What insurance pays for Search and rescue?

[AbyssalPlains]

Many of you probably remember that story about a couple drifting away from their dive boat at the GBR earlier this year. I just read an article about this again and came across this passage:

"They face calls, however, from Australian authorities to donate some of the money to cover the cost of their rescue which involved seven helicopters, three planes and six boats.
'They are covered by insurance so it will cover the cost of the rescue and they will be happy to make any donation necessary,' said Max Markson, a publicity agent now representing the couple."

(Complete article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2031025/Divers-who-survived-night-on-Great-Barrier-Reef-%27to-blame%27-for-ordeal.html)


I wonder what dive or other insurance would pay for a search and rescue operation like that? I asked DAN and they sure don't.

 

[muddiver]

On the West coast we spread the love by taxing everyone unequilly.

Usually public service like rescue can only be recouped if the call out of the emergency services is due to an act of intentional negligence or malice. A good example are the wildland fires that are quite common out here. The Forest Service, and other fire departments will bill the person that started the fire if someone is found accountable.

 

[ocbeachbum]

Apart from (private) "tow boat" services I've never heard of marine search and rescue costing anything for the rescued party. It seems to me that the idea of charging for rescue would diminish the likelihood of someone calling for help soonest. The article doesn't specify under whose insurance the couple is covered. Could it be insurance held by the Australian govt. or the dive operator? Any Aussie input as to local laws would be helpful.

On a side note, a couple of open questions: Does anyone else think it is in bad taste for the Australian government to be demanding a cut? Should the dive op have to pay for S&R since they screwed up and lost their passengers? Isn't the availability of free rescue services part of why any citizen of any civilized nation pays taxes?

 

[jridg]

The FindmeSpot device has an insurance option that pays $100,000 for search and rescue - not just on the water either....

Welcome to www.findmespot.com

 

[AbyssalPlains]

On a side note, a couple of open questions: Does anyone else think it is in bad taste for the Australian government to be demanding a cut? Should the dive op have to pay for S&R since they screwed up and lost their passengers? Isn't the availability of free rescue services part of why any citizen of any civilized nation pays taxes?

Personally, I think the Australian government should not only ask for a donation as they have, but demand a cut, given that those two divers not only screwed up badly, but they also capitalized on it. It's only fair to demand at least all the proceeds they made from their story (over a million dollars, mind you!) to pay back the search and rescue authorities. I mean, why should the average Australian tax payer, who probably can't even afford scuba diving, pay for the adventures of a Brit (!) and an American (!)?

As far as the dive operator goes, from what I read I take it that they are not at fault in this case, so that wouldn't make any sense either.

I strongly believe it depends on the case at hand - whoever screwed up should pay. The best solution, I think, is how helicopter rescue is organized in the Swiss alps: There, every tourist who wants to venture into the mountains is required to buy a permit that includes the cost of search and rescue. It's a small amount for everybody and helps in cases where a rescue operation is necessary.

I mean, let's face it, we scubadivers pay ridiculous amounts of money to travel to exotic locations and blow bubbles. Why not charge every diver 20 bucks extra and offer the reassurance of a search and rescue operation in case it becomes necessary, while sparing all the "innocent," non-scuba diving tax payers?

 

[DiverLS]

It depends on the government of the country. As we know, Australians were from England first. In England, my baby brother lit a fire in the "commons" of the town where we lived. He and the other boy's parents had to pay for the cost to put out the fire, 250 pounds.

And my baby Brother didn't loose $125 pounds of hide for it.

I think any country "touched" by the British will have the same set up.

 

[ocbeachbum]

To clarify my first post a bit, I think it's simply pitiful that these two would be selling their story. If I had screwed up that badly, the last thing I would want is media attention (outside the diving community giving me my just rebuke on SB of course). I also personally would not mind paying a small S&R surcharge. I had no idea about the Swiss system. It seems logical and reasonable. That being said, the "average Australian taxpayer" gets the economic benefit from exploiting the GBR (in a good way mind you) specifically because so many Brits, Americans and others want to go there and spend millions of dollars in their economy.

Also, the message on the inside of an American passport says - "The Secretary of State of the United States of America hereby requests all whom it may concern to permit the citizen/national of the United States named herein to pass without delay or hindrance and in case of need to give all lawful aid and protection" The British passport has almost identical language.

It seems to me that this is generally understood as similar treatment to citizens. Some countries may restrict speech, protests, etc. but I would think search and rescue at sea would fall under lawful aid and protection, as well as the usual police protection from theft, etc. offered to citizens.

My irritation with the government in this case is that it is in essence messing with the contract. The govt. stamped the passport and let the couple in, therefore it is obliged to protect them as it would Australian citizens for the duration of their stay. I can understand asking for a cut, but in this case, something tells me it's just not quite kosher. I'm not intending this to be in bad taste, but I don't see the Australian government wanting to benefit financially from "Open Water 2" or whatever their story turns out to be called. In any case, I guess it's a moot point since the bloke said he'd consider donating something. BBC production budget will probably just eat the cost.

 

[NudeDiver]

Personally, I think people SHOULD be charged for S&R, or should be required to have S&R insurance. After all, people are required to have auto insurance - and homeowner's insurance if they have a mortgage. Why should tax payers be forced to pick up the S&R costs for people out on holiday, enjoying luxury services? Getting lost in the forest is one thing. But foising off multi-million dollar S&R incidents because you want to go diving, or climb a mountain or whatever is just ridiculous.

On top of all that - I had to ride in an ambulance once. I got a bill from the muni for $400, despite the fact that right on my property tax assessment, there is a big amount for fire and rescue services. If I am having to pay for a freakin' ambulance ride in town, then people should certainly have to pay for S&R when diving, mountain climbing, boating or whatever else.

Practically speaking, I think mandatory S&R insurance is the only way to go. Put the costs off on the appropriate parties, not everyone else.

 

[Sas]

Personally, I think the Australian government should not only ask for a donation as they have, but demand a cut, given that those two divers not only screwed up badly, but they also capitalized on it. It's only fair to demand at least all the proceeds they made from their story (over a million dollars, mind you!) to pay back the search and rescue authorities. I mean, why should the average Australian tax payer, who probably can't even afford scuba diving, pay for the adventures of a Brit (!) and an American (!)?

Well I fund the Australian government as an Australian taxpayer, do you? If not, well you don't really get a say.

I am more than happy for my taxes to go towards rescuing people, even when it is their fault and don't particularly care if this amount is paid back to S&R parties. There are many safety nets in society and sometimes people benefit who are not deserving. Due to the difficulty and subjective nature of determining who these people are, I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Which government body in particular has asked for the cash back? The couple is under no obligation to pay it and I doubt it will be demanded of them.

 

[DwayneJ]

Its an ongoing discussion in New Zealand...

Mt Cook search costs to remain public - New Zealand news on Stuff.co.nz

Ratepayers will continue to foot the bill for search and rescue operations at Aoraki Mt Cook, with authorities not willing to put a price on human life.

After two aerial rescue operations this month at Mt Cook, the question of compulsory insurance for tourists taking part in risky activities has resurfaced.

However, mid-south Canterbury police area controller Dave Gaskin, who oversaw the operations, does not back an insurance or user-pays scheme.

Police had a budget of about $30,000 for search and rescue in South Canterbury, with most of it spent on helicopter hire, he said.

The budget took another hit yesterday when a Czech tourist had to be airlifted out of the Hooker Valley after falling a couple of metres and suffering from a suspected broken ankle.

ACC picks up the costs for rescues if a person is injured, but searches, body recoveries and medical incidents are a police responsibility.

"Do you take a credit card machine up in the helicopter and check they have enough credit before you rescue them?

"If they don't have insurance, do you just leave them up there on the hill?" Mr Gaskin asked.

"There are too many fish hooks to be worked through and I think it is a question for the Government really," he said.

The latest search and rescue operation in which an Australian man died and his brother was rescued from Mt Cook's Zurbriggens Ridge was expected to cost about $5000.

This included the helicopter hired to pick up the surviving climber as well as flights to search for the missing man.

Although Mr Gaskin has not yet finalised the costs of the rescue and recovery of two Japanese climbers early this month, he expected the helicopter costs to be around $15,000.

A figure had not been put on the cost of staff time, primarily police and Conservation Department staff, diverted to Mt Cook rescues. He estimated that police spent 50 to 60 hours on the Japanese climbers' rescue, and this was time that officers were away from other duties.

He was not in favour of a user-pays system for search and rescue, and he said far more New Zealanders had to be rescued than overseas visitors.

"If SAR became user-pays, lost children or Alzheimer's sufferers would be faced with a bill for their rescue the same as injured climbers."

New Zealand Land Search and Rescue nationally has about 2500 trained volunteers who give up their own time to do search and rescue work.
LandSAR chairman Phillip Melchior said ACC negated the need for a user-pays system.

"I go climbing every year in Switzerland and I have to take out special insurance to do that.

"You can make a very good argument to say that there should be user-pays [in New Zealand] and that tourists should have to take out some sort of insurance.

"But we have got an ACC system, and the way it is structured, it makes no distinction between those who are visitors to the country and those who live here."

ACC covers the medical treatment of tourists injured in New Zealand, but the coverage ends when they leave New Zealand.

ACC cover means overseas visitors and New Zealanders forgo the right to sue.

Prime Minister John Key, who is also Tourism Minister, is not in favour of forcing another cost on tourists. "We hope that all tourists going into the more dangerous areas of our country know what they are doing and are as prepared as possible.

"However, imposing an insurance levy on visitors is not something I support. These tourists make a significant contribution to New Zealand's economy."

Search and rescue is administered by New Zealand Police. At Mt Cook, the search and rescue team responds to between 15 and 25 incidents a year.