Jump to content

Do cat one inspections do any good?


Recommended Posts

It’s really not that bad, we did cat1 and have spent the season cruising in New Caledonia and Vanuatu and it has been great. Most boats I’ve met from Australia would pass anyway. Apart from the ridiculous price of flares in NZ and having to screw down floorboards, it all seems like pretty common sense safety stuff anyway. Actually I’d like to transmitting AIS added so I have less ghost ships to contend with on night watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I’d like to transmitting AIS added so I have less ghost ships to contend with on night watch.

Ghost ships are the trawlers / tuna boats out of Fiji and other dodgy flag states.

Nothing you can do to CAT 1 will stop those guys turning off their AIS - they don't want others to see where they are catching fish...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, to the point: yes, it’s probably a good idea to have safety inspections, but it would be great if it were less judgemental on specifics and have more room for the variety of boats out there. Having said that, it exists and if you want to go cruising, get a boat which can pass and work through the checklist, you will have a more seaworthy boat than when you started, in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, cat1 was adopted from the racing fraternity as the government of the day thought they were spending too much on rescuing "idiots" who think it's all sweet to pack some sandwiches and sail off to the tropics? Instead of coming up with something that does not cost $30k to pass and is realistic (what use is a throw line to a single hander?), Cat1 was there ready and waiting. I know I've suggested this before but whats wrong with "rescue insurance"? Don't have it then no clearance. There will be those who won't have it leaving the tax payer to foot the bill but then they won't be cleared out. A single hander is only putting their own lives in jeopardy (and probably rescuers) so nanny state should back off. If there are sailing with crew, not so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I know I've suggested this before but whats wrong with "rescue insurance"? Don't have it then no clearance. There will be those who won't have it leaving the tax payer to foot the bill but then they won't be cleared out. A single hander is only putting their own lives in jeopardy (and probably rescuers) so nanny state should back off. If there are sailing with crew, not so.

Because the number of rescues and cost of rescue is not an issue.

Cost of rescue never has been an issue.

All NZ's rescue assets are fixed cost / overhead costs. Always have been. NZ will always have an MRCC, defense force assets and Police department regardless of how many guys go sailing with just some ham sandwichs and a thermos of coffee.

 

The regulations are around the govt (i.e. bureaucrats) intentions to "reduce harm". You need to be saved from yourself Crazyhorse, you just don't know it yet.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was imposed after lionheart hit the rocks trying to enter whangaroa at night in bad weather. Which was a bad judgement call and nothing to do with the boat or its equipment. But you're right they grabbed onto cat 1 to shut up the lollies. Now they just add more nonsense everytime there is a high profile incident.

Truth is offshore sailing is not that risky, the best safety equipment is between your ears, cat 1 doesn't seem to be working so well and plenty of people are registering offshore to avoid it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why all the angst BP.

 

There are 2 rules at play here.

  • One is a local law for local boats that says you must get a CAT sign off to be allowed a Customs clearance.
  • The other is 'The skipper has full and final say on what happens aboard'.

One is a local law, the other is a international law you see on EVERYTHING relating to boating including in NZ. In fact I believe the paperwork you're suppose to sign/are given after a CAT inspection very clearly states the skipper has full and final say on what happens aboard.

 

So a CAT inspection is handy to have a independent set of eyes go over the boat and then allows the Customs person to sign you out. But that doesn't stop you adding things, removing things or whatever so you comply with the far more important and common sense rule of skipper has final say.

 

If there was any specific requirement I'd be happier about (using happier in the same context as happy about getting a colonoscopy, a necessary evil) would be as the CrazyFilly suggests, make rescue insurance mandatory for ALL boats leaving NZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the number of rescues and cost of rescue is not an issue.

Cost of rescue never has been an issue.

All NZ's rescue assets are fixed cost / overhead costs. Always have been. NZ will always have an MRCC, defense force assets and Police department regardless of how many guys go sailing with just some ham sandwichs and a thermos of coffee.

 

The regulations are around the govt (i.e. bureaucrats) intentions to "reduce harm". You need to be saved from yourself Crazyhorse, you just don't know it yet.

True..but Google it, the media would have you think otherwise:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10349882

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have this correct,Cat1 is crock,valid for 1 month  before departure date??so customs only want to see your cert?so borrow the gear get cat1 and hand it all back,who would be any the wiser??

No one unless you get caught. Hire a liferaft then take it back after etc? Consider a MOB and they find out..ouch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

True..but Google it, the media would have you think otherwise:

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10349882

That will teach you for reading the Herald... complete waste of time.

Quoting un-named officials who don't want to be named, who give 'estimates' that are no more than a wild guess.

 

Then 1/4 mil for a 'survival pack', consisting of a 10 man liferaft, and what else? I want the contract supplying those lifrerafts... what a joke. Not considering that there wasn't a problem with the yacht floating, just the injuries to the guy, so not sure what they needed liferafts dropped for. Probably explain why the 10 man raft blew away after they deployed it...According to my sea survival course, 2 people in a 10 man raft is not at all safe, they flip too easily and, oh, blow away....

 

Classic fact free Herald piece. Said the yacht was heading to the Cook Islands, but didn't say where from... more questions than answers.

 

Third last line says actual costs of helicopter and fixed wing aircraft was actually $30k (an order of magnitude different from $1 mil)

 

Note the second last line:

Rescue centre spokesman Lindsay Sturt said the cost of keeping the Orion in the air was included in the annual costs of the air force and separating out one incident was not easy. 

 

 

And I wont comment on that story being from 2005.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel is not a fixed cost. Likely too that other opex will bump up rescue costs ratio. To the extent that Cat 1 encourages a better safety culture, I welcome it. Seems to me that securing possible flying objects, including floor boards, cupboards etc, is a great idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuel is not a fixed cost. Likely too that other opex will bump up rescue costs ratio. To the extent that Cat 1 encourages a better safety culture, I welcome it. Seems to me that securing possible flying objects, including floor boards, cupboards etc, is a great idea.

The airforce has a fixed annual budget. If they don't achieve their flying hours (including allocated fuel) doing missions, they just go and do donuts in the sky, sorry, I mean "training exercises", until their allotted budget is spent. It the old 'use it or loose it' mantra that govt departments and local bodies go by when it comes to your money, sorry, I mean budgets.

 

So far there is no evidence that CAT 1 increases safety or reduces rescue costs. What evidence there is suggests that boats with CAT 1 are more likely to be rescued...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have this correct,Cat1 is crock,valid for 1 month  before departure date??so customs only want to see your cert?so borrow the gear get cat1 and hand it all back,who would be any the wiser??

It makes no difference if people are wiser or not.

 

The Maritime Transport Act of 1994 states the master of the vessel is AT ALL TIMES responsible for the safety and welfare of the boat and it's crew. It also says if the skipper and crew to use a boat in a manner 'that creates an unnecessary risk or danger to persons or property' that is an offence.

 

So if YNZ say 'You must take this hairy dog' but you as skipper know it will create a nasty tripping hazard, a hazard that is easily removed, then the law of the land says you the skipper must remove the hairy dog or risk being prosecuted.

 

Besides the way YNZ currently do the Cat inspections doesn't fully comply with NZ law anyway.

No, I'm not saying why out loud as it's a little counter productive because I do believe the gist of YNZ's aim with Safety Regs is sound and is basically a good thing even with the flaws it has.

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...