Enchanter Northland

[Black Panther 1,607]

From that article

 

• Know your boat’s limitations: Do not expect your boat to cope with conditions it is not designed for. Don’t take it on a long sea passage if it’s not designed to survive knockdowns and roll-overs: stick to coastal waters where you can run to shelter if the weather turns nasty.

That's not bad luck.

[K4309 281]

10 hours ago, Psyche said:

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.

Yes, the whole debate, and infact the whole prosecution relies on establishing where he was at the time of the incident. We all understand that. That quote, "about as equally likely" in itself demonstrates high uncertainty as to exactly where he was when this happened.

On the EPIRB drift, have you ever been to a surf beach? Muriwai for example?

You can have tonnes of water pushing in at one spot, and literally 10m to one side, you can have a 3knt current ripping out. Most people on here should be able to understand rips. It is perfectly feasible for the incident to have occurred where the skipper said, the wave and current action push everything into the island, move 10m sideways and get into an outgoing current. A rip.

Or just a simple tide line. We've all seen them around the Rangi channel. Tide pushing one way, cross the line, a meter away, the tide is going in a different direction. Headlands and islands such as this are where tide lines are generally the strongest.

Given the topography, tides and swell at Marimotu Island, strong unpredictable currents are a certainty. That is verified by the trouble finding the survivors, bodies and wreckage. For anyone to then be able to turn around and say they can accurately model the drift of the EPIRB before it went off is a complete nonsense.

Anywhere there are waves pushing onto a shore, there has to be an equal volume of water heading out again. Somewhere nearby. The water heading out carries stuff in the opposite direction to the water heading in. It is fairly basic physics.

I'm not saying that is what happened. What I'm saying is there is sufficient doubt over where it happened to draw a conclusion. More so under our justice system with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

[Guest 98]

I am curious as to what the angle of vanishing stability for that vessel was, if they can even do one without pulling the superstructure off or deforming it?

The dynamics of what actually happened will probably never be known, but the observer saying the wave hadn’t “crested” and then inrush from the breaking wave thru saloon window ,( from breaking wave), is not consistent. More likely is that the shouts coming from occupants inside being the thrown to starboard and having the starboard  windows implode on them as the  vessel rotated to strbd.

Have been caught a few times in triple overhead paddling furiously At 45, trying to evade getting suck over falls by a clean up. That is not the scenario here. More, that the vector to the wave face of the vessels travel and the steepness and amplitude of the wave,  exceeded its stability.
And as has been suggested, the superstructure is not designed for this, pooped, unlike sailboats.
 

[Addem 100]

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

On my last cruise in March i was in 25-30 knots SE heading from slipper Island to great mercury. Big lumpy sea from starboard quarter. One wave appeared from abeam much larger and moving faster. It crested and hit athwart ships and moved us bodily sideways, I don't know how far. Tui is a Farrier 41 and we had the Boards up (running)  if they were down I don't know what would happen- break the Boards? Flip the boat?  

We were in +50m water. I don't know what that wave would have done to a boat when it got to 20m or 10m close on shore. 

Yep rogue waves are real when inshore. 

[waikiore 410]

AVS 70 degrees as tested, and K those Epirb drifts are logged not modelled. 

[Guest 98]

 

In flat water with nobody on the fly bridge I presume? So all charter vessels are tested and certified? Going up a steep wave at an angle you could approximately subtract a portion of the angle of the face from that. Supestructure  could go beyond the horizontal. The more beam on the worse it would get. I have no experience in high CofG /windage power boats.

[waikiore 410]

They are not confidence inspiring for a yachtie, I have always had concerns about some of our local pleasure launches running up to the pacific islands, however in their favour the ones I know have fitted strongly fastened shutters over  the windows and fuel up to the extent that they can use their speed if calm enough to make the passage very quickly in the most benign weather they can.

[K4309 281]

1 hour ago, waikiore said:

AVS 70 degrees as tested, and K those Epirb drifts are logged not modelled. 

Crickey, have you read anything or are you ignorant?

MNZ are inferring the position of the capsize from the location of the EPRIB activation, and saying that based on that, he wasn't where he said he was.

Accept, the EPIRB was not activated for 45 minutes after the capsize. So where did the capsize happen?

If the EPIRB drifted for 45minutes, what grounds have you got to say the capsize didn't happen where he said he was?

I love it how people form opinions based on a couple of social media posts and then call for the guy to be hanged, when they clearly aren't across the issues.

[CarpeDiem 457]

46 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Crickey, have you read anything or are you ignorant?

MNZ are inferring the position of the capsize from the location of the EPRIB activation, and saying that based on that, he wasn't where he said he was.

Accept, the EPIRB was not activated for 45 minutes after the capsize. So where did the capsize happen?

If the EPIRB drifted for 45minutes, what grounds have you got to say the capsize didn't happen where he said he was?

I love it how people form opinions based on a couple of social media posts and then call for the guy to be hanged, when they clearly aren't across the issues.

But if the capsize happened where you are claiming, (well east of Miromoto) then the people would of followed the easterly drift of the epirb and not been up against the rocks and the land. 

Are you suggesting that the current and winds changed direction in the 45 minutes between the capsize and the epirb being activated?  (this isn't supported by the facts). 

I think that you are confusing facts with evidence. The facts are that the current was pushing easterly as shown by the modeling. The evidence of the epirb following the easterly current supports the facts.

So how did the epirb end up west of the point of the capsize?

So I guess the court will determine if on the balance of probabilities the epirb was able to drift west before drifting east.  So I suppose that the defence team will need to produce some current drift facts from a competing company that supports that.  Or they will have to call experts to discredit the Tidetech modeling. 

 

[K4309 281]

3 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

But if the capsize happened where you are claiming, (well east of Miromoto) then the people would of followed the easterly drift of the epirb and not been up against the rocks and the land. 

Are you suggesting that the current and winds changed direction in the 45 minutes between the capsize and the epirb being activated?  (this isn't supported by the facts). 

I think that you are confusing facts with evidence. The facts are that the current was pushing easterly as shown by the modeling. The evidence of the epirb following the easterly current supports the facts.

So how did the epirb end up west of the point of the capsize?

So I guess the court will determine if on the balance of probabilities the epirb was able to drift west before drifting east.  So I suppose that the defence team will need to produce some current drift facts from a competing company that supports that. 

 

 

8 hours ago, K4309 said:

Yes, the whole debate, and infact the whole prosecution relies on establishing where he was at the time of the incident. We all understand that. That quote, "about as equally likely" in itself demonstrates high uncertainty as to exactly where he was when this happened.

On the EPIRB drift, have you ever been to a surf beach? Muriwai for example?

You can have tonnes of water pushing in at one spot, and literally 10m to one side, you can have a 3knt current ripping out. Most people on here should be able to understand rips. It is perfectly feasible for the incident to have occurred where the skipper said, the wave and current action push everything into the island, move 10m sideways and get into an outgoing current. A rip.

Or just a simple tide line. We've all seen them around the Rangi channel. Tide pushing one way, cross the line, a meter away, the tide is going in a different direction. Headlands and islands such as this are where tide lines are generally the strongest.

Given the topography, tides and swell at Marimotu Island, strong unpredictable currents are a certainty. That is verified by the trouble finding the survivors, bodies and wreckage. For anyone to then be able to turn around and say they can accurately model the drift of the EPIRB before it went off is a complete nonsense.

Anywhere there are waves pushing onto a shore, there has to be an equal volume of water heading out again. Somewhere nearby. The water heading out carries stuff in the opposite direction to the water heading in. It is fairly basic physics.

I'm not saying that is what happened. What I'm saying is there is sufficient doubt over where it happened to draw a conclusion. More so under our justice system with the burden of proof on the prosecution.

As per my previous post.

Note to clarify, I'm not making any ascertains as to where the capsize happened. I'm just pointing out that there are no facts as to where it happened, and the evidence MNZ is using to say it happened elsewhere from where the skipper said he was - is tenuous.

[K4309 281]

Now we have lying prosecution witnesses. MNZ case is getting even more tenuous.

Difficult to make this up. Just saying.

A commercial fisherman sent to rescue ten men in the water after the Enchanter fishing charter capsized off Northland has admitted in court he was fishing in weather he'd earlier said was too dangerous to be out in.  

Maritime New Zealand's case is Enchanter's skipper should've known a front that smashed Northland overnight Saturday and early Sunday would have continued to impact sea conditions long after it'd passed.  

Text messages between the Florence Nightingale skipper and his boss Nat Davey hint at conditions earlier on Sunday, March 20 where both the Enchanter and his own vessel were up at the Three Kings Islands.  

Gentry told his boss of a plan to delay Florence Nightingale's journey to check cray pots at Hell's Gate because there were "white and big green ones".  

"We are getting our asses handed to for 30kg (of catch). To which Davey replied, "do what you think is right, but it is going to glass off this avo [sic]".  

But Pilditch KC, in cross-examining Gentry, challenged his evidence the weather was so bad his vessel had to stop fishing at midday. He presented Automatic Identification System (AIS) data to the court showing Florence Nightingale's movements to the North East Island, and the Princes group.  

"You told us the weather was so bad you decided to anchor up for the day and do no more fishing?" Piditch KC asked Gentry.

"What you said was wrong wasn't it... it wasn't a full day's fishing. You fished from 7 in morning until 3 in the afternoon?"  

"Yes," the Florence Nightingale skipper replied.  

"Do you accept that's what you did... and what you told us yesterday and today is wrong?" To which Gentry said, "Yes".  

Gentry admitted to the court this put him in breach of his Maritime Transport Operator plan when probed by Pilditch KC. Gentry has previously been praised for his work on the Florence Nightingale.  

Witness evidence about weather in Enchanter trial discredited by defence | Newshub

[K4309 281]

Goodhew told Maritime New Zealand it was so calm that the men were free to move around the boat and put fishing lines out.

He said he expected to arrive at their destination around 8pm, called his friend at around 7.40pm and believed it was around 20 minutes after that phone call when the wave hit.

Goodhew recalled it was getting dark and he was at the rear of the boat checking his client's lures and decided to give them another 15 minutes before calling it a day.

Goodhew's recollection was almost cinematic as he described a colossal wall of water with no end in sight.

"I looked up out my side window at a wall of water. An absolute wall, I could not see the top of it, I don't know how big it was," Goodhew said.

Enchanter trial: Courtroom in tears hearing emotional interview of Lance Goodhew | RNZ News

[harrytom 654]

certainly not looking good for lance

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/enchanter-trial-expert-witnesses-give-evidence-on-rogue-waves-and-weather/NVIAH5YFY5EQLIEL2LD62KFLTM/

 

Goodhew’s primary source of weather information was the PredictWind app, for which he held a paid subscription.

At 12.37 pm, just before departure, MetService issued a gale warning, predicting swells reaching up to two metres and the possibility of thunderstorms from Kaipara.

From Cape Brett, they reported 40-knot northeast winds, rough seas and poor visibility.

Despite the MetService forecast, Goodhew departed from the Three Kings with his clients around 1.30pm.

[Steve Pope 251]

I would suggest that stopping in the shelter of Murimotu Island at North Cape was something that Goodhew did every time he returned from the three kings islands, Probably numbered in the tens if not in the hundreds of times. Given the wind direction on the day it would have been as secure as anywhere to clean / tidy up before finishing the charter. A 30 second difference in time or a 100metres of distance could well have had a totally different outcome. Hind sight is just that. In my opinion it was just very bad luck, and now having to deal with MNZ's desire to prosecute no matter what and to try to make the facts fit the result they want.

[Psyche 653]

Its not up to MNZ, it's up to the court.  There was tragic loss of life on a commercial charter, MNZ has no choice but to prosecute. The alternative is to say its all ok carry on nothing to see here.  I agree its very bad luck, but if you traverse a high risk area 100 times without incident does that make it a safe practice?

[Steve Pope 251]

I guess no more than driving to work along SH1 and getting cleaned up by another vehicle, does that mean you shouldn't go to work?? Does that make it a safe practice?? Life is full of risks, some we take knowingly based on the odds of not having it go wrong. The other is being in a situation where the unexpected happens (as happened to Encounter) with fatal consequences, would Goodhew have been there if he thought they were in danger, His business, his reputation, putting his charterers at risk, I doubt it. It was up to MNZ whether to put it before the court, to say they had no choice is a cop out. it is the public and Goodhew who will pay for the court case, not the individuals who made the decision to prosecute.

The moment you go to sea you are entering a high risk area, and most of us manage to survive, every thing MNZ does in these cases is reactive, it doesn't bring the dead back to life. 

[Jon 362]

25 minutes ago, Steve Pope said:

I guess no more than driving to work along SH1 and getting cleaned up by another vehicle, does that mean you shouldn't go to work?? Does that make it a safe practice?? Life is full of risks, some we take knowingly based on the odds of not having it go wrong. The other is being in a situation where the unexpected happens (as happened to Encounter) with fatal consequences, would Goodhew have been there if he thought they were in danger, His business, his reputation, putting his charterers at risk, I doubt it. It was up to MNZ whether to put it before the court, to say they had no choice is a cop out. it is the public and Goodhew who will pay for the court case, not the individuals who made the decision to prosecute.

The moment you go to sea you are entering a high risk area, and most of us manage to survive, every thing MNZ does in these cases is reactive, it doesn't bring the dead back to life. 

Sort of

But more like driving a school bus to the limits in bad conditions and 5 kids got killed when you lost control 

[El Toro 98]

Was it bad conditions though?

Several were fishing off the back, others were cooking/ sitting in the cabin chewing the fat and I think I read it was only 13 knots and small and getting smaller swells according to a survivor.

If it was that bad, surely they would have waited for the shelter that wasnt that far away before cooking?

 

[K4309 281]

1 hour ago, Psyche said:

Its not up to MNZ, it's up to the court.  There was tragic loss of life on a commercial charter, MNZ has no choice but to prosecute. The alternative is to say its all ok carry on nothing to see here.  I agree its very bad luck, but if you traverse a high risk area 100 times without incident does that make it a safe practice?

It is MNZ's decision entirely to lay the charges. Saying it is the Court's decision to lay charges is not based in fact.

That is why they have withdrawn 5 charges already, 3 at the start of trial. That was MNZ's decision to lay and then withdraw those charges. Not the Court's.

MNZ got caught with their pants down not having planned for a mass casualty rescue off the Northland coast. That directly resulted in the deaths of 4 of the 5 fatalities. Noting that MNZ haven't charged themselves for 'not taking reasonable actions', there is a strong perception they are pushing these charges with marginal evidence as a face saving / PR exercise.

Strange how no one has asked why only one helo was dispatched to a mass causality event, and why it took five hours to get fuel for that one helo. You could have flown a rescue chopper from Southland in that time, let alone all the winch capable ones in Auckland, Waikato and BoP.

Instead of asking the important questions, we are squabbling over what the forecasts said. Not to mention the lying crown witnesses.

[K4309 281]

14 hours ago, harrytom said:

certainly not looking good for lance

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/enchanter-trial-expert-witnesses-give-evidence-on-rogue-waves-and-weather/NVIAH5YFY5EQLIEL2LD62KFLTM/

 

Goodhew’s primary source of weather information was the PredictWind app, for which he held a paid subscription.

At 12.37 pm, just before departure, MetService issued a gale warning, predicting swells reaching up to two metres and the possibility of thunderstorms from Kaipara.

From Cape Brett, they reported 40-knot northeast winds, rough seas and poor visibility.

Despite the MetService forecast, Goodhew departed from the Three Kings with his clients around 1.30pm.

You left out the bit where Predict Wind forecast 20knts and dropping, and that that was far closer to reality than the nonsense Metservice served up.

We all know Metservice can't organise a root in a whore house with their forecasts, which is why everyone with any skin in the game uses Predict Wind.