Hmmm, I'm certainly no math whiz, but I believe 2 boats abandoned out of a fleet of 22, is bit more than twice the percentage of 1 out of 130+, no? :-)
I totally agree with you. You aren't very good with math. I, like Morganscloud, am talking about the number of SAR cases in each event (though there were actually more calls than cases in the SDR itself, so even that number is low). Where the boat ends up (abandoned or towed) is immaterial.
Again, we'll simply have to agree to disagree, as you have yet to present anything that indicates that ISAF-based safety standards would necessarily have made any difference aboard the boats that required assistance in this year's SDR...
For example, what difference did compliance with ISAF standards make aboard TRIPLE STARS in the 2011 NARC? Apparently, Jan Anderson was wearing neither a PFD, nor was tethered, when she was swept overboard and lost... Sure, safety inspections at the dock are a nice idea, but...
Again, you're positing that ISAF-regs need to be a 100% cure-all to be effective. I don't think anyone, except maybe you, thinks that's a reasonable expectation. In fact, I think any responsible skipper
(greeen or salty) who values good seamanship would think that following the guidelines and advice offered by the ISAF regs would be a responsible, seamanly way to prep themselves and their boats for offshore passagemaking. And I don't think that skipper would then think that he or she is bulletproof and can be less attentive.
Bad decisions are made all the time by very prepared people...many times with extreme consequences. That's sailing. But this certainly doesn't mean that preparation is then worthless.
However, if you want to be the experienced voice of offshore sailing telling newbie sailors that following safety guidelines like ISAF is useless because things could go wrong anyway...go ahead. I just think that's very dangerous.
There is just no good reason, from a safety perspective, NOT to have them. Period.
At the end of the day, I just agree with Morganscloud more than I agree with you. He says what I've been saying all along in this thread:
Morganscloud: The bottom line is that, in my opinion, rallies are intrinsically dangerous because they mix a financial interest of the organizer to get as many boats to sign up as possible with the natural human concept of safety in the herd, which in offshore sailing is a delusion.
I also think that rallies, together with overly controlling weather routers, have, over the years, eroded the basic decision making and risk management skills of offshore sailors by propagating the illusion that someone off the boat can be responsible for said boat’s safety.
That said, I do agree with you here...
I think in the case of all these rallies, that bar is so vague, and set so low, as to be essentially meaningless... The 1500's requirement of a prior 250 mile passage is essentially a joke. As Harries rightly points out, that can be a coastal passage completed in less than 48 hours in benign conditions, well within a forecast weather window, and bearing very little resemblance to the passage to the islands in November...
Of course, there are no simple answers to any of this, I wouldn't begin to want to determine what particular 'standard' anyone has to meet to participate in these rallies... It comes down to each individual skipper to make that determination - which of course highlights the inherent flaw in the offshore rally concept... Namely, that NO ONE should ever be seriously contemplating making this passage, unless they are confident of doing so COMPLETELY ON THEIR OWN, without any of the 'guidance', or assistance these rallies claim to provide...