Dtwo 157 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 A quick synopsis - boat goes fishing, young deckie does not follow instructions goes to sleep and boat runs aground. MNZ prosecute for not having an engineer on board. WTF? https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300011815/boat-ran-into-mt-maunganui-as-skipper-and-deckhand-slept Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Island Time 1,293 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 The conditions of the license to operate the vessel include minimum manning requirements. If they did not meet them this is no surprise. If you are involved in a car accident, not entirely your fault, but you have no wof, do you expect the police would overlook that? 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vorpal Blade 89 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Island Time said: The conditions of the license to operate the vessel include minimum manning requirements. If they did not meet them this is no surprise. If you are involved in a car accident, not entirely your fault, but you have no wof, do you expect the police would overlook that? In the above instance and accident not your fault, but you have no wof, do you expect the police would overlook that? In one instance I know of the at fault vehicle was well illegal (no WOF, insurance, unlicensed et etc etc) The innocent T-boned vehicle's insurance company decided the out of WOF parameters was not a determining factor in the occasion and paid out, the Police also left it alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 697 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 33 minutes ago, Vorpal Blade said: In the above instance and accident not your fault, but you have no wof, do you expect the police would overlook that? In one instance I know of the at fault vehicle was well illegal (no WOF, insurance, unlicensed et etc etc) The innocent T-boned vehicle's insurance company decided the out of WOF parameters was not a determining factor in the occasion and paid out, the Police also left it alone. Be interesting over the next 6 months how many vehicles do not have WOFs as the govt have passed an exemption bill.Now will that give insurance COs an out??But it up to us to maintain to standards,lights/tread etc but how would one know if the pads are down and brakes not efficient? The insurance have said covered unless a major fault that caused the accident. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deep Purple 530 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 I took my car in for a warrant even though all warrants are extended to September. 2 reasons, the government may give you time but your insurance company won't, check, you are probably not covered, also i don't want to be battling bookings from half the cars in NZ who's warrants are going to expire in the same month for the next however many years Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dagwood 69 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 36 minutes ago, Deep Purple said: I took my car in for a warrant even though all warrants are extended to September. Same, strikes me the first person to have to deal with the issue of something being deficient is me. Why wait / risk it for 6 months? Some of the vehicles on the road are going to be a worry. I've always thought that if a dude (or dudess) can look at my car or trailer for 10 mins and find a fault I didn't know about - I should pass my man card in. No sexist connotations intended... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dtwo 157 Posted May 14, 2020 Author Share Posted May 14, 2020 Not sure if I'm on board with the "no WOF" argument. The lack of an engineer had SWA to do with the boat running aground. Seems like a bit of excessive book throwing by MNZ - the young deckie, first trip out, was fined $1700. Good way to encourage locals to join the fishing industry - not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 697 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Just now, Dtwo said: Not sure if I'm on board with the "no WOF" argument. The lack of an engineer had SWA to do with the boat running aground. Seems like a bit of excessive book throwing by MNZ - the young deckie, first trip out, was fined $1700. Good way to encourage locals to join the fishing industry - not. But also fishing out of zone. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Island Time 1,293 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 And outside the survey cert, inadequately manned. A third crew member may have been awake. Poorly managed boat. Agree is hard on the new deckie though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 46 minutes ago, Island Time said: Agree is hard on the new deckie though. "He was joined by a deckhand, Michael Kingi, who had never been to sea before," If this line is true, I think its much worse than "hard". I think its a terrible action by MNZ. Despite not following instructions, I think the deckhand had zero responsibility on that boat. If the skipper was concerned about getting up at middnight he whould have set himself an alarm regardless. A new bloke, never been to sea, on an 8-day working voyage, and you leave him on the helm approaching land? hmmmm I do wonder . . . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Island Time 1,293 Posted May 14, 2020 Share Posted May 14, 2020 Agreed. But Maritime NZ are just a bunch of form fillers - very few left with practical seagoing experience in the whole place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chariot 244 Posted May 15, 2020 Share Posted May 15, 2020 Why did it take 8 days before giving the deckhand some training on how to maintain a course? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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.