Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. Unfortch, suicide is not deemed accidental under the act, but I get your drift
  3. You can always believe me.
  4. In saying that, I read that fact on the interweb, and now I am paranoid that fact itself was a product of AI produced content, and I've no idea what to believe anymore...
  5. The US navy does paint anchors of that size that colour on occasion. Some sort of status / show off / award thing for the ship. So I can see how AI got gold anchors into its head.
  6. I never knew until you posted that. And it is something I have given substantial thought to, pay moonbeams for life insurance, having two kids and an Auckland sized mortgage. In all my time investigating life insurance policies and benefits I never found out the cover from ACC for accidental death. And it is something I feel genuinely very warming to know exists. Partner knows a lady (acquaintance) who's husband committed suicide, they either had two under 5's or an under 5 and she was pregnant - absolutely guttingly heartbreaking situation. The exact situation this ACC policy is for
  7. If you need an anchor, AI has you covered
  8. It is a little known thing about ACC. IMO, they should talk more about it.
  9. I really don't mind contributing my little bit towards that.
  10. Yeah... this is actually quite awesome of the NZ system. When my son passed in a dirt bike accident, ACC provided a one off payment and 80% of his salary until my grand daughter, who was unborn at the time, turns 18. It was a substantial relief to discover that this even existed. She's able to get on with just raising her new born, without the stress of also being the only income earner.
  11. Yip - downdraught day. You just fly everything. & do 10Noeds.
  12. But I'm sure I've seen something similar in real life.... not done it exactly, tho
  13. Paid by ACC (you and me in other words). Accidental death whatever the cause and setting results in up to 5 years' income of the deceased paid to the estate. https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/financial-support/financial-support-after-death
  14. Yesterday
  15. Is there a technical definition of a rogue wave? Hate the term myself. When I was studying oceanography there were statistically unlikely waves.
  16. Feel sorry to families who lost faimly,no real outcome for them or any form of compensation. Opens up a exit for next boating death for skipper.
  17. Remember this bit from the report; 3.46 As mentioned above, a wave within the spectrum of the significant wave height present off North Cape could, in less than 10 metre water depth, cause the capsize and damage that occurred to the Enchanter. So too would an even larger wave. Therefore, determining whether the wave that capsized the Enchanter was within or higher than the spectrum of significant wave height in the area is of little relevance because either could have caused the vessel to capsize in less than 10 metre water depth.
  18. Dont know that I’ve ever come across rogue wave. I thought they were solo at 50’ plus. Not a double up or a wave hit by backwash or clean up sets where then at 30’ every waves would be “rogue”. Surfed a break in Kauai 2x+ overhead when a cleanup set came & closed the bay out point to point a km further out. They reformed and weren’t much bigger than than the normal sets on our reef. But out there they were 15’+ of white water after they broke. You could see it starting to happen as the tide dropped, but the swell was rising. Was end of day & next day was small. If you go ov
  19. Seriously! I see a few of these something is wrong out there in interweb land
  20. I have surfed nearby at great exhibition bay and north side of Nth Cape . Did the crown prosecutors bother sending someone out there during a swell to see what the wave behaviour is and where it breaks ? The chart shows a possible good big wave break there so I hunted for some pics and found these. Swell is less than 1M by my reckoning . I’ve not experienced a rogue wave but definitely rogue “sets” of waves one is always bigger and usually the 2nd or 3rd in a 3-4 wave set .
  21. Last week
  22. No warning label? IT MUST BE SAFE 🤣
  23. With respect, it would appear you are getting distracted by a very minor point- I never said the rogue wave wasn't breaking - I don't see that as particularly relevant in that a 10m high vertical wave is going to destroy anything in it's path regardless. The assertion being made by yourself and several on here is that, allegedly, the boat was in shallow water and waves stand up, and that this increases the risk to the boat. This I agree with. BUT, that type of wave / effect IS predicable. However, it has been concluded after 4 weeks of trial with the best legal minds in the country that i
  24. MNZ are looking an appeal. I suspect what we have all read there are some facts that weren't presented. Conditions good enough to be trolling and dinner on?Question for me would be."was the skipper really at the helm"? If so then wasn't keeping a proper watch as,claimed rogue wave,possibly should of seen it. Was he under pressure from passengers to get home?
  25. Better to let the guilty go free than lock up an innocent man something something...... Anyway the short story is don't cut the corner where steep underwater geography, strong currents and a ground swell are in play
  26. I can't understand how you're drawing the conclusion that rogue waves don't break as the water gets shallower or the boat wasn't where the evidence showed it was, or for that matter how you've concluded that the wave wasn't breaking at the time of impact, when clearly the case file suggests otherwise? The judge concluded that it was unreasonable to expect the skipper to predict a rogue wave. That's substantially different from your assertions. Therefore the presumption from MNZ that he should not have been in such shallow water because he wasn't prepared/ready for a Rogue wave bec
  27. You don't think a 10m high wave, that is clearly visible in the distance, is not a rogue wave? given the surrounding sea state was a 2m swell and 10 knt breeze. All eyewitness descriptions clearly met the definition of a rogue wave. Anyway, the Judge concluded it was a rogue wave, not surf, not a regular wave standing up etc, and I guess that is all that really matters. Wonder if Maritime NZ will now ban boats from getting closer than 3nm to land? (Referencing @harrytom's expectations MNZ will re-write the rule book.
  28. The case notes strongly suggests otherwise... The evidence from several survivors was that a 10m high wave came in, was clearly visible in the distance, it built even higher, crested and broke, rolling and smashing the boat to pieces. I am pretty sure that Rogue waves, crest and break, just like any other wave, when the distance to the sea bed becomes less than the height of the wave.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...