"J. Clarke" wrote

So how much accessiblity is there on a snow covered mountain of any kind?

Quite a bit on the slopes normally used for skiing. They have lifts, they
have trails for snowmobiles. The guys looking for excitement go to places
not so easily accessed and that type of terrain is what makes the trip
exciting to start with.



And do you have any numbers on skiers having to be rescued in places "more
prone to avalanche, more likely to injur because of steeper terrain, etc",
or is it just that you want to charge people huge fees for doing anything
of which you do not approve?

Never said I did not approve. I don't care what they do, but like the rest
of us, they should take responsibility for their actions and pay the
consequences. If you want to slide down the side of a mountain, go for
it, but I don't see that others should risk their lives and spend my money
to haul your body out.




There are plenty of places to do aerobatics where it is easier to clean
up the mistake than the top of Everest.

What clean up is needed over the top of Everest?

Much if a plane doing aerobatics would crash. Spilled fuel, bit of metal
and fabric, body parts, blood stains, etc. Over a corn filed you can sweep
it up much easier.



By the way, John Denver wasn't doing aerobatics and they still had to hunt
for him in some pretty difficult terrain. Would you have charged him a
huge fee just to fly from Denver to wherever he was going?

Don't know the details of his flight, but if he was following normal
protocols, no problem. At least he was not out over the Indian Ocean.




They are often done over rivers,
lakes, farm fields. Consult your local FBO for approved locations.

So? Fishing somebody out of a river isn't expensive?

Cheaper than the middle of the Indian Ocean




So you're fine with paying millions to clean up an airliner crash but not
with a few hundred thousand for some guy who lost it on a ski slope?

Much of that cost is borne by the aircraft owner. They are also using
normal flight procedures, not doing experimental work.


If you ski in a resort, you pay an admission and the resort pays for
security coverage. They employ ski patrols. Seems simple and fair to me.

So one should only be allowed to ski at resorts? One should be forbidden
to do so in national parks and the like? Or in one's back yard?

Never said you could not. If, however, you are pushing the sensible limits
in an unfamiliar place, don't ask me for help. To clarify, I should add,
"just for your personal fun and excitement" as opposed to real research or
exploration such as Columbus or NASA.




Why should I pay the price for a crashed commercial airliner? You're
singling out one segment that represents a small percentage of the cost of
ocean rescue and demanding that they pay exhorbitant fees that you do not
want to charge others who are collectively far more likely to use the
service.

See the line above about personal fun and excitement.


If you want to put a tax on all ocean capable vessels in proportion to the
estimated cost of rescue that's fine, but singling out solo sailors as
being the only ones who are going to be required to pay this exhorbitant
fee is just an attempt to ban something through the back door.

Nope, not at all.


No tax needed, just insurance coverage.

Why such insurance for ocean racers but not for containerships?

See my comment about personal fun and excitement.


Everyone participating shares in
the risk. Who pays for race track cleanup after a crash? Who "should"
pay for it.

Who pays for a highway cleanup after the crash? Who "should" pay for it?
Which costs society more, highway cleanups or racetrack cleanups?

Racetrack cleanups don't cost the taxpayer anything. The rest is covered by
our tax dollars, but , it is sometimes billed to the individual's insurance.
Race car drivers and track owners take responsibility, as they should.




So you would require any commercial fishing vessel, like, say, a Japanese
whaling ship, to buy this insurance of yours? Or just individuals?

IIRC, there are some international treaties on things like that. Fishing
boats, no matter the country, are commercial ventures that add to society.
They provide food. Individual thrill seekers don't add anything for the
rest of the population.



They help with economic growth of the
world economy also.

Oh, so you'll pay out of pocket for that but not for an individual. Nice
guy Ed.

I give to charities. The guy jumping from the top of a mountain is not a
charity, just a fun seeker. Good for him, but let him pay.



The risk of a tanker is far less than a 40' sailboat
though.

*cough* Exxon Valdez . . .

I never said never.


She was rescued by the Australians and the French so it didn't cost YOU a
damned cent.

Good!


That's 1.6 million dollars. Divide that by 300 million and you get half
a cent. So you really begrudge somebody HALF A GODDAMN PENNY?

There are about 250,000 half pennies taken from my paycheck every month. I
don't want any more taken out. Ben Franklin would be proud. Half penny
saved is a half penny earned.



If we can't afford half a cent every now and then to bail out somebody who
took a risk then we really should just pack it up and change the name of
the country from "The United States of America" to "The Nanny States of
America".

I want some say in the matter, not to pay for every bozo that says, "Hey
Bubba, watch this"


Going to an amusement park entails some
risk too, but the park takes precaution and pays for (from your ticket
price) the crews needed to rescue you. Why should you not do the same?

You might want to see who comes when somebody needs rescuing at an
amusement park. I don't think you'll like it. And I don't think you'll
like they way they get paid either.

Often it is the local FD. They often too, get nice donations from the park.