TPP

It is the responsibility of the parents not the regulator.

It is a judgement call by the parents and the rewards and penalty are known. The risks of solo circumnavigation are well documented.

It is a record attempt and we the consumers are the ones who have put the pressure on. The financial reward of being the youngest to do 'X' is large enough to change the whole future of her family. The media wins either way of course.

How free, willing and informed is her consent? Can she as a minor even give an unpressurised, informed consent in the circumstances?

God speed, fair weather and best of luck.

For the urgers, what age is too young for solo circumnavigation?

Cornflower, I have now idea how young is too young, It depends on the person. I do know how old is too old, & i'm it.

This is a lonely trip, but she'll have radio. It is also very boring, with weeks of very little to do. That will hopefully be the most difficult thing for her. It would be for me.

I like a new island, & people after a week or so. Much more fun.

I did 53,000 nautical miles, around the Pacific, in my yacht, without any major adventures. I did lay a'hull for 72 hours, in a cyclone, in the Solonon Sea, but that was only a little worrying, because, in those days, before sat nav for us peasants, I had no real idea how far I may have drifted, with no sun for navigation.

Provided she doesn't get very unlucky, & get a big wave, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, it's really not that hard.

I too, wish her luck.

As expected, the skills of a mid-teen who has never even done a longer solo voyage are not up to what is required for a solo navigation:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26125924-952,00.html

It is a reckless undertaking and her parents should have more sense. Jessica herself does not have the skills to assess her own risks.

The Courier Mail reportage to which Cornflower has provided a link, contains, among other things, this statement with respect to a Maritime Safety Queensland report on Jessica's recent collision:

"The report says that after the vessels separated, with Jessica's yacht dismasted, she contacted the skipper of the Silver Yang by radio and received an apology and a pledge to pay for the damages."

I am assuming, as a landlubber, that the skipper of the Silver Yang's apology and pledge arises out of the law of the sea that 'steam gives way to sail'. It would be interesting to hear more from somebody like Hasbeen as to why such a seeming admission of responsibility on the part of the bulk carrier may have been made.

The third last paragraph of the Courier Mail item says:

"Government authorities have analysed legislation in an attempt to prevent Ms Watson from embarking on the gruelling test. But the laws indicate that Jessica – who will become a legal adult when she turns 17 next May – needs only the approval of her parents to start the journey."

The last paragraph of the news item says:

"But The Courier-Mail understands high-ranking government officials were alarmed by the facts of the collision once they became known."

Do I detect an empire-building agenda here on the part of Maritime Safety Queensland? Is there a tenaciously held desire on the part of bureaucrats to alter the law at the expense of the long-held freedoms of Australians to set sail upon the high seas? Does Hasbeen's little tin Hitler now hold a high position in MSQ, I wonder? Or is something else going on that has little directly to do with Jessica Watson's proposed voyage?

Interestingly, the ATSB acting director of surface safety investigations is reported as saying:

"In this case, I believe the (yacht) had some equipment that should have enhanced its detectability and certainly the bigger ship, at this stage, is indicating that they did see her."

BTW, since when does a child attain to its majority upon turning 17?

So Cornflower is able to say 'I told you so!'. The only problem is that the content of her link, and the necessary implications thereof in no way back up her claim.

On the Brisbane Courier Mail 'newspaper' website, to which Cornflower provided a link in her post of Saturday, 26 September 2009 at 7:54:43 AM, there is a news item by Courier Mail (?) journalists Michael Crutcher and Greg Stolz, with "Additional reporting by [Courier Mail journalist] Jeremy Pierce", dated September 26, 2009 12:00am in which the opening sentence reads:

"Jessica Watson and her parents have been warned by authorities to call off the 16-year-old's solo voyage around the world after a damning assessment of her skills."

Whilst this news item claims that "The Courier-Mail has obtained a copy of the report into a collision between Jessica's yacht and a Chinese bulk carrier this month ....", the internal link constituted by the highlighted words 'collision between .... bulk carrier' do not link to that report but simply to (yet?) another AAP sourced item by one Stephen Johnson datelined September 10, 2009 12:00am. It would have been nice to be able to assess the significance of the facts revealed by the official investigation for ourselves. The internally-linked Courier Mail page, in contrast to Cornflower's link, takes absolutely forever to load fully. After reading its content, I can only think this slow loading may have been made deliberately so because the reportage was no longer 'convenient' for the editorial line now evidently being taken by the Courier Mail.

An entirely different light is cast upon the circumstances surrounding the collision by the internally linked AAP sourced item by Stephen Johnson. In it, the (Commonwealth) ATSB acting director of surface safety investigations is reported as saying "In this case, I believe the (yacht) had some equipment that should have enhanced its detectability and certainly the bigger ship, at this stage, is indicating that they did see her."

Large shipping operators wanting rights to sail close inshore without having to observe the rules?

In my preceding post I questioned whether:

"Large shipping operators want[ed] rights to sail close inshore without having to observe the rules?"

Hasbeen, who has been there and done all this, in his post of Friday, 11 September 2009 at 12:54:25 PM observes:

"Cape Moreton has the most shipping in the smallest area of any open sea part of the Oz coast. Due to the shape of the coast, & our east coast current, most ships bound to or from Sydney come in close there."

Australian governments, unwilling or unable to mandate a shipping route further out to sea in the vicinity of Cape Moreton, seem to have left it to an unholy alliance of 'jumped-up clerks in State government' and the Brisbane Courier Mail to help shove the cost of making watchkeeping easier on large vessels onto the Australian boating public. Whether these governments are responding to the wishes of big shipping interests (it costs more to sail against the East Australian current than closer inshore), or are simply hosts to parasitic little tin Hitler bureaucrats seeing an opportunity for more power, is not immediately clear.

Hasbeen's observation contains the key to revealing the truth behind the Courier Mail's editorial line in this story. That editorial line has seen the Courier Mail attempting to 'grandstand' upon the motherhood issue as to the self-evident riskiness to a young woman of a solo circumnavigation of the world. It has presumptuously taken a poll as to whether Jessica Watson should be 'allowed' to go; a poll which I daresay it would not have been so bold as to undertake if Jessica was already legally an adult. That poll, however, was doubtless intended to provide a justification for legislation imposing more costs and restrictions upon ALL Australian recreational boat owners and operators. (Yes, Cornflower, YOUR "boaties forever" family, too!)

Re-read these links carefully:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26125924-952,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26050546-5019132,00.html

It seems Jessica wasn't at fault! Even sheer Courier Mail spin and misleading headlines cannot hide that truth.

Hear Drake's drum, anyone?