Fatality - Northland

[CarpeDiem 512]

 

1 hour ago, Psyche said:

Do you need permission to go to Waitangi?

No you do not.

You can travel to the Chathams, Kermadecs, Three Kings, Auckland Is, Campbell etc without a departure clearance.  For some of those locations you need permission from DoC to be within 12Nm - but you do not need a departure clearance.

You also don't need departure clearance for the Ross Ice Shelf, but you do need to meet a whole lot of more stringent requirements that are harder than Cat 1

 

[Psyche 755]

15 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

Chathams, Kermadecs, Raoul Is, Auckland Is, Campbell Is, are all within NZ. You do not have to clear out to any of those destinations. Probably not covered under Coastal Insurance policies, mine says within 200 nautical miles from North or South Islands 

The point is that's offshore as far as practicality is concerned, so mullions or not I can go!

[Black Panther 1,716]

Hell Stewart Is from here is many times more dangerous than Fiji.

 

Time to face it, the imposition of Cat 1 on cruising boats was a knee-jerk political response to the loss of lionheart ( lost due to nav error anyway). And this latest amendment is more of the same.

[marinheiro 363]

18 hours ago, Black Panther said:

Exactly right. Whoever is the appropriate person at YNZ should ring MNZ and say " we need to discuss this because it's not working. It's not working to the extent that rational sane people are looking for ways to avoid it, in particular registering offshore".

 

The fact that at least a dozen NZ boats, including at least 2 catamarans that I know of, cleared out of NZ for Fiji with Cat 1 certs this winter indicates that the system is working. Your statement is more along the lines that you and some others don't like it, which is rather different.

Angus is the go to man at YNZ, mailto:angus@yachtingnz.org.nz 

by the way, ref your "Hell Stewart Is from here is many times more dangerous than Fiji", you do remember that Essence foundered 50M off the Northland coast and a few other previous events, one notable one being the '94  Queens Birthday storm. My view, and not discounting the weather down south, is that the waters between NZ and the Sth Pacific need to be treated with just as much respect

 

 

[Black Panther 1,716]

39 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

The fact that at least a dozen NZ boats, including at least 2 catamarans that I know of, cleared out of NZ for Fiji with Cat 1 certs this winter indicates that the system is working.

 No, I don't see that as proving anything. 

39 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

Your statement is more along the lines that you and some others don't like it, which is rather different.

I would consider that blindingly obvious 

39 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

Angus is the go to man at YNZ, mailto:angus@yachtingnz.org.nz 

Frankly I've given up with YNZ

39 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

by the way, ref your "Hell Stewart Is from here is many times more dangerous than Fiji", you do remember that Essence foundered 50M off the Northland coast and a few other previous events, one notable one being the '94  Queens Birthday storm.

Kinda fragmented,  don't get your point

39 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

 

My view, and not discounting the weather down south, is that the waters between NZ and the Sth Pacific need to be treated with just as much respect

 

 

I think your view is wrong.

[Psyche 755]

Any local can take any boat 30 miles of Cape Brett and experience the same conditions yet not have to comply with any safety category. If you go to the MNZ site and look at recreational requirements- there are none, only recommendations.

There does appear to be inconsistencies with regulations, a yacht heading offshore must be of a certain standard, if you are participating in a yacht race then you must comply with regulations. I presume that if an event resulted in loss of life then a recreational skipper could be prosecuted but its all a bit vague

Quote

Every recreational boat, no matter how big or small, has a skipper. The skipper is legally responsible for the safety of their boat and all on board, and can be prosecuted for breaching safety rules.

What rules? I only see recommendations for private pleasure craft. Nav lights yes but where is the list of rules for the average yachtie on a coastal cruise? Most yachtsmen and women are responsible because they are aware of the risks but there does not seem to be any legal requirement for mullions on a trip to the Chathams let alone the Mokohinaus and we all know how atrocious the weather can be in the Gulf.

[marinheiro 363]

19 minutes ago, Psyche said:

Any local can take any boat 30 miles of Cape Brett and experience the same conditions yet not have to comply with any safety category. If you go to the MNZ site and look at recreational requirements- there are none, only recommendations.

There does appear to be inconsistencies with regulations, a yacht heading offshore must be of a certain standard, if you are participating in a yacht race then you must comply with regulations. I presume that if an event resulted in loss of life then a recreational skipper could be prosecuted but its all a bit vague

What rules? I only see recommendations for private pleasure craft. Nav lights yes but where is the list of rules for the average yachtie on a coastal cruise? Most yachtsmen and women are responsible because they are aware of the risks but there does not seem to be any legal requirement for mullions on a trip to the Chathams let alone the Mokohinaus and we all know how atrocious the weather can be in the Gulf.

The basic rules MNZ refer to are the ColRegs per https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/recreational/rules/default.asp

It then reverts to a "Duty of Care" type approach for safe operation of the the vessel

https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/recreational/safety/default.asp

I know of a case a few years ago where a pleasure launch hit a beacon with a failed light on Auckland harbour at night with the result the boat was badly damaged and there were injuries. The skipper and crew member at the helm at the time were prosecuted by MNZ and received criminal convictions.

I have heard that MNZ's current approach is to pass any event they want prosecuted onto Worksafe, believing it is easier for Worksafe to obtain a conviction.

 

 

[Psyche 755]

I get that, colregs etc but as for specifically required safety gear or rules as per YNZ  and especially in regard to the windows getting driven out of their frames, there appears to be no vessel structural or safety requirements for pleasure craft that are not heading to a foreign port.

[Jon 396]

23 minutes ago, Psyche said:

I get that, colregs etc but as for specifically required safety gear or rules as per YNZ  and especially in regard to the windows getting driven out of their frames, there appears to be no vessel structural or safety requirements for pleasure craft that are not heading to a foreign port.

Correct

You can now head off and circumnavigate via the 5 great capes and arrive back in NZ having not cleared into any foreign territory in a Pied Piper 

But if you wish to sail your New Zealand owned European Category A sailing vessel and clear into the nearest foreign territory then you will need a Zarpe and to get one you will need a YNZ Cat 1 which is issued by them on behalf of Maritime NZ.

Im not sure but believe we are the only nation that requires this of it citizens to get a Zarpe

[marinheiro 363]

35 minutes ago, Psyche said:

I get that, colregs etc but as for specifically required safety gear or rules as per YNZ  and especially in regard to the windows getting driven out of their frames, there appears to be no vessel structural or safety requirements for pleasure craft that are not heading to a foreign port.

Agree it is a bit of a mixed bag. MNZ recognise regional harbour masters setting specific rules about safety equipment eg Lifejacket and comms devices but then as I said they are reverting to a duty of care approach by saying vessels must be "seaworthy", eg see Auckland's Navigation Safety by law

https://at.govt.nz/boating-marine/harbour-rules-regulations/#bylaw

and

 

to my knowledge Europe is the only region, via its RCD and referenced ISO standards, to have specific rules about integrity of pleasure boats. USA has advisory standards from ABYC.

[Adrianp 124]

YNZ and the Inspectors are meeting tonight to review the findings of the Essence report, so you may want to call your inspector today if you have anything you want them to consider or bring up.

[Cantab 341]

1 hour ago, Adrianp said:

YNZ and the Inspectors are meeting tonight to review the findings of the Essence report

So YNZ changed the rules before the investigation report came out, that makes sense.

They changed the rules before they consulted with the inspectors?

Lets hope some sensible official guidelines come out of this, its the inspectors are at the front line having to deal with the rules, be nice if they had some input.

[DrWatson 382]

9 hours ago, marinheiro said:

I have heard that MNZ's current approach is to pass any event they want prosecuted onto Worksafe, believing it is easier for Worksafe to obtain a conviction.

So worksafe now has jurisdiction outside of employment situations? ie. private, non-comercial situations?

 

[DrWatson 382]

9 hours ago, Jon said:

You can now head off and circumnavigate via the 5 great capes and arrive back in NZ having not cleared into any foreign territory in a Pied Piper 

I'll do it!

But on another note regarding clearing out. I communicated with French customs about procedure to leave the EU and re-enter. Response was, there is no procedure.  So how the hell does that work if I want to sail to Panama instead of just over to Jersey? Both are outside the EU...

Just load up and sail off??? No Zarpe?

 

 

[marinheiro 363]

25 minutes ago, DrWatson said:

So worksafe now has jurisdiction outside of employment situations? ie. private, non-comercial situations?

 

Absolutely, they are currently going after the owners of White Island over the eruption deaths, at a more local level Yacht Club haul out yards, even where solely volunteer operated, fall under Worksafe jurisdiction

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/worksafe-reveals-charges-in-whakaariwhite-island-tragedy/2YWPODHNRFDYTV3DAOF6RVV54I/

[DrWatson 382]

8 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

Absolutely, they are currently going after the owners of White Island over the eruption deaths, at a more local level Yacht Club haul out yards, even where solely volunteer operated, fall under Worksafe jurisdiction

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/worksafe-reveals-charges-in-whakaariwhite-island-tragedy/2YWPODHNRFDYTV3DAOF6RVV54I/

But those are all operations that involve other members of the public who can reasonably expect safety measures and regulations to be met.

If my friend slips over on the deck of my yacht because the anti skid was perhaps a little old should I expect Worksafe to knock on the door and begin an investigation?

 

[CarpeDiem 512]

36 minutes ago, DrWatson said:

So worksafe now has jurisdiction outside of employment situations? ie. private, non-comercial situations?

Only if the accident is related to a WorkPlace.

Worksafe has no jurisdiction on a private boat UNLESS a person involved in the incident on that boat was their for personal financial gain.  Eg, a professional fisherman that you were paying to come out and teach you how to fish on your boat.

 

 

[marinheiro 363]

8 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

Only if the accident is related to a WorkPlace.

 

they appear to be taking an increasingly broad view of the definition of a Workplace.....

[CarpeDiem 512]

39 minutes ago, DrWatson said:

If my friend slips over on the deck of my yacht because the anti skid was perhaps a little old should I expect Worksafe to knock on the door and begin an investigation?

No.  Assuming you are not receiving financial gain from your friend, ie, he is not paying you to use your boat.

30 minutes ago, marinheiro said:

they appear to be taking an increasingly broad view of the definition of a Workplace.....

Under the Health and Safety at Work Act someone has to be receiving a financial gain for it to be a Workplace and it has to be at a place of "business". 

Club Haul-out facilities (and for that matter club ski fields) generally fall foul of this because the have employees or contractors working at the facility for financial reward, this makes it a workplace.  They also carry on a business because they charge people to use the facility. This doesn't automatically make every accident at that facility subject to the HSWA.

A true volunteer organisation where there are no paid professionals, members are not financially rewarded and a business isn't being carried on, are not subject to the HSWA.

Worksafe also have jurisdiction under the electrical and gas safety acts.  So if someone is injured on your boat because of a gas leak that isn't up to the standards or was the result of a DIY installation then Worksafe would have jurisdiction under those acts, but NOT under the HSWA and not because your boat becomes a workplace.  Same as if someone was injured in your house due to some DIY electrical installation that you'd done....

[Fogg 427]

But what about the other way around? What if I’m paying someone to do work on my boat and they hurt themselves - possibly whilst I’m not even there? Am I now providing a place of work to contractors that I must keep safe?