Enchanter Northland

[CarpeDiem 510]

26 minutes ago, K4309 said:

You don't think a 10m high wave, that is clearly visible in the distance, is not a rogue wave? given the surrounding sea state was a 2m swell and 10 knt breeze. All eyewitness descriptions clearly met the definition of a rogue wave.

Anyway, the Judge concluded it was a rogue wave, not surf, not a regular wave standing up etc, and I guess that is all that really matters.

Wonder if Maritime NZ will now ban boats from getting closer than 3nm to land? (Referencing @harrytom's expectations MNZ will re-write the rule book.

I can't understand how you're drawing the conclusion that rogue waves don't break as the water gets shallower or the boat wasn't where the evidence showed it was, or for that matter how you've concluded that the wave wasn't breaking at the time of impact, when clearly the case file suggests otherwise?

The judge concluded that it was unreasonable to expect the skipper to predict a rogue wave.   That's substantially different from your assertions. 

Therefore the presumption from MNZ that he should not have been in such shallow water because he wasn't prepared/ready for a Rogue wave became irrelevant as he had no requirement to predict or plan for a Rogue wave. 

What will be interesting will be too see if MNZ appeal the case.

This case has set legal precedent, that as mariners/skippers we do not need to prepare, plan or consider rogue waves when cutting corners into shallower waters. 

What's clear from this thread, is that based on experience several individuals disagree with that ruling.

You obviously agree with the ruling and I can respect that. But you should have a bit of respect for the people who have experience and disagree. 

[Psyche 728]

9 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

The judge had doubts, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

 

 

Better to let the guilty go free than lock up an innocent man something something......

Anyway the short story is don't cut the corner where steep underwater geography, strong currents and a ground swell are in play

[harrytom 679]

MNZ are looking an appeal.

I suspect what we have all read there are some facts that weren't presented.  Conditions good enough to be trolling and dinner on?Question for me would be."was the skipper really at the helm"? If so then wasn't keeping a proper watch as,claimed rogue wave,possibly should of seen it.

Was he under pressure from passengers to get home?

[K4309 353]

12 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

I can't understand how you're drawing the conclusion that rogue waves don't break as the water gets shallower or the boat wasn't where the evidence showed it was, or for that matter how you've concluded that the wave wasn't breaking at the time of impact, when clearly the case file suggests otherwise?

The judge concluded that it was unreasonable to expect the skipper to predict a rogue wave.   That's substantially different from your assertions. 

Therefore the presumption from MNZ that he should not have been in such shallow water because he wasn't prepared/ready for a Rogue wave became irrelevant as he had no requirement to predict or plan for a Rogue wave. 

What will be interesting will be too see if MNZ appeal the case.

This case has set legal precedent, that as mariners/skippers we do not need to prepare, plan or consider rogue waves when cutting corners into shallower waters. 

What's clear from this thread, is that based on experience several individuals disagree with that ruling.

You obviously agree with the ruling and I can respect that. But you should have a bit of respect for the people who have experience and disagree. 

With respect, it would appear you are getting distracted by a very minor point- I never said the rogue wave wasn't breaking - I don't see that as particularly relevant in that a 10m high vertical wave is going to destroy anything in it's path regardless.

The assertion being made by yourself and several on here is that, allegedly, the boat was in shallow water and waves stand up, and that this increases the risk to the boat. This I agree with. BUT, that type of wave / effect IS predicable. However, it has been concluded after 4 weeks of trial with the best legal minds in the country that it wasn't that type of wave. It wasn't a shallow water wave standing up. Other ways to describe those are surf, or perhaps the best description, that is often marked on charts and has accompanying warnings, is 'overfalls'.

A rogue wave is entirely different to overfalls, and the general type of waves you can expect with strong currents and swell around headlands.

The so called experienced people on here appear to be conflating the two. They are entirely different. One type is predictable and often marked on charts*, the other type is by definition entirely unpredictable. After 10 pages of thread, we've only had one person on here say they have actually experienced a rogue wave.

* Areas with overalls are usually marked on charts and have a warning for prudent skippers. One such area is the Pandora Bank, which has this warning copied from Navionics

Mariners are advised to pass at least 2nm to seaward of the 100m depth contour when navigating in the vicinity of the Pandora Bank in adverse weather conditions.

There is no such warning Marimotu Island.

Finally, there is some hypocrisy in you telling me to have a bit of respect, that goes both ways and I've been on the receiving end of that throughout this thread.

[Psyche 728]

48 minutes ago, K4309 said:

With respect, it would appear you are getting distracted by a very minor point- I never said the rogue wave wasn't breaking - I don't see that as particularly relevant in that a 10m high vertical wave is going to destroy anything in it's path regardless.

The assertion being made by yourself and several on here is that, allegedly, the boat was in shallow water and waves stand up, and that this increases the risk to the boat. This I agree with. BUT, that type of wave / effect IS predicable. However, it has been concluded after 4 weeks of trial with the best legal minds in the country that it wasn't that type of wave. It wasn't a shallow water wave standing up. Other ways to describe those are surf, or perhaps the best description, that is often marked on charts and has accompanying warnings, is 'overfalls'.

A rogue wave is entirely different to overfalls, and the general type of waves you can expect with strong currents and swell around headlands.

The so called experienced people on here appear to be conflating the two. They are entirely different. One type is predictable and often marked on charts*, the other type is by definition entirely unpredictable. After 10 pages of thread, we've only had one person on here say they have actually experienced a rogue wave.

* Areas with overalls are usually marked on charts and have a warning for prudent skippers. One such area is the Pandora Bank, which has this warning copied from Navionics

Mariners are advised to pass at least 2nm to seaward of the 100m depth contour when navigating in the vicinity of the Pandora Bank in adverse weather conditions.

There is no such warning Marimotu Island.

Finally, there is some hypocrisy in you telling me to have a bit of respect, that goes both ways and I've been on the receiving end of that throughout this thread.

No warning label? IT MUST BE SAFE 🤣 

 

[Ex Machina 384]

I have surfed nearby at great exhibition bay and north side of Nth Cape . Did the crown prosecutors bother sending someone out there during a swell to see what the wave behaviour is and where it breaks ? The chart shows a possible good big wave break there so I hunted for some pics and found these.  Swell is less than 1M by my reckoning . I’ve not experienced a rogue wave but definitely rogue “sets”  of waves one is always bigger and usually the 2nd or 3rd in a 3-4 wave set .

 

[Guest 109]

Dont know that I’ve ever come across rogue  wave. I thought they were solo at 50’ plus. Not a double up or a wave hit by backwash or clean up sets where then at 30’ every waves would be “rogue”.

Surfed a break in Kauai 2x+ overhead when a cleanup set came & closed the bay out point to point  a km further out. They reformed and weren’t much bigger than than the normal sets on our reef. But out there they were 15’+ of white water after they broke. You could see it starting to happen as the tide dropped, but the swell was rising. Was end of day & next day was small.

If you go over the falls you invariably end up in aireated water and I don’t recall any of survivors saying that. Could have just been just a bigger wave or a double up hit by back wash or sudden surge of current against that make them steeper for a few moment enough to roll a poor c of m oil burner beam on. Odds on that they were shallower than reported but odds don’t make guilty of cutting corners.

He did say his current cog was taking them outside their wp so he hit ten degrees to starboard. Maybe he double pressed.

I guess a rogue wave in the court terms is 10x average set wave height then?
Good reminder to be wary in any kind of ground swell.

[Psyche 728]

Remember this bit from the report;

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.

 

 

[harrytom 679]

Feel sorry to families who lost faimly,no real outcome for them or any form of compensation.

Opens up a exit for next boating death for skipper.

[Black Panther 1,692]

Is there a technical definition of a rogue wave? Hate the term myself. When I was studying oceanography there were statistically unlikely waves.

[aardvarkash10 1,065]

15 hours ago, harrytom said:

Feel sorry to families who lost faimly,no real outcome for them or any form of compensation.

Opens up a exit for next boating death for skipper.

Paid by ACC (you and me in other words).  Accidental death whatever the cause and setting results in up to 5 years' income of the deceased paid to the estate.

https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/financial-support/financial-support-after-death

[CarpeDiem 510]

25 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Paid by ACC (you and me in other words).  Accidental death whatever the cause and setting results in up to 5 years' income of the deceased paid to the estate.

https://www.acc.co.nz/im-injured/financial-support/financial-support-after-death

Yeah... this is actually quite awesome of the NZ system. 

When my son passed in a dirt bike accident, ACC provided a one off payment and 80% of his salary until my grand daughter, who was unborn at the time, turns 18.

It was a substantial relief to discover that this even existed. She's able to get on with just raising her new born, without the stress of also being the only income earner.

[Black Panther 1,692]

I really don't mind contributing my little bit towards that.

[aardvarkash10 1,065]

It is a little known thing about ACC.  IMO, they should talk more about it.  

[K4309 353]

2 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

It is a little known thing about ACC.  IMO, they should talk more about it.  

I never knew until you posted that.

And it is something I have given substantial thought to, pay moonbeams for life insurance, having two kids and an Auckland sized mortgage. In all my time investigating life insurance policies and benefits I never found out the cover from ACC for accidental death.

And it is something I feel genuinely very warming to know exists. Partner knows a lady (acquaintance) who's husband committed suicide, they either had two under 5's or an under 5 and she was pregnant - absolutely guttingly heartbreaking situation. The exact situation this ACC policy is for.

It just goes to show that we do get some things right in NZ. We can bitch and moan about all sorts of things, but some things are friggin spot on amazeballs.

[aardvarkash10 1,065]

Unfortch, suicide is not deemed accidental under the act, but I get your drift

[harrytom 679]

In this case should Acc pay or Lance's insurance pay compensation for families loss. 5 lives lost through no fault as it was a commercial operation.unlike say a sporting or vehicle accident. No doubt Lance's insurance will pay out for a new vessel as found not to be negligent.Still subject to MNZ possible appeal.

[aardvarkash10 1,065]

2 hours ago, harrytom said:

In this case should Acc pay or Lance's insurance pay compensation for families loss. 5 lives lost through no fault as it was a commercial operation.unlike say a sporting or vehicle accident. No doubt Lance's insurance will pay out for a new vessel as found not to be negligent.Still subject to MNZ possible appeal.

His commercial insurer won't pay as there is no legal ability to insure against compensation liability.

However, his business will very likely have increased ACC levies as a result of the very high claims cost following the event.

[K4309 353]

13 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Unfortch, suicide is not deemed accidental under the act, but I get your drift

There is some cover for 'self inflicted injuries', no?

I couldn't see any lump sum payments, but I got the impression there were weekly payments for dependents?

[aardvarkash10 1,065]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

There is some cover for 'self inflicted injuries', no?

I couldn't see any lump sum payments, but I got the impression there were weekly payments for dependents?

Limited, it's pretty technical and subject to case law. 

Not an area of the ACC operations manual I have had to familiarise myself with fortunately.