All Activity

Legally there are levels of culpability. Let's put it in an everyday setting. I stop at a stop sign, check for cross traffic, don't see any, and so I pull out into the main road. A motorcycle hits me on the right side as I pull out. I have deliberately acted, pulling out from the stop sign and prima facie causing an accident (failure to make sure the way is clear, failure to give way to the right). Was I careless? Only if it can be shown that I should reasonably have seen and so given way to the motorcycle. If, for instance, it turns out that motorcycle was travelling at

Now now, who didn't read what I wrote? If you had read what I wrote, you would see I was referring to the 4 guys that died waiting to be rescued. One was believed / confirmed dead caught in the hull at the time of the role over. Any chance you want to discuss this constructively, or are you just keen on taking potshots now?

Why do you constanly say 4 died when it was 5? Now who hasnt read the report?

This is a good and constructive post, thank you CD. My understanding was that it was confirmed 4 were alive when the helo was full with rescued people, but I do acknowledge I need to go back and confirm that. You points about PLB's are highly relevant. However, I suspect that if everyone were wearing LJ's they all would have drowned due to being trapped in the initial role over (or at least a high number). If all were wearing PLB's then the rescue outcomes would have been entirely different. I understand via FB that now punters on the charters do wear PLB's - I don't know

Solely blaming the skipper is like saying accidents should never happen. It is incredibly overly simplistic. If accidents aren't allowed to happen, why do we go to such great lengths to prepare boats for Cat 1? Offshore first aid kits and liferafts? Avoiding fatallities is about preparedness. My position is, post the capsize, preparedness was lacking at multiple levels. This is highlighted with major shortcommings in the rescue, but also a couple of basic facts no-one has gotten into yet. The liferaft didn't self activate like it was supposed to. The EPIRB didn't self activate l

Have you actually read the TAIC report? Just wanting to know if we are on the same page with the facts before we debate opinions. Delays so long in getting helo A ready they have to ask someone else to do the rescue. 5 hours without operating helos, just because. Those 4 guys were well within range of rescue. MRCC would have known 10 were onboard after phoning the EPIRB contacts, but only sent one helo... Noting the second helo was tasked cause the first helo was having a clusterfuck, the third helo was tasked the following day. MRCC only tasked one helo in the first instan

I think there is a bit of fact missing going on and a few assumptions being made, particularly that there was only one helicopter. Helicopter A was tasked at 2035, they were the most operationally ready helicopter in the area, they advised RCC they would be airborne in 30 minutes, but they took 2 hours to convert the aircraft into SAR mode and source qualified crew. Helicopter B was tasked at 2200 out of Auckland at the request of Helicopter A because they were taking longer than predicted to get ready. It's important to remember that at this point in the operation, this was a r

It seems K that you are putting the right to be rescued above the moral obligation of a skipper to keep his crew and passengers safe. Calling us prejudiced against the skipper is like us saying what connection do you have with the skipper? Its just what one believes is more probable, that your undocumented eddies, wind and chop overrule the current/drift modeling which is corroborated (once activated) by actuals with timestamps. Repeating it over and over with innuendo doesn't make it any more valid. (Whatever stance)

Dying while awaiting rescue is very common, especially in remote locations. Reading the report the rescue services did an outstanding job in adverse circumstances at a remote location. It sounds like you are simply trying to blame the rescuers, defend the skipper and smear MNZ.

That study obviously got filed in the bin like so many others prepared for council over the years.

Darwinism at its finest!

Let a few people drown. Preparedness and skill levels will improve and fewer people will drown. (only slightly tongue in cheek)

Rather interesting stat from "Beca" 2012,it now 2024 The rate of increase of boats in Auckland varies with boat type. Following a significant growth period in the 1980s and early 1990s, growth in cruising vessels (yachts and launches that might occupy a marina berth or mooring) is estimated to be 0.45% per year. There is localised demand for moorings, but generally there is a trend to move boats to marinas which, although more costly than moorings, offer greater security and ease of access and maintenance. The total number of moorings in the region between 2006 and 2011 has not changed si

TAIC undertook an inquiry - that's their remit - that's what they do - yes they also investigate. That's why the documents title is: Maritime inquiry MO-2022-201 Charter fishing vessel Enchanter Capsize Inquiry's produce recommendations. Investigations produce facts for the inquiry to process into recommendations. You can't have an inquiry without an investigation. The TAIC report is full of recommendations, it even lists the recommendations that were accepted/rejected by NZSAR and MNZ. It is most certainly an inquiry in the true sense of the word.

K4309 or body else wants to be charged a SNR fee as part of their insurance like home owners charged a fire n earthquake levy?? I would be happy enough to pay and those don't get charged.Just like CG do for non members.Not sure how money is recovered from non members though.

This is good, and makes me think: Why is a regional charitable trust responsible for provisioning fuel for what I would deem a nationally important service? If I understand correctly, 5 different organisations were directly involved in or tasked with the rescue, NHRT, AHRT, Coast Guard, Air Force and MNZ (assuming MRCC are part of MNZ). The helicopter rescue trusts have sporadic and insecure funding. I understand the bulk of their funding comes from what used to be the DHB's. I assume MNZ fund them somehow, possibly a 'pay per rescue' situation (I don't know, haven't done a deep

The context is that 4 guys died waiting for rescue, many hours after it was established they needed rescuing. One helo came, took some and went. The ones that were left all died. I personally find that a harrowing prospect. I've been banging on about the 17 rescue helos in the North Island to demonstrate there are no shortage of assets. These helos are obviously very expensive to buy, run and maintain, yet we have 17 of them. But somehow these 4 guys were left to die waiting rescue. I haven't reconciled why yet, hence I'm banging on about it. The MRCC phoned the people on the EPIRB l

Explain that to me, Not-guilty owing to insanity? Otherwise totally agree. I've banged a few corners, figuratively. In hind sight it was all three and unnecessary.

Hi K. You have repeatedly stated that there was 17 helicopters.... Your continued statements gave me the impression that you understood 17 different helicopters were or should have been available to be directed to the search. If that was not your intended sense, please let me know what you were meaning to say. The reality is set out very clearly in the report. There are almost no dedicated, marine capable, SAR helicopter units nationally. Those units that are available are primarily medical services and aggregated they operate 95% of the time in that configuration. T

They tasked the most appropriate asset available to go look for the Epirb. They then tasked two more when the gravity of the problem became apparent. MaritimeNZ were not responsible for the fuel cache. Fueling is the responsibility the local operator, in this case NEST. The local operator agrees to meet a national standard for rescue aircraft. MaritimeNZ can't have caches of fuel scattered around NZ waiting for what if. Jet fuel goes off if left to sit and needs careful management. Before the incident, NEST already knew they had a fuel availability issue at Kaitiaia

My apologies, I took your response as sarcasm, "oh yep, you said..." rather than an acknowledgment of your error. In that view, I acknowledge my following post with a "geography lesson" was not warranted. I would say though that I am feeling frustrated that I have been consistently misquoted on key points, or statements attributed to me that I haven't said that materially change the arguement. That includes Aardvark and pysche, hence my push back on it.

Correct I did say. And then, when you pointed that out, I acknowledged that you said North Island. Rather than accepting that I it wrong and acknowledging my acknowledgement your response was then to throw me an obnoxious geography lesson. I trust you now have enough clarification to move on? And possibly enough information to understand why people aren't engaging.

You were asserting I said statements I didn't say, twisting the context to mean something different. If you have a problem getting called out on that, that is your issue.

Below is the 'Rescue' section of the TAIC report. In general, it does not come across as particularly well organised of efficient to me. No criticism of volunteers or rescuers involved. There appears to be no shortage of rescue assets in NZ, as I have been banging on about all along, it is the coordination of the assets and scenario planning (lack of fuel) that appears to be the issue, which is Maritime NZ's responsibility. Instead of focusing on this, there is a strong perception they are going after the skipper for PR purposes. Apoligies, the copy and paste format is terrible.

If you want people to participate in the conversation I would suggest that this isn't the way. I will bow out again. I feel very silly for re-engaging.