Abby Sunderland, what have we learned?

The rescue of 16-year-old Abby Sunderland from her dismasted Open 40, Wild Eyes, in the middle of the Indian Ocean has re-raised a whole lot of questions about solo sailing. How young is too young, what boat should be sailed, what role does weather routing play, should she have jury-rigged the boat and kept sailing, who should pay if a sailor gets into trouble, and can we stop them putting themselves into harm's way?

Let's try to look at every question dispassionately, then those of you who are passionate can have your say.

How young is too young?

Jessica Watson completed a successful solo circumnavigation at age 16, so 16 is OK. Abby Sunderland failed to complete her circumnavigation at age 16 and had to be rescued, so 16 is too young.

Chronological age is such a useless measure of a person's fitness for any task. Most 16-year-olds would be hopelessly ill-equipped for such a journey, yet Jessica has shown that some (or at least one) are very capable of it.

There is something absurd about putting an age limit on anything. Whether it's the age of consent, the drinking age, the voting age, the age you can leave school or the age you can be asked to fight for your country, it's illogical that today a "child" is too young, yet tomorrow he or she is a mature adult, able to make informed decisions on any of the above. We have to allocate all these things an "age", but it's a very arbitrary decision and makes no allowance for individual maturity.

Similarly, how old is "too old"? Most of us would be very, very happy to crew for Syd Fischer or Lou Abrahams, both in their 80s and both active sailors. In fact all but the most experienced of us would learn plenty from doing so.

I have a good friend who has swum solo from Cottesloe Beach to Rottnest Island in WA 11 times. That's a distance of over 19km. This year he turned 77 a few days before the race. He usually beats 60% of the field including people a third his age. It takes him somewhere between six and nine hours, depending on conditions.

It would be crazy, and unenforceable, to say you can't sail solo after you turn 65, for example.

I happen to agree with the World Speed Sailing Record Council's decision not to have a category for "youngest to sail solo around the world". It would be asking for younger and younger people to attempt the record until someone died. However, not having an official record isn't going to deter young sailors and we must hope that their parents apply common sense. That, unfortunately, is probably wishful thinking.

The right boat

If people are going to sail around the world solo, they need the right boat. Much has been made of the fact that Abby Sunderland was sailing an Open 40, a boat designed to be raced solo by very experienced, mature and strong young men.  

In an article by Simon McGoldrick in the June/July issue of Australian Sailing, he quoted Nicko Brennan as saying of the Class 40 yachts: "They're not as overpowered as a Mini so from this aspect they're easier to sail. However, the jump in scale means that much more planning and thought is required."

Queenslander Jon Sayer, who built Wild Eyes, said "This boat is bigger and faster than Jessica Watson's boat. In Abby's case she wasn't physically or mentally strong enough to handle a 40-foot boat in those winter storm conditions."

This thought was echoed by Mike Finn, the builder of Jessica's S&S 34 Ella's Pink Lady. As the owner of the S&S moulds, Mike obviously has a vested interest. But it's hard to argue that the S&S 34 isn't the ideal short-handed yacht when you consider that it has completed more circumnavigations and broken more world sailing records than any other production yacht in history and is still winning races. Mike's Constellation won Division Two in this year's Fremantle to Busselton Race, Steve Humphries in Huckleberry was third in his Division in the 2007 Sydney Hobart race, and an S&S 34 was second in class in the 2009 OSTAR race across the Atlantic.

I have sailed my own 37ft Van de Stadt solo through gale force winds and 8 metre seas in the Southern Ocean and would happily take her round Cape Horn or round the world. I'm sure readers can suggest more designs that would do the job. Please do so in the comments section below.

However, if you were planning a short-handed blue water passage from scratch and could choose either an S&S 34 or an Open 40, I don't think it would be a difficult decision.

Was she in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Successful solo sailor and Clean Up Australia founder, Ian Kiernan, was quoted as saying about Abby: "I don't know what she's doing in the southern Indian Ocean in the middle of the winter. We need adventurers but adventurers who do foolhardy things and put their rescuers at risk, it should not be allowed."

Abby was originally supposed to pass south of Australia at around the same time as Jessica, who you will recall was hit with the worst conditions of her trip there even in May. Unscheduled calls into port in Mexico and Cape Town delayed Abby, meaning she was in the Southern Ocean in winter.

When Jessica Watson completed her trip, there were a few website posters who said that using a weather router should disqualify a voyage from being "unassisted". However, as with AIS and other modern electronic aids, if it's available why not use it? Certainly, Jessica's weather router put her in favourable conditions throughout most of the journey, reducing the risk and increasing the chances of success. That has to be a good thing.

I happen to agree with Ian Kiernan. Abby's trip was poorly planned and she should not have been allowed (by her parents, not the authorities) to leave Cape Town until late spring. What do you think?

Should she have kept sailing?

There have been suggestions that a previous generation would have jury-rigged the boat and sailed to a nearby island, rather than calling for rescue. Judging by the photographs of Wild Eyes, which were taken from a distance and are poor quality, the mast snapped off at the deck making it almost impossible to rig the boom or a spinnaker pole as a temporary mast. We weren't out there and we don't know what conditions she was facing or the extent of the damage.

Paul von Zalinski, a good friend of mine, was on board Peter Blake's Ceramco during the 1981-82 Whitbread around-the-world-race when she was dismasted in the South Atlantic. The crew lashed the boom to the stub of the mast and completed the leg into Cape Town by describing a huge circle to prevent the impossible task of sailing to windward. However, that was a crew of 14 big, strong, experienced male sailors, not a small, scared 16-year-old girl.

We don't know why Abby's satellite phone ceased to work, but that was a major factor in the rescue. I learnt on my Southern Ocean experience that you must have back-up for EVERYTHING on a blue-water boat and if Abby had been able to communicate with her family, the Qantas flights from Perth may not have been necessary - she could have been assured help was on the way from the fishing trawler, and could have communicated her position to that boat.

However, as I said, we weren't out there and we don't know. We can speculate about what we would have done but until we are faced with such an emergency we have no idea how we would react.

Who should pay when a sailor gets into trouble?

The cost of Abby's rescue has been put at between $200,000 and $300,000. Some internet posters are calling for Abby's parents to pay the cost (the Sunderland's say they're broke and can't do so) and some say the bill should be sent to the US government because Abby is a US citizen.

Convention says that various countries have responsibility for various parts of the ocean, and Australia is unlucky that our area is the largest in the world. And it includes the Indian and Southern Oceans, two of the most dangerous stretches of water in the world. Convention also says that Australia's maritime safety services make every effort to assist anyone in danger, and the Australian taxpayer bears the full cost.

That infuriates some, but let's look at it logically. Firstly, if we charged rescued mariners for the full cost, most would delay calling for help. That could make the situation worse and place both the mariners and rescuers in added danger.

Secondly, does it really cost us more money? AMSA has an annual budget. The budget isn't increased when a rescue such as Abby's takes place. AMSA simply uses funds that would otherwise have been spent in training exercises for "the real thing". It could be argued that a real rescue is actually a bonus because it gives AMSA's excellent rescue personnel first-hand experience under live conditions.

The final point, if you'll excuse me getting political briefly, is that our governments don't actually spend taxpayers' money very wisely. I'd rather my dollars were spent rescuing sailors than wasted on poorly-planned insulation schemes, for example. Feel free to disagree.

What can we legally do?

The final question is the most frustrating. Because there is apparently nothing we can do to stop a poorly planned and equipped circumnavigation taking place. This was illustrated when Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, wanted to stop Jessica Watson setting out again, after her collision with a bulk ore carrier on her first night at sea. Premier Bligh discovered she didn't have the power to do so.

Solo sailing is basically illegal under Rule 5 of the Collregs, which state:

"Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate to the prevailing circumstances…"

As soon as we go below, we break rule 5. However, while our failure to maintain a look-out may cost our insurance company (or ourselves if we don't have one) if we are involved in a collision, it seems that there is no authority able to arrest a solo sailor for breaking this regulation in international waters.

Can you imagine the fuss in the USA or France if an Australian naval vessel "arrested" an American or French solo sailor in international waters? Or the uproar that would have ensued back here in Australia if the South African or Argentine navy had arrested Jessica Watson when she rounded the Cape of Good Hope or Cape Horn?

When a round-world voyage is completed under race rules, such as in the Vendee Globe or Volvo Ocean Race, the organisers can and do impose a qualification on both boats and crews. All entrants must sail a prescribed distance prior to the start of the race to prove the fitness of the boat and crew.

When an individual sets out, such as Jessica Watson and Abby Sunderland did, no such qualification exists because they are not completing an "officially" recognised journey. Basically, any teenager with a boat can set off and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them.

The bottom line

Some critics suggest all such ventures should be banned. Others suggest that a teenager is probably safer completing a well-planned and well-executed sailing adventure than they are attending a local rave party, where they could die of a drug overdose, or even learning to drive on congested roads.

I don't have the definitive answer. I hope that no-one younger than 16 will attempt a circumnavigation. I hope that Abby's experience will serve as a warning that the ocean can and does kill. I hope that Jessica's triumph will inspire a generation of young people to get off the couch and go sailing. Yes, those hopes are contradictory. What do you think? Please post your thoughts below.

There's just one rule - this website does NOT approve comments that personally attack other posters. Please feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. Don't say online anything you wouldn't say to your neighbour at a civilised dinner party.

I look forward to your comments…

- Roger McMillan, editor.