Just a walk in the park.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 14 Jun 2010 08:43 On 14/06/2010 8:54 PM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:17:45 +1000, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 14/06/2010 7:06 PM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:42:07 +1000, Sylvia Else >>> <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14/06/2010 3:17 PM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 12:59:09 +1000, Sylvia Else >>>>> <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Guess we 'control' that part of the ocean so tis easier for us >>>>>> >>>>>> In what sense do we 'control' it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.amsa.gov.au/Search_and_Rescue/ >>>>> >>>>> http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aboutus/howatcworks/ourairspace.asp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> OzOne of the three twins >>>>> >>>>> I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace. >>>> >>>> Apparently we don't control it: >>>> >>>> http://www.amsa.gov.au/About_AMSA/Corporate_information/Recent_Events/2010/June-WildEyes.asp >>>> >>>> "The Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre at La Reunion, operated by >>>> France, is coordinating the search& rescue response overall as Wild >>>> Eyes is in La Reunion's search and rescue region. Australia offered to >>>> assist if required." >>>> >>>> The reported position is also just outside Australia's FIR, for all the >>>> relevance the latter has to a yacht. >>>> >>>> I'd have thought this put the financial obligation on France. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >>> Apparently we do.. >>> >>> http://www.amsa.gov.au/About_AMSA/Corporate_information/Recent_Events/2010/June-WildEyes.asp >>> "At 12.30pm overall coordination of the search and rescue was >>> transferred to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Rescue >>> Coordination Centre (known as "RCC Australia"), as the yacht Wild Eyes >>> had drifted into the Australian search and rescue region. " >>> >>> "The vessel was located by the QANTAS Airbus just after at 4.00pm >>> (AEST) " >>> >> >> It was initially in France's area of responsibility. France should >> therefore pay. Otherwise you have the situation where a country can seek >> to delay rescue efforts so as to avoid financial liability. In any case, >> France asked for the aircraft to be sent. They should pay for it. >> >> Sylvia. > > You don't seem to understand that responsibilities are shared. You can leave out comments about what I do or do not understand. They are not relevant to the debate. > Sometimes it in your area, sometimes it's not So France contributes when Australia rescues people that are definitely in Australia's area of responsibility? Sylvia.
From: Noddy on 14 Jun 2010 08:41 <OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message news:rj7c16d3k8vv9a39r86pu525jipovt4ls9(a)4ax.com... > No you don't. You'd know :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: D Walford on 14 Jun 2010 08:47 On 14/06/2010 9:37 PM, OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:16:49 +1000, "Noddy"<me(a)home.com> wrote: > >> >> <OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message >> news:to2c16t4jgo2dha95gnv33np7e7uogvg8p(a)4ax.com... >> >>> I'd be interested to know where you draw the line at "personal >>> adventure" >> >> Precisely as I mentioned. Anyone setting off on an out of the ordinary trek >> where there is a fair chance that they'll need to call for help if things >> don't go exactly as planned. >> >>> If my mother in law decided to walk to the local shop it'd be a >>> prsonal adventure and she may actually require rescue. >> >> I suspect that only someone in your family would consider walking to the >> local shop a "personal adventure". > > So where is your line drawn.....For my arthritic demented mother in > law, a walk to the shops IS a personal adventure. > > You might like to define "out of the ordinary trek" especially when a > trek is a journey involving difficulty or hardship. > > I'd state again that for my mother in law a walk to the shops is an > "out of the ordinary trek" The difference is the very significant difference in the "rescue" cost, big difference between $200,000.00 and maybe $2000.00. Good chance that your mother in law would pay for her rescue through her ambulance membership or health insurance. Daryl
From: Noddy on 14 Jun 2010 08:42 <OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message news:hq7c16t66l77a0an5762l3hh15tee6c5ne(a)4ax.com... > Hmmmm, So when my arthritic,demented MIL, who has moments of lucidity > decides that she can walk to the shop and find her way home, that is > patently stupid and she should not be rescued. I never said *anyone* shouldn't be rescued, but she is quite unquestionably patently stupid. Anything else? -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 14 Jun 2010 08:47
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message news:87mmenF5auU1(a)mid.individual.net... > So France contributes when Australia rescues people that are definitely in > Australia's area of responsibility? Lol :) That's pretty funny :) France's idea of contributing to anything is usually by throwing their arms up in surrender, hiding behind a wall while other people sort out the problem and then rushing up to the victor and saying "we showed 'em". -- Regards, Noddy. |