Jump to content

ScottiE

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    2,956
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by ScottiE

  1. ScottiE

    Maritime NZ

    "He was joined by a deckhand, Michael Kingi, who had never been to sea before," If this line is true, I think its much worse than "hard". I think its a terrible action by MNZ. Despite not following instructions, I think the deckhand had zero responsibility on that boat. If the skipper was concerned about getting up at middnight he whould have set himself an alarm regardless. A new bloke, never been to sea, on an 8-day working voyage, and you leave him on the helm approaching land? hmmmm I do wonder . . .
  2. Ha - I was going to ask the same thing before my wife sinbinned my phone for an hour! My pick is that VB is on main. Back in the day when we all had hair. My 10yo is rocking some serious growth - and pissing me off at the same time!
  3. I've had the same issue with Ultra 2 on the latest application - also not impressed. The typical off the shelf a/foul products are basically useless I think.
  4. no I thought maybe you'd turned over a new leaf and would start editing your posts incase you "thought it risked seeming rude". No matter. I try ensure that what I do read viz most things do have some semblence of referencing. If not then I don't read. Thanks for the link - was aware of that report but haven't a chance to read it thoroughly yet. These council reports are often problematic in their presentation - they're typically agenda driven rather than objective. I've have previously found a very significant error in a report regarding the Tamaki River. When I queried the report authors, the scientific study author and the peer reviewer regarding this, the response was to pull the scientific study reports from public circulation but not the final report. I demonstrated the same at a govt. select committe hearing and got fobbed off. The entity I was appearing against took me aside and went through my data, was relieved at what I had found (it was in their favour ultimately), thanked me for my "care" (which is all I'll say regarding your comment) and attention to detail. So you will please forgive me for being sceptical. But to suggest this report is "unrebutted" is hilarious - it's only been in public circulation for 8 weeks and the source scientific reports are probably not yet even released for public review. As for your understanding of normal journalism - sorry but I just don't agree. A quick purusal through the report in your link illustrates that NZGeo lifted graphs directly out of that report with no acknowledgement. A quick google, as you suggest, and I found this https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12310199 , which also lifted the same graph as replicated below.
  5. It really depends on what you mean by "good health". But in general terms there are parts of the gulf that are not particularly "healthy". Understanding how quickly ecosystems adjust is intriging - I've watched this part of the river change quite a bit over the last 15-20 years.
  6. Wayne-o - why did you edit your post after I responded to it?
  7. "look up the science" eh? I would if the author had referened any of "it". Instead he's just plagerised "the science" with not even an acknowledgement of source. Forgive me for being sceptical of such a lack of professionalism. Being a magazine does not excuse this behaviour. Instead this behaviour just reinforces a lack of credibility. But hey that's just my opinion - if you like this kind of reading good for you. As for voicing my scepticism of Mike Hosking on line - ya got me! However I don't listen or read him unless asked to by a friend, becasue, well I'm sceptical of him too. To his credit though, at least he does refer to others when stating his opinion - perhaps Mr. Frankham could learn something!
  8. I'm always sceptical of any opinion piece when the author begins with the premise "while science is clear". The piece is full of emotive and anecdotal comment and not a single independent reference, scientific or otherwise. but ya know - feeelzzzzz!
  9. My spies tell me that TNZ are about to got sailing in the paddock
  10. my finest boat trailer backing moment(s) - backing each 9.5m hull down this driveway.
  11. lots of pics there of one bloke "supervising"! The fork hoist looks fine to me - hanging your precious off some dodgy old hemp rope from some dodgy old roof on the other hand . . .
  12. Adrian - is just the camera angles - looks like the stern has been extended in that last photo
  13. I believe the current vernacular is "sarcastic"!
  14. You beat me to it. As usual devil is always in what these socialist say. Was thinking about this overnight and actually S****NZ probably don't have any jurisdiction over what happens on the water. In Auckland its the Harbourmaster. No notice to mariners on their website as far as I can see. Fill ya boots!
  15. are these the same "no ones" who coned off the sea side of Tamaki Drive today, you know 'cause it was just too nice a day to let anybody linger to enjoy it?
  16. ScottiE

    2:1 halyard hardware

    Missed this sorry Clipper - yes you are correct - back yourself mate. As well as lowering mast compression, it also halves the load needed for the halyad size - weight aloft. Not so critical for halyard itself but good for those guuchi masthead halyard locks - ie. the load to release it is half!
  17. Looks like Coastguard didn't get the memo today - oh wait there was no memo. The slimeballs at SNZ updated their rules today - no press release or memo by the looks. Orwell would laugh! Anyway the "information" used to be Play-Recreation-and-Sport-Detailed-Level-1-4-Table.pdf but today, as anticipated, it has been "updated" to Play-Active-Recreation-and-Sport-at-Alert-Levels-4-4.pdf So Wheels, you are not correct in saying "However, you cannot row out to the Boat. Reason is, rowing out puts you at risk of something going wrong" because it is possible under the "current" rules - to row within "close range of the shore (no more than 200m away)" - that might change by the time I wake up in the morning, or perhaps before I even go to bed tonight - who knows - it's a mystery! However, the loonie socialists at SNZ simply can't acknowledge a boatowner's need to check/maintain their boat and have included included the following statement "Water-based activities involving boats or motorised craft or equipment, or scuba diving are not allowed." My boat is within 200m of shore - I'll be paddleboarding out to it, and then going for a swim around it - with a scrubbing brush. F**k them!
  18. YNZ's focus has definitely changed so I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. Traditionally you are correct but a quick look at the history of constitution shows that since about 2012 YNZ has begun to alter its focus from what's percieved as "just Olympic classes" or racing, to include recreational boating "advocacy" as described on their website. It's interesting because I think that ISAF may have had quite a bit to do with influencing YNZ's focus in the past. In the 2006 rule change we had this little gem: "To recognise and support ISAF by (c) refraining, and using reasonable endeavours to persuade others within Yachting New Zealand's jurisdiction to refrain, from actions that are inconsistent with ISAF's objects, rules, regulations and decisions." wrt to recreational boaties we have these two which look like they came in when the constitution was redrafted 2012 - "To represent and promote the interests of its Members; TO advocate for free access to coastal and inland waters for yachting and boating;" Re-reading Dave A's comment on the 22nd, I think that I was wrong to include YNZ not lobbying, they at least tried to get our case across in some form. "It was disappointing to learn yachting and boating activities will not be permitted at level 3, because Yachting New Zealand have been strongly advocating to Sport New Zealand and the Government on behalf of the sector to have a safe and graduated return to activity." The example I put up was flawed and rightly put down. Perhaps if more of us were willing to be members of YNZ affiliated clubs, YNZ might have more clout to be able to influence SNZ.
  19. Lucky bugger - I've been waiting for that comment! truely jealous 1. solo sail round motuhie in 5-8kn of breeze in late Jan - instead of being stuck in the office. 2. few few days at Ocean Beach motuhie for my lads - its probably their favourite hangout at the moment.
  20. right - I feel responsible for the original post that sent this off on a tangent and so I shall do my utmost to bring it back. Heard today that for a number of weeks now CAA has been working on enabling owners of aircraft to continue to maintain their aircraft, including maintenance flights. DG of Health has approved this (clearly he now runs the country) even at level 4. There is a framework around how to go about doing this. So would seem consistent that maintenance of vessels should also be permitted. I would deem that to include being able to run an engine under load "at sea", test running rigging etc. to the owners satisfaction. MNZ are only looking at commercial operations rather than recreational vessels (there is nothing on their website) and so as usual there's no assistance from them there. Nobody (and regrettably I'd have to include YNZ in that) is lobbying on recreational vessel owners' behalf to be able to carry out maintenance as far as I can tell. discuss!
  21. No - its a fair question. It's clearly absolutely vital to protect the vulnerable as much as they themselves will permit (we live with a state funded hospital system so there caveats with that). Yet another person has died in Chch overnight from the Rosewood rest home - that's 10 deaths from that one facility out of country total of 17! So in that respect we do what ever it takes to look after vulnerable people as much as we can. If that means state funded holidays or boat trips (see it can be done!), boat trips to holidays on islands, etc etc then so be it. Boating and the sea is a great therapy (have I done enough to pass the moderators!). Close monitoring etc etc. All these measures come at a significan cost but will pale in comparison the money we are currently borrowing. But here's the other problem, and I'll use my own personal circumstances to illustrate. My father lives in similar facility to Rosewood, he and his fellow residents will fall to this in much the same way. However until I get this virus, once or twice and develop sufficient anti-bodies, there is no way I'll be able to see Dad again, despite being his EPoA - that's just a fact. It is irrational because I can tell you that the one thing that people like my father need the most, is the one thing they are being deprived of and that is company and personal contact with people they recognise for comfort. This goes for anyone with a disability, those with cerabal palsy who visit our office building daily but now can't, or those who are blind who can't get into the institue across the road. The human cost to the vulnerable is just immense. Remember this also, the "let it run, survival of the fitest strategy" is exactly what we do, every year with respect to influenza, with no idea whether this year's influenza will kill 500, 1000, 2000.
×
×
  • Create New...