Jump to content

Yacht missing around Gisbourne


Recommended Posts

Whilst the items in question may not be required they do help build the case that he was helping himself counter any lack of experience.

 

Under the section of law IT posted:

 

"(a)

the operation or use of any ship or maritime product or class of ship or maritime product, as the case may be, endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, or is hazardous to the health or safety of any person; or"

 

It gives a broad scope to consider the person experience, Wheres you Chris might get away with not having safety items on board because of your experience thus showing a low risk of incident to begin with this guy here has little experience, Has "Mr. DeWit instructed his friend to contact the police in the event that he failed to make radio or cellphone contact" despite not taking the steps needed to ensure he could do that and finally did it twice.

 

He has shown poor judgement, Been checked on twice solely because his lack of communication and instruction to contact police should he fail to communicate and because the magnifying glass was put on him because of these actions has failed to convince others that he was prepared enough. He's not been detained because he didn't carry flares, He was detained because of his actions. There certainly would have been some people wanting blood had this guy been released the first time and wound up dead

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, I have read all the links and here is my current take. The guy was inexperienced. The boat was not well equipped for this type of voyage The skipper told a non sailor ashore that he would check

Personally I think the responsibility lies with the sailor. No voyage plan, no comms, no obvious sign of distress should result in no search. I know this is not the PC view, and that in the current e

He ain't a novice anymore, he has handled a variety of conditions that many may never experience, sailed in a way that was normal not so many years ago. The major problem is "peoples"expectation of be

Yes, I take your point.

I can get away with it because I am a former master mariner with extensive singlehanded small boat ocean experience, but let's turn the coin over and look at the other side.

I have been ashore for a long time, long enough to qualify in a whole new unrelated profession. And my singlehanded ocean cruising experience was in the late '60s and early '70s - probably before many on the forum were even born. Add to that, I'm now 71, I slide around the deck on my bum becasuse I have an ankle that's a bit unreliable and I know I'm undergoing a bit of a decline. Wife and I cycle tour a lot, for years I've been happy at 70-80 kms a day but now that's becoming something of a struggle...

So there are a lot of assumptions being made by MNZ about 'what's best for us' and in light of the above, a young fit semi skilled Darius is probably a better bet at sea than an old guy sailing off past glories.

I don't think MNZ's actions are all that well considered but I agree with Dr. Watson that MNZ is a hornet's nest that one would do well not to poke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Mr. DeWit instructed his friend to contact the police in the event that he failed to make radio or cellphone contact" despite not taking the steps needed to ensure he could do that and finally did it twice.

Is that for certain? It is something I have been trying to find out. I had not been able to find anything that said he had arranged for the other person to call for help if not heard from. If that is correct, then the blame certainly lies with the sailor. Totally irresponsible. But if no such plan had been discussed, then this is where the entire argument falls into the category we have all discussed above. And that lodging a TR does not mean help is sent if you don't cancel it. That is my biggest argument with the system. I totally believe that TR's should be followed up on, or there is no point in making them, which is why I don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that lodging a TR does not mean help is sent if you don't cancel it. That is my biggest argument with the system. I totally believe that TR's should be followed up on, or there is no point in making them, which is why I don't.

 

I thought if you did not cancel the TR, they would try and make contact with you (either radio or phone number logged with you vessel registration) if no contact then local CG was contacted and or local marina at destination. I guess that is more like the "intention" but i would love to know how many TR's are not cancelled, and that could mean that open TR's are not acted on anymore. 

 

perhaps stricter enforcement is required to cancel a TR

 

if that is the case, what is the point of lodging a TR then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that how they see TRs is that if you are later reported missing by somebody that they can then go back over their log and determine well on Wednesday at 10am he reported that he was en route, from say Kawau to Arid Island via the Needles and nothing has been heard since then, and by his history he always logs in before a trip.It gives them a better idea of where to start than a relative saying well he was sailing the Gulf, possibly also the NE coast as far as Parengarenga Harbour, he left 3 weeks ago and should have been back to start work yesterday. The reason that they don,t start a search every time a TR is not closed is that often your anchorage has no reception or your battery is flat etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my letter to MNZ I pointed out that from choice I frequently made singlehanded coastal voyages without a radio, epirb or liferaft. Apparently this is quite OK for me but not for Darius. I wonder how they decide that one?

 

Simple. This is the process that would have happened when someone opened your letter. It's common place and done probably 100's of times a day. Which is why shows like Fair Go and others get results us mere mortals can't even after many years.

 

Q -  Does this writer Chris write in a manner that convinces us he can talk on the subject with some Authority?

A - It appears so, Yes.

 

Q - By writing this letter Chris does show he is not afraid to front our bureaucracy. Should the media get into this do we think Chris could be interviewed by the media and speak with authority and be not afraid to attack us while doing that?

A - It appears so, Yes.

 

Action - Let him be and write just enough to appease him but do it without using specifics that could be turned back on us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swartie, the Coastguard takes no action if you do not close a TR.  I have done this several times, and never been contacted by them.  TRs are only used once a search is triggered.

 

Chrisc, Darius triggered 2 searches, so MNZ had to be seen to be doing something.  I don't think what they did was unreasonable in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree, Elly. That is if we are talking about the impounding of the vessel in Whakatane

I think MNZ's actions were a reaction to events as they unfolded and not based on enhancing Darius's safety.

 

He was safely anchored awaiting better weather.

The coastguard said that he had made the right decisions.

They also admitted that by the time the search unfolded, he was probably more experienced than many Auckland yachties.

Under law he was not required to have the equipment that MNZ forced him to acquire before they would allow him to continue his voyage.

 

The last point is the ones that sticks with me. Either it is compulsory to have the safety equipment or it isn't. It is unreasonable for MNZ to say to me 'you don't need it' and do Darius 'you do.'

Because then you have to wonder, 'what does this nebulous ruling mean for me?'

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought if you did not cancel the TR, they would try and make contact with you (either radio or phone number logged with you vessel registration) if no contact then local CG was contacted and or local marina at destination. I guess that is more like the "intention" but i would love to know how many TR's are not cancelled, and that could mean that open TR's are not acted on anymore. 

 

perhaps stricter enforcement is required to cancel a TR

 

if that is the case, what is the point of lodging a TR then?

Exactly.

Neither CG or Maritime Radio call a search into action if a TR has not been closed. They must be contacted by someone to have it all put into motion. Most likely due to too many TR's not being closed by an innocent mistake of forgetting. But maybe something different needs to be done. Bare with me.

I see no point in 98% of the TR's made by most daytime Boaties out there, being followed up on Some are just crazy TR's. Like "CG, I am leaving Hobsonville Marina and heading to Kauri Point for a Fish". Which to those that don't know, is what? 1000m away. I have heard worse.

        But for a few of us, a TR is far more important.

When we traveled up the East Coast, we updated our TR twice a day during the day, but made 2hrly updates through the night. This was simply because I had thought that if I did not make a scheduled Call, something would be done. Even if it was not till first light, at least I knew if we were in the water, we would only have to wait it out till Daylight. Having that kind of belief can help keep you alive. But when I found out that nothing happens, I thought why bother. If you were going to have to tread water for 24hrs or more, then you were never going to make it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Knot Me has it in one.This Health & Safety thing has gone silly. It's not about H & S so much as control. Next up is boat rego and licensing to save us from ourselves. (Read fundraising and job creation ) Add in the do gooders and the nosey parkers and you have this situation. There is a case of a yacht that left harbour and was never seen again. Likely scenario was a suicide but absolutely no publicity. With nothing to be gained by the establishment nothing was ever said. On passage on the coast we make no reports and turn radio off. The gabble is nonsensical. Leave types like this guy alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...