Rats 26 Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 We sought shelter in Orokawa Bay in BOI for those couple of days, gave good shelter and flat water but it was blowing dogs off chains there, I could not contemplate going out for a fishing trip it was not pretty. Another thing, I wonder if these guys where reporting "apparent wind" at the time of the incident, they were running under power with the breeze and the survivors reporting the breeze had dropped to around 10 knots which would make sense if you're travelling 15-20 knots in those conditions. Turn that vessel into the breeze and its a completely different story as many of us know. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Psyche 451 Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 People who aren't seamen may not recognise the situation for what it is, ignorance is bliss. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ex Elly 146 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Charges laid over Enchanter fishing tragedy which claimed five lives Charges have been laid against an individual and a company linked to the sinking of the fishing charter boat Enchanter a year ago. In a statement, Maritime NZ director Kirstie Hewlett told RNZ both the company and the individual faced one charge each of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. The company also faced a charge of breaching the Maritime Transport Act. The charges were laid last week. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/485892/charges-laid-over-enchanter-fishing-tragedy-which-claimed-five-lives Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 558 Posted March 13 Author Share Posted March 13 2 hours ago, ex Elly said: Charges laid over Enchanter fishing tragedy which claimed five lives Charges have been laid against an individual and a company linked to the sinking of the fishing charter boat Enchanter a year ago. In a statement, Maritime NZ director Kirstie Hewlett told RNZ both the company and the individual faced one charge each of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act. The company also faced a charge of breaching the Maritime Transport Act. The charges were laid last week. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/485892/charges-laid-over-enchanter-fishing-tragedy-which-claimed-five-lives The skipper has a new vessel and carrying on with 3 king charters. Thought MNZ would of cancelled his ticket pending investigation. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Far North Boy 3 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 23 minutes ago, harrytom said: The skipper has a new vessel and carrying on with 3 king charters. Thought MNZ would of cancelled his ticket pending investigation. So, you or want punishment to pre-empt a court case. This is a typical MNZ beat up. My company were responsible for the last maintenance on Enchanter and we weren’t even contacted in the enquiry. Keep your amateurish opinions to yourself. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Psyche 451 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Thats good news for you, but I don't think vessel maintenance is a factor. From what I have heard the boats were/are well looked after. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Far North Boy 3 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Psyche said: Thats good news for you, but I don't think vessel maintenance is a factor. From what I have heard the boats were/are well looked after. But not good news for the investigative process used by MNZ. The original lead investigator was removed from the investigation and gagged. He was replaced by a woman with no professional sea going experience and only 6 months at MNZ under her belt. MNZ is basically staffed by failed police officers now, no ex seamen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 558 Posted March 13 Author Share Posted March 13 13 hours ago, Far North Boy said: So, you or want punishment to pre-empt a court case. This is a typical MNZ beat up. My company were responsible for the last maintenance on Enchanter and we weren’t even contacted in the enquiry. Keep your amateurish opinions to yourself. The vessel is not in question but more of the skippers responsibilty 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 558 Posted March 13 Author Share Posted March 13 Will add. Commercial vessels stayed in port or at the king's.but Lance appears to of adopted a Cavalier attitude and went for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Steve Pope 205 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 11 minutes ago, harrytom said: Will add. Commercial vessels stayed in port or at the king's.but Lance appears to of adopted a Cavalier attitude and went for it. As per usual we all have an opinion, MNZ are doing what they have become well known for. Using MNZ laws, or if they cannot find anything in those to hang their hat on they shift to the broad brush of Health and safety legislation. They are using "public" money, whereas the defendant (or ents) have to delve into savings / borrowings for defence. In some cases defendants have pleaded guilty purely to save themselves from going broke. White island for example. Lets see how this pans out before making judgements. 1 or 2minutes or 1 or 200 hundred metres difference and this may well have been a non event. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waikiore 298 Posted March 13 Share Posted March 13 Tis indeed a shame that MNZ has approached this in this manner , with the facts as laid out so far and not in dispute the public would have a reasonable expectation of a robust prosecution, with his ticket on hold until the case is heard . He has other skippers to keep the business running. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Far North Boy 3 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 4 hours ago, harrytom said: Will add. Commercial vessels stayed in port or at the king's.but Lance appears to of adopted a Cavalier attitude and went for it. Did you see the documentary with actual eye witnesses including a highly experienced crew member? Sea conditions were nothing like extreme. The loudmouth commercial fisherman who decried Lance’s decisions is in direct competition with a charter boat he owns. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Far North Boy 3 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 5 hours ago, harrytom said: The vessel is not in question but more of the skippers responsibilty The investigators stated they included maintenance in their scope of enquiry and in fact removed the engines (the very same engines one of my guys worked on immediately prior to departure) for inspection. A failed engine could have indeed contributed to the accident. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
aardvarkash10 814 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 5 hours ago, Steve Pope said: As per usual we all have an opinion, MNZ are doing what they have become well known for. Using MNZ laws, or if they cannot find anything in those to hang their hat on they shift to the broad brush of Health and safety legislation. They are using "public" money, whereas the defendant (or ents) have to delve into savings / borrowings for defence. In some cases defendants have pleaded guilty purely to save themselves from going broke. White island for example. Lets see how this pans out before making judgements. 1 or 2minutes or 1 or 200 hundred metres difference and this may well have been a non event. As I understand it, the two different organisations are conducting two different investigations. That's appropriate. I'm guessing, but I suspect that the Worksafe prosecution will be related to the responsiblity to mitigate risks. Its the most common business failing in health and safety. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976895.html The failure to manage the risks leads to the prosecution against the business entity and the individual.. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0070/latest/DLM5976918.html Whether the failings occured or not are questions of fact for the court, not for Worksafe. 2 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.