On one hand I like the idea that anyone, regardless of how well liked or their ability to pay for it, gets rescued if it is humanly possible to do it.

To some extent commercial and military rescue is dependent on publicly financed rescue activity to develop new techniques and maintain their skills. Public rescue organizations, going back to early firefighters and storm-shore lifeboat services, have lead the way in developing new methods and maintaining standards.

The operators in combat search and rescue organizations, historically, might see one or two actual combat rescues in their entire career. Not enough to keep their skills honed. Training exercises are good but they are not as good as real experience in real situations with lives on the line and a situation that doesn't stick to a script. While civilian rescues cost time, money and, wear and tear on equipment they pay off in real-world experience and expanded capability.

In this light I'm tempted to call for free rescue of everyone and to hell with the cost.

On the other hand this is essentially socialization of risk and rescue. We have seen the rise of well-off danger-junky adventure chasers. Well-heeled people who go out of their way to do outrageously dangerous, sometimes stupid, stunts just for the notoriety and thrill. These people take advantage of our urge to go out and rescue people to pull their nuts out of the fire if their stunt goes wrong. Sometimes to the point of using rescue services for cheap transportation. Half way up the mountain they decide they no longer want to be out in the sticks. So they get on their cell-phone and claim they are in an emergency. Using expensive rescue services as a personal taxi. With the taxpayer picking up the check.

From this perspective if you get yourself in trouble you pay for the rescue. People getting themselves into dangerous situations need to have the money on hand or purchase an insurance policy that will cover the costs.

In the end I think there has to be some sort of mix of the two. To the extent that the activity that gets you into trouble is normal and considered reasonable the public goes out of their way to go out and get you. To the extent your being stupid and failing to take reasonable precautions in when and where you go and what gear you carry your on your own to rescue yourself or to provide financing for your rescue.

There might be some consideration of the relative wealth of the individuals and their families. If Bill Gates gets himself into a bind I don't think it is unreasonable for him to be required to chip in on the cost of his rescue.

To the extent Fossett was undertaking an unreasonable activity and was unreasonably unprepared and to the extent he, or his family, is wealthy then it isn't unreasonable to think they should pay some proportion of the costs.

I have no way of knowing how reasonable or unreasonable Fossett's activity and preparations may have been. I don't know how well off he or his family is. If or how much the family should be asked to pay isn't something I could decide.