In New Zealand in January, scuba diver Colin Smithies was the subject of a massive air-and sea search involving
40 volunteers after he went missing while diving in Dunedin's Titahi Bay. Then two days later, Smithies, 49, strolled
into a police station 185 miles from where he was reported missing. Apparently he left Titahi Bay and hitchhiked
north, showing up disoriented and distressed. His mental condition did not make authorities sympathetic; they
charged him $50,000 for wasting police time and gave him a court date.
While Smithies seems to have played a stupid game, whether to recover costs related to Search and Rescue (SAR)
  operations has become a big issue in recent years. In many countries, SAR entities now make it standard practice to
  charge mountain climbers, hikers, snow skiers and snowmobilers if they cause their own emergency. The costs are
  huge and have a big impact on government budgets, so in the U.S., municipalities and states feel justified in trying to
  get back their expenses from people who flagrantly disregard their own safety and then expect to be rescued at the
  taxpayers' expense. Their actions also risk the lives of rescuers who go after them in dangerous conditions.  
A Sore Subject for the U.S. Coast Guard  
  
    | The cost, if actually billed, for a five-day search for two missing divers off of Cocos
 Island would be more than $3 million.
 | 
At sea, it's a broader discussion than just "divers,"
  because the responding team also has to deal with
  evacuations for injuries that occur on vessels, body
  recoveries, towing emergencies, searches for passengers
  who go missing, as well as divers who get left
  behind. It's a sore subject for the U.S. Coast Guard
  (USCG), local police, public safety, marine patrol and water response teams. Historically, such emergency efforts
  were performed as part of the "mission" of the agency that was first on the response list. In coastal waters (within 10
  miles or so of shore), sometimes municipal or town SAR teams made the effort, often with volunteers acting either
  in concert with official responders or independently when no other resources existed. Local police or marine patrol
  teams may have a limited staff, and one or two smaller boats to scramble quickly. They may have better local knowledge
  of the immediate area. But they will usually not have aircraft or experts trained in computer modeling predicted
  drift paths of persons in the water. Their small staffs will also be limited by on-site hours and fatigue.  
The USCG has always been the "go-to" best solution, due to their expertise, communications capabilities, surveillance
  aircraft, surface vessels and small high-speed boats. In many cases, a proper SAR team needs staff trained in
  rescue swimming, medical care, specific navigational tracking and predicted location capabilities who use computer
  models and oceanographic "hind-casting."  
Just imagine the cost of an operation that can span days and tie up scores of staff, divert of resources from other
  missions, have high fuel costs, etc. One SAR operation for two missing divers in 2003 off Cocos Island in Costa Rica
  involved both the USCG and the Costa Rican Coast Guard. The five-day search covered thousands of square miles.
  The cost, if actually billed, would have been staggering - - in excess of $3 million.  
In Europe, it's a different story. Outdoor enthusiasts are responsible for themselves, and many have insurance to
  cover costs should they need to be rescued. In the U.S., however, whether you have to pay depends on where you are when you get into trouble. In national parks and in U.S. coastal waters, the government picks up the tab for your rescue.
  Even if you were to take your own dive boat out into the Atlantic in the middle of a hurricane, and the USCG
  had to use a 110-foot patrol boat (which costs upwards of $1,100 per hour) or a C-130 turboprop airplane ($7,600 per
  hour), you wouldn't pay a dime. "If you get yourself in trouble, regardless of the circumstances, that doesn't weigh
  into any factor in our response," says Captain David McBride, chief of the USCG's Office of Search and Rescue.  
It is another story if you run out of gas. Don't expect the USCG to race over to tow you to shore. It will give you
  contact info for a towing company or put out an alert to good "sea-maritans" who might be able to help you out gratis,
  but it will only tow you in as a last resort - - and still free of charge. The only time the USCG gets money back for
  rescues is when it is the victim of a hoax.  
Will Federal Deficits Change The "Free Rescue" Policy?  
Because of the Federal deficit, will there be changes to the policy on free rescues? McBride says no - - at least not
  yet. "Every couple of years, some major case has come up and made officials ask, unfortunately, 'Where do you draw
  the line?' In most SAR cases, the people being rescued were in a position they should not have been in, taking excessive
  risk by not taking standard precautions or not being adequately equipped. That has been one of biggest difficulties
  when the consideration [of charging] came up."  
Besides the USCG, Australia and England have started to take a serious look at assessing costs, and have
  done so in some instances. This is mostly targeted at persons or boaters who have acted irresponsibly and essentially
  created their own problems by imprudent seamanship or bad practices. In the case of diving, much of the
  USCG's ire has been the result of divers being left abandoned by careless logging of divers on and off the vessel.  
Take the Daniel Carlock case that we have reported on (see the November 2010 issue of Undercurrent). He went
  diving on a boat chartered by Ocean Adventures, a dive shop in Los Angeles. Carlock went with 19 others on the
  first dive. When he surfaced, he was 400 feet downcurrent from the drifting dive boat. He floated in his inflated BC, blew his whistle and waved a safety sausage, but the crew never saw him and the boat motored away without him.
  Amazingly, he was erroneously logged back aboard during a roll call by the divemasters. He was not missed until the
  end of the second dive, and even then he was listed as having participated on that dive. So a USCG-led search was
  begun at that site rather than where he was actually left. He was found four hours later when a boat carrying teenage
  Sea Scouts spotted him. (Carlock sued and was awarded $1.68 million last year by a jury in California.)  
  
    | In remote areas, like Chuuk, "There's no government anything coming to
 look for you."
 | 
Of course, governments filing an action to collect their
  expenses doesn't guarantee recovery from the persons.
  Officers responsible for marine inspection and oversight to
  U.S. passenger vessels have let their frustration be known to
  captains and crew with license suspensions, sanctions, outright
  revocations, fines to vessel operators, and mandated
  safety remediation seminars. Expect more vigorous actions
  in the future since these unwarranted breaches of safety cost
  extraordinary amounts of money and divert the USCG (and other countries' agencies) from their primary duties.  
McBride says don't be surprised if you're presented a bill for being rescued after getting into trouble while diving
  in a lake or quarry. Colorado, Utah and Oregon have state laws that allow their agencies to charge victims for
  rescues. With states falling victims to their own budget deficits, the issue of cost recovery could soon be examined by
  other states.  
What Happens Overseas  
Outside the U.S., countries like England, Australia, Norway, Sweden, and a few others have excellent similar
  government and local response capabilities. Australia, for example, has a cooperative SAR plan, involving federal
  authorities, state police and water police, and support from volunteer marine SAR agencies. The charge to any rescuee,
  except for pranksters, is nil. "We provide assistance to any person in distress at sea, regardless of the nationality
  or status or the circumstances in which the person is found," says an AMSA spokesperson.  
Craig Stephen, operations manager for Mike Ball Dive Expeditions in Queensland, Australia, says it's not uncommon
  for AMSA to perform rescues over 52.8 million square kilometers of the Indian, Pacific and Southern Oceans.
  "Australian authorities have vessels throughout the region and work with other nations as situations arise."  
But many nations, especially those without traditional maritime industries, lack even rudimentary SAR infrastructure.
  In fact, most roles of SAR will be fulfilled by private operators or volunteer teams. Though well intended,
  these efforts will frequently be vastly ineffective.  
If you dive in the Caribbean, you can rest assured that SAR missions are often well-coordinated, says Clay
  McCardell of Explorer Ventures, which has liveaboard itineraries in the Bahamas, Turks & Caicos and Saba. "Many
  islands we visit have some SAR, although it's mostly volunteer organizations. But the Coast Guard has a major presence
  in the Caribbean, and if someone sends out a mayday, local dive boats, liveaboards, any boat with a radio will
  come out to help."  
Meanwhile, over on the Pacific coast, Alan Steenstrup of the Undersea Hunter Group of liveaboards says, "I know
  that the Costa Rican Coast Guard does not necessarily have the resources to do a major SAR at any given time.
  On some occasions, the USCG might actually be included if they are in the area (and especially if a U.S. citizen is
  involved), but it will probably be on a lesser scale than if it were to happen in U.S. waters."  
In remote areas like Micronesia, it may be a different story. Cliff Horton, business manager for Odyssey
  Adventures, which operates the Truk Odyssey, says the island-nation of Chuuk has no Coast Guard, "so there's no government
  anything coming to look for you. Luckily where we are, there's no current, so lost divers don't get far."  
How liveaboards handle SAR missions varies from operator to operator. Some have excellent protocols for SAR,
  with regularly planned safety drills, detailed briefings for both crew and guests, and supply guests with sonic-noise
  signal devices such as the Dive Alert, emergency locator equipment such a EPIRBs or GPS transponders, safety sausages, flares and smoke signals. But most vessels, particularly outside the U.S., leave safety equipment up to individual
  divers as their own responsibility. And if you're counting on a Third World operator to find you if you drift
  off or fail to make rendezvous with the pickup point at the end of a dive... well, pack a lunch and be prepared to take
  a very proactive role in saving yourself. That's the sad reality.  
Your trip insurance will usually not cover SAR, especially if it the costs are assessed by a government entity. Trip
  insurance and diver medical insurance (such as that offered through DAN) will cover evacuation and treatment once
  a diver is recovered, but is not likely to pay the costs of the actual search.  
Should Divers Be Held More Responsible?  
McBride of the USCG says the main reason why SAR missions may continue to be done free of charge to the
  lost-and-found diver is because authorities don't want people to avoid calling for help if they think there's a milliondollar
  price tag attached. "We don't want them to have any apprehension about calling us, because the longer the
  wait, the more dangerous the situation they could find themselves in."  
But should lost divers be responsible for footing some or all of the bill? Divers need to be personally responsible
  to a reasonable degree. If you don't follow a dive plan, ignore protocols for currents/drift dives, or disregard time
  durations that cause you to be where you shouldn't be when the boat is trying to pick you up, then that's your fault.
  We don't mean to suggest that anyone should be allowed to drift away into oblivion, but it would be fair to assess
  some financial charge to find them. It impacts all the other divers onboard as well, since the entire operation has to
  shut down and passenger-diving stops while a search is conducted.  
On the other hand, sometimes divers follow all instructions and conditions change, an obscuring rain storm
  develops, wiping out surface visibility, currents reverse, ocean swells increase, an equipment failure causes an unexpected
  deviation from dive plan, etc. In these instances, it's really no one's fault except good old "Murphy's Law."
  Divers shouldn't be blamed or charged in these circumstances.  
"Expect the unexpected." Never assume that things will go without incident or as planned. If you're making a
  shore dive, tell someone back on land your dive plans and ETA. If you go in the water with the mindset that things
  can, and will, go wrong, you'll be better prepared for that contingency. Pay attention, think ahead, consider the
  "worst- case scenario" at all times. You can always be pleasantly surprised when everything does go right - - but
  don't count on it.
 - - Bret Gilliam and Ben Davison