Rather than a lifetime limit on "freebies" the CG should be permitted to examine your state of preparedness and determine from that if you should have to pay.
If you are experienced and on a well found boat but run into problems - that's why they are there.
If you buy a San Juan 24 for $500 and set off across the Pacific - you pay full freight, plus a penalty.
That is something I agree. But it would not make sense to examine each boat that goes offshore, so minimum mandatory requirements and regular inspections to evaluate the boat condition (one in each 4 years for instance) and occasional random inspections make all the sense.
Anyway in the case of Stamm's boat or Stamm's qualifications they would find nothing to object. He was not even sailing solo this time. Rare freak accidents due to hidden defects will always happen from time to time no matter the boat.
If you find worrying a boat like an Open 60 and a sailor like Stamm crossing the Atlantic Ocean, even with a gale, what do you say about these things being allowed to cross oceans or to circumnavigate?
Aren't they a much bigger risk in what regards the need of a rescue with the consequent endangerment of other lives?
Originally Posted by christian.hess
plus in any case a san juan 24 is a speck mid ocean as is even a 1000foot cruise ship
You are sayng that a Juan 24, or any other 24ft boat is as safe as a 1000ft cruise ship on an Ocean??????
Regarding most EU countries let me say that it is not the sailor that has to be qualified, or at least show that they are qualified to sail on an Ocean, the same happens with the boats that have to be certified class A but not only, they have to be equipped with the minimum safety equipment required for Ocean sailing. The boats are also mandatory inspected each 4 years ( I think that on a new one it takes longer to need an inspection and small variations happen from country to country). There are already an unified law in what regards boat requirements, not yet in what regards sailor qualifications.