Kayak SF to Hawaii

once again, thx 2 tedski 4 sharing impressive knowledge.  bigly apprec8 ur coastie wisdom 

Great information, thanks for sharing. 

Ever since hearing about the sinking of the Erik down in Baja and then reading up on the fish n fool rogue wave incident I’ve always wondered what happens out there. 

The Erik was a Mexican fishing vessel with a passenger crew of mostly American anglers onboard and they didn’t get assistance for 10-12 hours.  With a foreign vessel like that I’m sure the Mexican Navy takes the lead but does the USCG coordinate with them if there’s enough “American” presence on board? What if it was a US Flagged vessel in Mexican waters?

Great information, thanks for sharing. 

Ever since hearing about the sinking of the Erik down in Baja and then reading up on the fish n fool rogue wave incident I’ve always wondered what happens out there. 

The Erik was a Mexican fishing vessel with a passenger crew of mostly American anglers onboard and they didn’t get assistance for 10-12 hours.  With a foreign vessel like that I’m sure the Mexican Navy takes the lead but does the USCG coordinate with them if there’s enough “American” presence on board? What if it was a US Flagged vessel in Mexican waters?

If the vessel was truly in Mexican waters (12 nm from the baseline), then technically speaking it would be a Mexican government problem.  However, we have a lot of bilateral agreements and memorandums of understanding with the Mexican government to provide mutual aide for law enforcement and search and rescue purposes.  If there was a cutter in the area (and there usually is due to ongoing drug interdiction operations), then they would make contact with the Mexican government and request permission to enter their territorial seas to provide assistance.  Those communications channels are already active and that process is done in minutes, not hours.

10-12 hours for a response on the high seas is pretty good.  I can speak from experience that even when we were up in the Bering Sea operating as the main flight deck cutter in the area, some response times are measured in days.  Figure a 400' ship is going to have a top speed of somewhere between 30 and 35 knots.  If the vessel in distress is 300 nm away, that's 10 hours to get on scene -- in good weather.  Add in 15' seas and that 30 knots quickly becomes 10-15 knots and response times soar.  Add to that that 300 nm is "close."  There was a time when we were operating about 600 nm off the coast of Costa Rica and had to respond to the Galapagos Islands.  That is a few days' transit.  After working an operation down there, we were asked to make best speed to somewhere about 80 nm off the coast of central Mexico.  You get the idea... response times can be slow on the water.  That's why for vessels taking on water, sometimes the best initial response is to get a C-130 in the air and have them drop pumps to the vessel.  That can buy a lot of time -- if they get there in time.  I can't begin to tell you how fast vessels can go down.  It's been more than one occasion that we were on scene within an hour and the only thing we ever got to pick up were survival suits and debris.  Meaning the crew had time to get the gumby suits out of the bag, but not enough time to put them on, something they regularly drill to do in 90 seconds.

Thank you tedski for providing the sobering reality of what a great job the USCG does for everyone.  Much appreciation

Thanks indeed.  We need a running tedski’s tales of the sea thread. 

Thanks indeed.  We need a running tedski’s tales of the sea thread. 

+100

What can we do to support the local coast guard crew?  I know they are very very fit and packed with amenities (food, rest area, etc).  But I also know that they come from different places and do long shifts.   Any idea?

Interesting....how far offshore would they have rescued this guy?  What happens if he needs rescue in the middle of the pacific, would CG coordinate with ships in the vicinity or is he on his own?

They're the Coast Guard, not the Mid-Ocean Guard.  The scenario you're describing would be all the U.S. Navy and the navies of various countries.  Yes, the Coast Guard might launch a C-130 for SAR.  But the Jayhawk helicopters have an effective range of about 400 miles, and cutters don't carry a helicopter of their own.  If the helo could reach a cutter, the cutter would be much too far from the scene to be of any use.

I flew USCG helicopters out of CGAS San Francisco.  We would eliminate one crewman, strip every non-essential scrap of gear, including some radios, and remove all of the insulation allow for extra fuel to extend our range, but there were still emergencies to which we could not respond because they were too far out and there was rarely a cutter with a flight deck in the area.  I can remember only three times we staged on a cutter out of  700+ SAR flights in which I participated.

The Jayhawk is far more advanced than the helicopters I flew, but still, they aren't going out all that far.  They have to have enough fuel to hover on station for the rescue and then return to base.

Interesting....how far offshore would they have rescued this guy?  What happens if he needs rescue in the middle of the pacific, would CG coordinate with ships in the vicinity or is he on his own?

They're the Coast Guard, not the Mid-Ocean Guard.  The scenario you're describing would be all the U.S. Navy and the navies of various countries.  Yes, the Coast Guard might launch a C-130 for SAR.  But the Jayhawk helicopters have an effective range of about 400 miles, and cutters don't carry a helicopter of their own.  If the helo could reach a cutter, the cutter would be much too far from the scene to be of any use.

I flew USCG helicopters out of CGAS San Francisco.  We would eliminate one crewman, strip every non-essential scrap of gear, including some radios, and remove all of the insulation allow for extra fuel to extend our range, but there were still emergencies to which we could not respond because they were too far out and there was rarely a cutter with a flight deck in the area.  I can remember only three times we staged on a cutter out of  700+ SAR flights in which I participated.

The Jayhawk is far more advanced than the helicopters I flew, but still, they aren't going out all that far.  They have to have enough fuel to hover on station for the rescue and then return to base.

As you know, the medium- and high-endurance cutters have flight decks and receive an Aviation Detachment when they go on patrol.  Part of PACAREA's requirements to meet SAR readiness is to have flight decks at sea and ready in various locations at all times.  Yes, the 65 doesn't have the best range, but the cutter can close a bit of range and the helo can launch from there.  Just wanted to clarify for those not familiar that while a cutter doesn't have "it's own helo,"  it has a helo on it... just happens to be from an Air Station somewhere else.  For example, my cutter was based out of Alameda and we deployed with helos from Air Stations SF, Astoria, San Diego, Honolulu and in one exception of needing armed helos we had a detachment from CGAS Pensacola back when the Augusta MH-68 first came to the fleet.

Thanks indeed.  We need a running tedski’s tales of the sea thread.

Outside of a pandemic, I usually prefer to save the sea stories for over beers or on the yaks... they're much more fun to tell that way.

The Chronicle did a nice write up on the costs incurred and what it means to the USCG.  The article is here, but it may be paywalled: https://www.sfchronicle.com/culture/travel/article/Cost-of-Marin-kayaker-s-ocean-rescue-42-000-16259691.php

I'll highlight a few key points:

How much does an ocean rescue cost? Derreumaux’s rescue cost $42,335.97, according to the Coast Guard. That covers everything from crew hours to helicopter fuel. The money comes from the agency’s national budget for search-and-rescue, which this year is more than $1 billion.

It may seem like a hefty price tag for one person’s short-lived misadventure, but it is nothing out of the ordinary for the agency.

“I wouldn’t say this particular rescue negatively impacted our budget any more than any other rescue,” said Leo Zapawa, chief warrant officer and search mission coordinator for Coast Guard Sector San Francisco.

Zapawa characterized Derreumaux’s rescue as a “higher-risk mission” but dismissed the idea that it posed a danger to the lives of the four Coast Guard crew members.

“As a search-and-rescue person, you get a lot of satisfaction from that kind of job,” he said.

Solo ocean rowers and paddlers like Derreumaux don’t qualify as threats. In fact, many of them seem more prepared than casual boaters on daytime cruises, Coast Guard officers said.

The Coast Guard likes to be kept abreast of potentially risky undertakings like Derreumaux’s, and asks that solo adventurers submit a float plan with their itinerary and vessel information to the agency before launch. Derreumaux had done that.

“If people are choosing to do those longer adventurous or semi-dangerous treks, please reach out to us to help you plan that trip,” Kroll said. “As much as the Coast Guard is there to rescue people, we’d rather not have to. Keeping people out of danger is our goal.”

And if you're going to take anything away from this... it's this:

“There’s no mechanism for the Coast Guard to put the costs on a recreational boater,” Kroll said.

madness x $42,335.97

man, that's like 21 new kayaks!

Interesting information here, very eye opening...

One billion $ budget for this year alone?

How many coast guard employees are there? Are they state employees basically?