Jump to content

Yacht missing around Gisbourne


JK

Recommended Posts

I have written to MNZ (politely) requesting clarification for their actions regarding their interference in the voyage of Darius DeWit, together with the rationale behind the subsequent commandeering and impounding of his vessel.

I am also seeking their input and advise on what this means for those of us who often make singlehanded coastal voyages which may be interrupted by adverse weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have written to MNZ (politely) requesting clarification for their actions regarding their interference in the voyage of Darius DeWit, together with the rationale behind the subsequent commandeering and impounding of his vessel.

I am also seeking their input and advise on what this means for those of us who often make singlehanded coastal voyages which may be interrupted by adverse weather.

Nice job Chrisc. Please let us know what kind of response you get! It will be very interesting to read their justification for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chrisc nice of you to enquire about why they impounded the boys yacht , but i still want to head off single handed without a bunch of rules piled on top of the trip , most of us have some contact with others while we are away , and the buttons to press if something hits the fan thoes who don't have a tough time they made , common sence is what lacks , and it's the only business that has not been started up , that should be ,, the school of common sence ,,, but one need the freedom to decide when and where we sail to at our one time

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I disagree with what has happened, surely if the boat was properly equipped, incl epirb, and nothing was heard from him, nothing would have happened? With a cellphone and vhf, a txt could be sent, and a notice that the authorities are concerned about the boat broadcast on vhf following the weather. Most of us listen to the weather, and would reply if we knew someone was concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the mistake made was a "what to do if" between him and his mate who he was supposed to be in contact with. It seems that he has said to his mate, I will keep in touch by ph, but they obviously had not discussed a what to do if he doesn't contact. If they had, then the sailor would have known that after x many hrs of no contact, the mate on shore would be calling Maritime Radio and after xx many hrs, a search would be asked for. Because the guy didn't twig to the Orion flying over head that someone was looking.
    But mistake No2 is with the RNZAF. Why on earth did the Orion not drop a VHF and Note to say, hey contact us or Maritime Radio. They do in other rescue situations. Then later, they had the same chance with the Helicopter. Why on earth did they not come right down low and throw a package at him or even just hold a Board at the door with large writing, hey we are looking for you.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I make the occasional singlehanded coastal voyage. My boat is well equipped with safety gear and spare parts, window shutters etc. I do not carry an epirb and although I have a vhf I will only assume it works because I have never used it (on transmit). I am a member of the coastguard but do not make trip reports. I support them because i think they are probably worth it. I do not own a cellphone, never have-never will. I have cruised for 50years under the expectation that I grew up with, namely that if I get myself into trouble then I will get myself out of it. If I can't then I imagine that I will die. And yes, different rules apply when cruising together with my wife.

I don't believe that my singlehanded voyages present any undue risks to myself or anybody else, consistent of course with the understanding that by nature any voyage may be considered hazardous.

I greatly value my freedom at sea and I will do all that I can to preserve it.

Concerning MNZs interference in the voyage of Darius DeWit, I view this as the beginnings of a further erosion of the yachtman's freedoms. I think that staff within MNZ realise that they have sailed pretty close to the wind over the Darius case, but hey, nothing happened, no one complained, just one grumpy old guy in an H28 asking for a 'please explain.' We can ignore him and start making our actions the norm.....

Which is why I gently tried to put the case in previous posts for a combined approach questioning MNZs actions. If my letter was under the auspices of this forum and it's large membership then just maybe it would give MNZ pause for thought.

As I said earlier, I think our freedoms are worth fighting for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I make the occasional singlehanded coastal voyage. My boat is well equipped with safety gear and spare parts, window shutters etc. I do not carry an epirb and although I have a vhf I will only assume it works because I have never used it (on transmit). I am a member of the coastguard but do not make trip reports. I support them because i think they are probably worth it. I do not own a cellphone, never have-never will. I have cruised for 50years under the expectation that I grew up with, namely that if I get myself into trouble then I will get myself out of it. If I can't then I imagine that I will die. And yes, different rules apply when cruising together with my wife.

I don't believe that my singlehanded voyages present any undue risks to myself or anybody else, consistent of course with the understanding that by nature any voyage may be considered hazardous.

I greatly value my freedom at sea and I will do all that I can to preserve it.

Concerning MNZs interference in the voyage of Darius DeWit, I view this as the beginnings of a further erosion of the yachtman's freedoms. I think that staff within MNZ realise that they have sailed pretty close to the wind over the Darius case, but hey, nothing happened, no one complained, just one grumpy old guy in an H28 asking for a 'please explain.' We can ignore him and start making our actions the norm.....

Which is why I gently tried to put the case in previous posts for a combined approach questioning MNZs actions. If my letter was under the auspices of this forum and it's large membership then just maybe it would give MNZ pause for thought.

As I said earlier, I think our freedoms are worth fighting for.

IT. What do you think? A polite forum letter to MNZ asking for an explanation?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrisc is obviously willingly putting himself forward as a spokesperson for all or at least many of the people on this forum and he has my support.  What is your view IT on a spokesperson for the forum? If his letters are from a group rather than an individual they  hold a heap more weight. I like to compare what boaties have achieved on the water which is virtually nothing to what the motor caravaners  have achieved on land which is huge.  They have lawyers, accountants, planners, engineers all on board, have influence on central and local government, own campgrounds, dumpstations etc. (Mount Ruapehu ski fields another example, totally owned by the skiers) What a different place we would be in now if we had followed there lead for the past 30 years?  We would own or at least part own marinas by now , have influence on council and maritime law etc. Its not to late, if we stand around watching what we fear will happen.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, been thinking of that. I will do something, but I need to read all the links on here 1st, then I'll send a please explain to MNZ on behalf of Crew.org. I'll publish it on here as well. Probably Monday or Tuesday....

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Island time why get involved with them , it just starts a ball rolling we don't want , this site is for boaties to talk , compare idears talk boats most of the cg don't own boats it's two much for them

Link to post
Share on other sites

MJ, I was meaning a letter to MNZ asking for an explanation of the rules used in this case, to clarify the position for our members, so we can have a better understanding of the current requirements for coastal sailing. Nothing to do with CG. They have no authority.

As above, if we do nothing, they can (MNZ) eventually regulate this type of sailing out of existence. I, for one, won't sit idly by while that happens...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont follow you there myjane. For a start its Maritime NZ not Coastguard we are talking about. We do want the ball rolling. we have tried doing nothing , its not working. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 in every day

He did not. Turns out it was just flat battery causing coms failure. There was no backup.

Mate ashore reports he's missing.

He is located by SAR and GIVEN a handheld vhf. He is left alone but another vessel in the area keeps an eye on him.

He fails to use that to report for several more days.

Another search.

This time CG is accompanied by police, and via MNZ he is required to proceed into port. As the nearest port is over a working bar ( NOT closed) he is assisted over the bar.

MNZ, using well established laws, restricts him from leaving until he has what they consider appropriate safety equipment etc before he can leave.

 

IMO, now I have a better understanding of what happened, this is pretty much what I'd expect. His nominated shore contact reported he was missing, and SAR initiated a search as they are required to do. He was found, and the issue was explained to him. He was given a free vhf handheld. He still did not report over several more days. He was then obliged by the police acting on MNZ's behalf to come in to port and they have used their authority to try to ensure the wasted public funds are not added to.

 

If you want to do a coastal trip, and don't want anyone looking for you, don't do a TR, and dont tell anyone (especially a novice) ashore that you will check in on set periods. If you get into trouble, you'll have to rely on your self, and your on board gear to call for help. Fine with me.

 

Here is the section of the Maritime act that MNZ used;

 

55 Detention, etc, of ships and maritime products

(1)

The Director may from time to time do all or any of the following:

-(a)

detain any ship or any ship of a particular class:

-b

seize any maritime product or any maritime product of a particular class:

prohibit or impose conditions on the use or operation of any ship or any ship of a particular class, or the use of any maritime product or any maritime product of a particular class:

-(d)

impose conditions on the release from detention or seizure of the ship or maritime product.

(2)

The powers under subsection (1) may be exercised where the Director believes on clear grounds that—

(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

-b

the appropriate prescribed maritime document is not for the time being in force in respect of the ship, or the master or any member of the crew of that ship, or the maritime product, as the case may be; or

©

any maritime document required by maritime rules in respect of the ship or maritime product, as the case may be, has expired; or

(d)

the conditions under which a maritime document in respect of a ship or maritime product was issued or recognised, or the requirements of that document, are not being met; or

(e)

the watchkeeping requirements specified for a ship by the State in which the ship is registered are not being met; or

(f)

the conditions imposed under paragraph © or paragraph (d) of that subsection are not being met.

(3)

The powers under subsection (1) may also be exercised where the Director is satisfied, on clear grounds, that the master is not, or crew are not, familiar with essential shipboard procedures for the safe operation of the ship.

(4)

Nothing in this section shall permit the Director to detain a ship where that detention would constitute a breach of any convention.

(5)

Any detention or seizure under subsection (1) shall be maintained for only such time as is necessary in the interests of maritime safety or the health or safety of any person; but, if ships, maritime products, or parts thereof are required for the purpose of evidence in any prosecution under this Act, those ships, products, or parts thereof may be retained by the Director for such period as the Director considers necessary for that purpose.

(6)

The Director shall, if requested by the owner or the person for the time being in charge of a ship detained or a maritime product seized under subsection (1), provide in writing to the owner or that person the reasons for the detention or seizure.

(7)

Any person in respect of whom any decision is taken under this section may appeal against that decision to a District Court under section 424.

-8

For the purpose of subsection (1), the Director shall notify any prohibitions or conditions to such persons as he or she considers necessary by such means of communication, whether or not of a permanent nature, as the Director considers appropriate in the circumstances.

(9)

Every person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any prohibition or condition notified under this section.

(10)

Every person who commits an offence against subsection (9) is liable on conviction,—

(a)

in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $10,000:

-b

in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.

Compare: 1990 No 98 s 21

Section 55(10): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

 

I really don't have a problem with this, he could have stopped the issue himself after the first "search" by complying with the reporting arrangements.

 

I think this is a storm in a teacup, mostly by those on here who don't have the whole story. It's simple. He had a shore based contact, and a report schedule. He did not meet it. He was searched for, found, given new coms, left. He still did not meet the report schedule, he was searched for again and detained - for training and gear, so he does not waste any more of the public funds.

 

Fair enough in my book.

 

Nothing here restricts your ability to make a NZ coastal passage in a crap boat with no training or gear, UNLESS you are bought to the attention of the authorities. Then, MNZ can stop you if required. It certainly does not happen often 2x in the last 4 years that I can recall.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll island time that was quick , well done I break the law every I go out on my own , I need piece and quite from humans , space wich there is heaps and to love the adventure ahead , good reading thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's put that one to bed.

The gist of my enquiry to MNZ, although based on the Darius case, was how MNZ view singlehanded voyages made in vessels that may not comply with their standards (whatever they may be). If as I stated earlier, I sail without an epirb and a possibly non functioning radio, how would they view my coastal voyages? Would I become the object of their unwanted attention?

It will be interesting to see their response, if any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably. But I have a master's foreign going ticket, the wherewithal on board plus the know-how to fix pretty much anything and a lot of single handed miles under my belt.

I prefer to put my faith in these rather than a radio and epirb.

Old fashioned? Yes. Sensible? Probably not, but this is my independence and freedom and I treasure it and accept the risks.

Long may it last.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...