Enchanter Northland

[Steve 34]

I've fished off East Cape on these boats and found the skippers and deckies very competent.  And the boats very sea worthy.

I think the doco interviews pretty well exonnerated the skipper and his decisions.  The court may have a different view but a rogue wave is really difficult to forecast.

[waikiore 410]

Except that there was no "rogue wave"  just the shallow bottom.

[Psyche 653]

Quote

Earlier in the day, deckhand Kobe O’Neill finished his evidence under cross-examination by Fletcher Pilditch KC. He confirmed the vessel was about 15 minutes away from anchoring under the lighthouse at Murimotu Island off North Cape when the wave hit.

That would put them in or very close to shallow water

[K4309 281]

2 hours ago, waikiore said:

Except that there was no "rogue wave"  just the shallow bottom.

Are you saying they ran aground now?

I can't keep up.

[Guest 98]

2 hours ago, waikiore said:

Except that there was no "rogue wave"  just the shallow bottom.

And a big ground swell.

[Guest 98]

His cavalier attitude, business hardline, are not attributes to be encouraged in skippers, particularly commercial. If this is not addressed in this tragedy it is just going to happen again.

"At the end of the day, the responsibility rests with the skipper. It's a lot resting on your shoulders and most times - touch wood - you get it right. On the occasions you don't, there will be a price to pay." 

That price was significant, and the repercussions need to be also.

The  loss of five punters lives was directly attributable to the skippers MO. Ignore all the indicators at your peril.

 

[Cameron 83]

2 hours ago, K4309 said:

Are you saying they ran aground now?

I can't keep up.

Area in green box is where vessels often shelter under North Cape

Area in red box is a shallow area which in certain conditions will cause waves to rear up / amplify.

As you can see it would be very tempting to cut the corner and go over the shallow patch as you get to the sheltered anchorage quicker... However it would be much safer making a much wider rounding

[K4309 281]

Many of the points posted here are opinions. Having a difference of opinion is not a criminal matter. Generally the criminal test is gross negligence.

The prosecution are saying he should not have been within 3 miles of land, but psyche has confirmed there is no rule regarding this.

His ship was apparently in good order, and approved for the area it was operating in. He checked the forecast regularly, so not like he was sailing blind. 

The only paperwork he didn't have was an expired first aid certificate, not directly contributable to the incident. So it's not like he was trying to run a 12ft tinny to the Three Kings with the only qualification being a Bachelor of Fine Art.

Contrast this to the Kotuku incident of Stewart Is where the boat was grossly overloaded, with all weight on the cabin top, and the skipper actively avoiding the MNZ inspector.

However, 5 people have died, so an investigation is warranted.

MNZ (and many on here) are making a big deal out of how close he was over the shallow water. There is disagreement as to exactly where the incident occurred. Somewhere there is a link to the MNZ report, I had a look in this thread but couldn't immediately spot it. It showed the intended track with waypoints. Fairly sure it was safely outside the shallow area, otherwise it would be an open and shut case.

MNZ are using the EPIRB position and track to say he wasn't where he said he was. Only the MNZ report itself states the EPIRB did not go off for 45min to an hour after the incident. It was lost, did not automatically activate when it went it the water, then when found, the deck hand stated it was very hard to activate and took 15-20min to get going.

Therefore that position information is marginal at best to correlate to where the incident occurred.

The surviving passengers stated the conditions had abated considerably, 10knt breeze and calmer sea state. Refer a link posted by ex Elly a page back in the thread. Rescue Helo said conditions were challenging, noting they were FIVE HOURS late to the party. So again, not immediately relevant to the conditions at the time of the incident.

One other fact we know is that MNZ has already dropped two of the three charges due to lack of evidence. It is fair to say that the evidence for this charge is tenuous. It is all opinion based. There is no hard, factual evidence. Other than that the MNZ required and approved EPIRB didn't work and the rescue was a clusterfuck cause MNZ / MRCC didn't think to have fuel available anywhere north of Auckland - and that contributed directly to the fatalities.

So you guys may be right in that he was acting recklessly, that may be proven in this court case (although it is based on opinion, no hard facts). But there is certainly a perception that this prosecution is all about MNZ needing a public hanging for PR purposes.

Noting he bought a third boat after the accident and before the trial, and it appears he is having no trouble filling it with paying punters. That would indicate the court of public opinion (those with money & skin in the game) aren't seeing an issue, rightly or wrongly.

[K4309 281]

TAIC states "about as likely as not" as in 50:50 the Enchanter strayed into shallow water.

That is a highly uncertain statement as to exactly where the Enchater was. It is 50:50 the skipper had the boat where he said, in safe deep water, and it was an actual rogue wave that got it, not shallow water effect. Just like the Essence off BoI.

50:50

Isn't our justice system based on 'reasonable doubt'?

Why it happened
The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident. However, it is about as likely as not the vessel had strayed into shallower water off Murimotu Island, an area that is prone to occasional, naturally occurring, larger waves peaking as they entered the shallowing water.

There was a significant delay in the search for the five missing people while fuel for the rescue helicopters was sourced. Three of the missing people were alive in the water when last seen by the survivors but were later found deceased.

MO-2022-201 | TAIC

[K4309 281]

Here is the TAIC  Final report.

Skippers route is shown on page 28. Couple of pages down is the EPIRB track.

MO-2022-201 Charter fishing vessel, Enchanter, capsize, North Cape, New Zealand, 20 March 2022 (taic.org.nz)

[Steve 34]

Oh Dear, that doesn't look good for him.  

[Psyche 653]

3.43 The underwater topography off Murimotu Island matches the wave performance observed by the passenger. From seaward, the seabed off Murimotu Island slopes steeply from 50 to 10 metres water depth over 0.7 nautical miles (1300 metres). The seabed slopes very steeply from 30 to 2 metres water depth (see Figure 15). To the observer on the Enchanter’s aft deck a larger wave would have begun visibly peaking in the distance, with a sharp rise when the wave met with the 10-metre contour.

3.44 This analysis of the wave form supports the hypothesis founded on the EPIRB data, that the capsize occurred much closer inshore and in shallower water than estimated by the skipper.

3.45 Consideration was given by the Commission to whether the formation of what has been referred to as a ‘rogue wave’ was a factor in the capsize. In recent decades scientists have accepted the concept of rogue waves. The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration refers to rogue waves as those that are large, unexpected and dangerous; are nominally greater than twice the significant wave height; are very unpredictable; and often come from directions other than the prevailing wind and waves. 36 Because these waves are uncommon, measurement and analysis of this phenomenon is rare. 37

3.46 As mentioned above, a wave within the spectrum of the significant wave height present off North Cape could, in less than 10 metre water depth, cause the capsize and damage that occurred to the Enchanter. So too would an even larger wave. Therefore, determining whether the wave that capsized the Enchanter was within or higher than the spectrum of significant wave height in the area is of little relevance because either could have caused the vessel to capsize in less than 10 metre water depth.

[BNG 44]

5 hours ago, Steve said:

Oh Dear, that doesn't look good for him.  

Seems he was in very shallow water indeed. From the TAIC report..

[K4309 281]

Peter "Shay" Ward, an experienced commercial fisherman from Te Awamutu, was one of eight friends who signed up for a five-day trip to the Three Kings Islands just over two years ago.

 

Ward told the court he was sitting on the rear deck on the evening of 20 March, 2022, as the Enchanter was nearing its planned anchorage for the night below the North Cape lighthouse.

At the time the wind was light, about 12-13 knots, and the swell about two metres, he said.

The other passengers were relaxing in the cabin so they didn't see the wave coming.

"I remember seeing that swell coming in, and thinking, 'f***, that's a big swell', but it wasn't breaking, it wasn't cresting, it was just a big swell," Ward said.

"The boat went up the swell, and it went up and up, the boat rolled over, and I just expected the boat to roll back as we went over the swell, but the boat didn't. That's when I heard a whole lot of swearing and yelling and I'm assuming that's when the breaking bit of the wave hit the windows. It was obviously just a big, steep, short, sharp swell, that crested and broke and hit us."

Ward said the weather at the Three Kings on 19 March had been "magic", and that night the Enchanter anchored in the main island's Little Bear Bay to shelter from the front passing over.

By about 9am on 20 March the wind had eased enough for the Enchanter to head for the Princes Group of islands for more fishing, and that afternoon they began the long journey back to North Cape.

Ward said there was nothing exceptional about the sea state or weather conditions at that time.

"There was a bit of roll, a bit of slop, but it wasn't uncomfortable," he said.

Enchanter sinking trial: Monster wave 'just got big then and there' - survivor | RNZ News

[Guest 98]

Somewhat unsavoury after the fact and perhaps little consolation for those that lost family and friends. But, it remains,  cause effect are how we move forward.

The track of the EPIRB, current mapping and the account given by skipper/crew are at odds. The current mapping shows   North rotating thru NW around cape at 1930. At 2130 the current has decrease with a more  north aspect going NE . The Epirb track confirms this..

The survivors say they could see between Murimotu isl and North cape before and after the roll. If they were North of the shoal, looking SW how did the EPIRB travel S against the current before it activated? If they rounded early East of Murimotu and got caught by a sneaker wrapping around as they entered shallows to "shelter". Possibly you could see the gap between Murimotu and NC looking NE. But you would have to be a decent distance West. Then the EPIRB could appear where it does and continue on the current as satellite mapping testifies. Unlikely, but easier to join dots?

"I remember seeing that swell coming in, and thinking, 'f***, that's a big swell', but it wasn't breaking, it wasn't cresting, it was just a big swell," Ward said. "The boat went up the swell, and it went up and up, the boat rolled over, and I just expected the boat to roll back as we went over the swell, but the boat didn't. That's when I heard a whole lot of swearing and yelling and I'm assuming that's when the breaking bit of the wave hit the windows. It was obviously just a big, steep, short, sharp swell, that crested and broke and hit us."

Regardless, Moderate to large waves unload a portion of there height for various reasons even in the absence of ground. The superstructure above deck is supposed to withstand this. If the wave didn't unload, as witnessed above (imploded starboard windows), just beam end to roll and the huge super structure couldn't stand the sideways pressure, then NFFP.

"The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident."

To me it looks overly windowed, over proportioned beam on area above deck, top heavy, consequently weak. Hence fit for purpose in light conditions only. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[K4309 281]

1 hour ago, Guest said:

Somewhat unsavoury after the fact and perhaps little consolation for those that lost family and friends. But, it remains,  cause effect are how we move forward.

The track of the EPIRB, current mapping and the account given by skipper/crew are at odds. The current mapping shows   North rotating thru NW around cape at 1930. At 2130 the current has decrease with a more  north aspect going NE . The Epirb track confirms this..

The survivors say they could see between Murimotu isl and North cape before and after the roll. If they were North of the shoal, looking SW how did the EPIRB travel S against the current before it activated? If they rounded early East of Murimotu and got caught by a sneaker wrapping around as they entered shallows to "shelter". Possibly you could see the gap between Murimotu and NC looking NE. But you would have to be a decent distance West. Then the EPIRB could appear where it does and continue on the current as satellite mapping testifies. Unlikely, but easier to join dots?

"I remember seeing that swell coming in, and thinking, 'f***, that's a big swell', but it wasn't breaking, it wasn't cresting, it was just a big swell," Ward said. "The boat went up the swell, and it went up and up, the boat rolled over, and I just expected the boat to roll back as we went over the swell, but the boat didn't. That's when I heard a whole lot of swearing and yelling and I'm assuming that's when the breaking bit of the wave hit the windows. It was obviously just a big, steep, short, sharp swell, that crested and broke and hit us."

Regardless, Moderate to large waves unload a portion of there height for various reasons even in the absence of ground. The superstructure above deck is supposed to withstand this. If the wave didn't unload, as witnessed above (imploded starboard windows), just beam end to roll and the huge super structure couldn't stand the sideways pressure, then NFFP.

"The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident."

To me it looks overly windowed, over proportioned beam on area above deck, top heavy, consequently weak. Hence fit for purpose in light conditions only. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We get back eddies in our river all the time. The tide will be bombing in, and at the same time there will be an outgoing current along one side.

Given the complexities of wind, tide, current, swell and wave action, it is not possible for anyone to predict with any certainty a drift pattern with enough certainty to convict someone. Given that they couldn't find the missing people, nor actually find the wreck post rescue validates this. And on the missing people, this demonstrates dispersion modelling. As in, they all went in different directions. they spread out. So if the people and wreckage all went in different directions, how can you know where the EPIRB went before it was turned on?

The underlying fundamental issue is there are no facts. MNZ (and many on here) have a theory. That he went too close.

There is no GPS track, cause the boat sunk. There is no AIS track. There is no hard evidence as to where the boat was.

All witnesses report a rogue wave. Even MNZ have conceded rogue waves are a real thing.

All witnesses report moderate weather at the time of the incident (10 knts) - that is actually supported by video footage of the rescue helo, it did not look rough or blowey.

From a behavioral point of view people are assuming he cut the corner. But here is a behavioral aspect. Dinner wasn't ready. The deck hand was only putting the dinner on when the wave hit.

The Essence got hit by a rogue wave coming into the BoI. Everyone said it was bad luck. What is the difference here? Is it cause the skipper was commercial?

[Black Panther 1,607]

2 hours ago, K4309 said:

Essence got hit by a rogue wave coming into the BoI. Everyone said it was bad luck. 

Not everybody. 

[Psyche 653]

2 hours ago, K4309 said:

We get back eddies in our river all the time. The tide will be bombing in, and at the same time there will be an outgoing current along one side.

Given the complexities of wind, tide, current, swell and wave action, it is not possible for anyone to predict with any certainty a drift pattern with enough certainty to convict someone. Given that they couldn't find the missing people, nor actually find the wreck post rescue validates this. And on the missing people, this demonstrates dispersion modelling. As in, they all went in different directions. they spread out. So if the people and wreckage all went in different directions, how can you know where the EPIRB went before it was turned on?

The underlying fundamental issue is there are no facts. MNZ (and many on here) have a theory. That he went too close.

There is no GPS track, cause the boat sunk. There is no AIS track. There is no hard evidence as to where the boat was.

All witnesses report a rogue wave. Even MNZ have conceded rogue waves are a real thing.

All witnesses report moderate weather at the time of the incident (10 knts) - that is actually supported by video footage of the rescue helo, it did not look rough or blowey.

From a behavioral point of view people are assuming he cut the corner. But here is a behavioral aspect. Dinner wasn't ready. The deck hand was only putting the dinner on when the wave hit.

The Essence got hit by a rogue wave coming into the BoI. Everyone said it was bad luck. What is the difference here? Is it cause the skipper was commercial?

Trying hard here K, read the report. The EPIRB ping was right on the shelf and given the drift pattern is eastwards then draw your own conclusions

Why it happened
The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident. However, it is about as likely as not the vessel had strayed into shallower water off Murimotu Island, an area that is prone to occasional, naturally occurring, larger waves peaking as they entered the shallowing water.

When the Enchanter rapidly rolled onto its side, the force of the water exceeded the design parameters of the vessel’s superstructure. This caused the superstructure to separate from the hull, resulting in the Enchanter fully capsizing.

[Psyche 653]

11 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

Not everybody. 

https://www.yachtingmonthly.com/sailing-skills/sunk-in-a-storm-with-no-liferaft-lessons-learned-81596

[harrytom 653]

4 hours ago, K4309 said:

Is it cause the skipper was commercial?

Be the same inquest for recreational. Lost of lives.

Certainly appearing that Lance strayed of course and in to shallows..Would be looking at sounder or looking at waves and getting best angle?

Think defense lawyer is non maritime,saw the bit about the cray fisherman who said he had a early day,7 to 3 is a early day for those when on the crays.A lot work well in to the night clearing pots.