran aground near Island Grissom about 10:25 a.m. while conducting a Coast Guard Auxiliary patrol, said Lt. Andrew Munoz of the Coast Guard.

At a quick scan of the story, I didn't think much of it....just another grounding. But something kept quietly nagging in the back of my mind...."volunteer" boat. What the heck is a Coast Guard volunteer boat? I read the story a second time, and of course a volunteer boat is some one's idea of keeping the words Coast Guard Auxiliary out of the headline.


Here is a question for you: instead of running aground (on a well marked oil island in the middle of Long Beach Harbor in broad daylight), had the Moonlight Express rescued a lost swimmer, do you think the headline would read that a Coast Guard Volunteer Boat had conducted the rescue? I think the headline would read "Coast Guard Auxiliary Rescues Swimmer".


At this point, I don't know who the source of the headline or who chose the word Volunteer, but I've got a call into the newpaper and I'm trying to find out.

Can anyone explain why the Long Beach Beach Fire Department is attempting to pull this boat off? And the final sentence:

If all else fails, the Coast Guard may have to bring in a crane barge, he said

Huh?