Enchanter Northland

[Guest 108]

I don’t think using the category of “bad luck” to remove the requirement of the justice system to prosecute is an equitable way forward. If attempted prosecution is the only process that will achieve the level of scrutiny required, then it should proceed, especially in the case a commercial operator is being paid to keep people safe.

*GFR in my experience consistently under forecasts. Anybody that uses it frequently will recognise this. Does this shift the passage  into unwise category?

* Was he where he thought he was? Obviously the relevance of the first point bears less weight if he was where he thought he was. It was reported that they could see the gap between Murimotu and NC before an after the capsize, before WP, but just after 10 degree AP adjustment.
Is it possible that a vessel of this type would roll negotiating a 10m wave abeam in 50m water with 12knt wind from same direction? How longs a piece of string?
*That the conditions just prior were relatively benign, 1-2m sloppy, 13knts with potential sneakers , double-ups , “rogue waves” is not tenable if you have strayed into shallow waters. 

*If AIS external tracking or satellite,  is not mandatory for commercial operators, it should be as it would eliminate one aspect of a vessel’s accountability.

* That there is there is a certain amount of schadenfreude exposed by the defense does not vindicate the defendant whose decisions defined the fate of five of his passengers.

* So, K , you think in this situation, S&R are the culpable ones?

 

 

 

 

 

[Psyche 684]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

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That is why they have withdrawn 5 charges already, 3 at the start of trial.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.

The court determines the outcome of the charges laid by MNZ, surely that is obvious!

MNZ coordinates search and rescue, it doesn't provide the vessels, manpower or planes. It is unrealistic to expect a rapid response in remote areas of NZ's vast coastline.  This is not the UK with lifeboat stations dotted around the coast and a massive population with the resources to fund hundreds of rescue helicopters.  The reality is that when you are out there on the ocean far from civilisation dont expect to be rescued in 5 minutes, if at all. That's why you need systems and procedures to mitigate loss of life by your own efforts.

 

[harrytom 666]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

which is why everyone with any skin in the game uses Predict Wind.

Have used Windy/Predict and not 100% acurate but more than metserv 

But as most know,the closer you get to land steeper the seas. He misjudged it.

[Guest 108]

2 hours ago, harrytom said:

Have used Windy/Predict and not 100% acurate but more than metserv 

But as most know,the closer you get to land steeper the seas. He misjudged it.

Sadly that is probably reality, and what happened. Rogue or no. The rest is noise.

To round using the 50m contour is way out and approach anchorage from S.

Enchanter.pdf

[K4309 320]

21 hours ago, Guest said:

 

* So, K , you think in this situation, S&R are the culpable ones?

 

What is the standard H&S charge, and what is the skipper currently being charged with?

"actions or inactions resulting in the death..."

There are individuals at Maritime NZ that are employed to do a job. There are some serious questions around whether they were grossly negligent in doing that job.

There are 17 rescue helos in the North Island and 33 in NZ. Yet only one was sent to a mass causality event, and no-one thought it would need fuel. It certainly appears there is a case of gross negligence here.

Why would someone employed by Maritime NZ not be subject to the same H&S regulations as everyone else?

Like I have already said, there is a strong perception MNZ need a scape goat and prosecution solely for PR purposes.

[K4309 320]

20 hours ago, Psyche said:

The court determines the outcome of the charges laid by MNZ, surely that is obvious!

 

That is not what you said though. 

What is it when you say one thing and mean something else?

 

20 hours ago, Psyche said:

MNZ coordinates search and rescue, it doesn't provide the vessels, manpower or planes. It is unrealistic to expect a rapid response in remote areas of NZ's vast coastline.  This is not the UK with lifeboat stations dotted around the coast and a massive population with the resources to fund hundreds of rescue helicopters.  The reality is that when you are out there on the ocean far from civilisation dont expect to be rescued in 5 minutes, if at all. That's why you need systems and procedures to mitigate loss of life by your own efforts.

 

You are correct in that we cannot blindly expect to get rescued. But I think the families of the victims, and the rest of us, can expect a reasonably competent national maritime organisation and all best endeavors for rescue.

There are 17 rescue helos in the North Island and 33 nationally. We are not short of appropriate rescue assests. Unlike your example of the UK with RNLI Lifeboat stations everywhere, for a country of 5million, we have an abundance of rescue helicopter assets.

So why is it that if you got an EPIRB signal from a charter fishing boat with capacity for 10 people, would you only send 1 rescue asset?

And, given almost 90% of shipping coming into NZ comes via North Cape, why would you not provision for fuel anywhere north of Auckland?

A basic scenario session would have addressed all of this.

By contrast, a private cat ran aground at the Mokes, they had 3 recue helo's, a warship, police launch, container ship and a couple of coastgaurd arms dispatched. That boat had 5 onboard. 3 helos, yet a charter boat with 10 pax got one helo. Why?

Does that not warrant the facts to be established by a court, as per the same argument the facts of the skipper are being established by a court.

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

That boat had 5 onboard. 3 helos, yet a charter boat with 10 pax got one helo. Why?

Uninformed response here, but in all likelihood the difference in response is the result of: the locations; access to crew and appropriate equipment; risk assessment; time of day.

The cost of operating a rescue helicopter service is significant.  Crew alone (pilot, medic and winchman) would run around $3k a day if you assume 24 hour cover with provision for training and credentialing.

This from a Stuff article in 2015

"The trust operates rescue helicopters out of Christchurch and Greymouth, costing more than $10 million annually, with $4m of that covered by operational payments and $6m by sponsorship, grants and community donations.

An average one hour trip costs the trust $11,500."

The balance then is cost benefit.  Everyone wants goldplated service, no one is keen on paying for it.

We COULD have rescue helicopters located so they can service the entire country to 50km offshore at a 30 minute response time, with overlap between them to provide for larger rescues.

Feel free to calculate the cost.

 

 

[harrytom 666]

9 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Uninformed response here, but in all likelihood the difference in response is the result of: the locations; access to crew and appropriate equipment; risk assessment; time of day.

The cost of operating a rescue helicopter service is significant.  Crew alone (pilot, medic and winchman) would run around $3k a day if you assume 24 hour cover with provision for training and credentialing.

This from a Stuff article in 2015

"The trust operates rescue helicopters out of Christchurch and Greymouth, costing more than $10 million annually, with $4m of that covered by operational payments and $6m by sponsorship, grants and community donations.

An average one hour trip costs the trust $11,500."

The balance then is cost benefit.  Everyone wants goldplated service, no one is keen on paying for it.

We COULD have rescue helicopters located so they can service the entire country to 50km offshore at a 30 minute response time, with overlap between them to provide for larger rescues.

Feel free to calculate the cost.

 

 

Try 3k per hour ,+

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

2 minutes ago, harrytom said:

Try 3k per hour ,+

For crew?  That implies all rescue helicopter crew are millionaires

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

On the upside...

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/517050/63-point-6m-for-surf-life-saving-and-coastguard-in-budget-2024

[Psyche 684]

2 hours ago, K4309 said:

That is not what you said though. 

What is it when you say one thing and mean something else?

 

You are correct in that we cannot blindly expect to get rescued. But I think the families of the victims, and the rest of us, can expect a reasonably competent national maritime organisation and all best endeavors for rescue.

There are 17 rescue helos in the North Island and 33 nationally. We are not short of appropriate rescue assests. Unlike your example of the UK with RNLI Lifeboat stations everywhere, for a country of 5million, we have an abundance of rescue helicopter assets.

So why is it that if you got an EPIRB signal from a charter fishing boat with capacity for 10 people, would you only send 1 rescue asset?

And, given almost 90% of shipping coming into NZ comes via North Cape, why would you not provision for fuel anywhere north of Auckland?

A basic scenario session would have addressed all of this.

By contrast, a private cat ran aground at the Mokes, they had 3 recue helo's, a warship, police launch, container ship and a couple of coastgaurd arms dispatched. That boat had 5 onboard. 3 helos, yet a charter boat with 10 pax got one helo. Why?

Does that not warrant the facts to be established by a court, as per the same argument the facts of the skipper are being established by a court.

If you want to complain about NZ's rescue services start a new thread but from what I read and hear on the news most people are extremely grateful to be rescued, but the Enchanter is the issue here. The big question which is before the court is about the competence of the skipper, whether a similarly experienced skipper in the same circumstances would have taken the same risks.  Expert evidence points to the Enchanter venturing into shallow water where a very large wave (but not out of the normal range of expected height), rolled them. 

People can make inexplicable mistakes;

Quote

A preliminary inquiry found that Jamison was operating outside the limits of the Marlborough Harbour Board pilot area, but in an area he knew extremely well. For some unknown reason he had tried to take the Mikhail Lermontov through a narrow passage where the water was too shallow for the size of the ship. Jamison’s only explanation was that he was suffering from mental and physical exhaustion after working 80 hours a week for the previous four months.

 

[Steve Pope 251]

3 hours ago, Psyche said:

If you want to complain about NZ's rescue services start a new thread but from what I read and hear on the news most people are extremely grateful to be rescued, but the Enchanter is the issue here. The big question which is before the court is about the competence of the skipper, whether a similarly experienced skipper in the same circumstances would have taken the same risks.  Expert evidence points to the Enchanter venturing into shallow water where a very large wave (but not out of the normal range of expected height), rolled them. 

People can make inexplicable mistakes;

 

If you are heading towards a sheltered bay in water calm enough for your charterers to fish off the back and cooking happening in the galley, as apparently you have done many times before without any issues, how can you not end up in shallowing water? Why would you even consider a "Rogue wave" coming out of nowhere. As I've earlier said 100 metres and or 60 seconds difference we most likely wouldn't be discussing it here, as it wouldn't have happened.

[Guest 108]

If you believe their story they were not ready to do their turn to sheltered waters. (Being able to see gap between M & NC.) I think they were banging steep shelf that reduces fast to 10m (North) and a treble -up snuck up on them beam on before they Wested. Like you say 100m could have made all the difference. As for 10° to make waypoint???

Probably get a slap with a wet fish, and rightly so, if nobody can prove his nav was off. Arrogant AH or not.

[K4309 320]

6 hours ago, Psyche said:

If you want to complain about NZ's rescue services start a new thread but from what I read and hear on the news most people are extremely grateful to be rescued, but the Enchanter is the issue here. The big question which is before the court is about the competence of the skipper, whether a similarly experienced skipper in the same circumstances would have taken the same risks.  Expert evidence points to the Enchanter venturing into shallow water where a very large wave (but not out of the normal range of expected height), rolled them. 

People can make inexplicable mistakes;

 

You are missing the point. I am not complaining about our rescue services, as in the Trusts and Charities that deliver the rescue services.

I'm questioning the organisation of it. There are clearly no shortage of rescue helo's. So why was only one dispatched?

If these things cost such an extraordinary amount per hour, what is the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while people scratch around finding some gas? In this case it was 4 lives.

But jokes aside, what would it cost to keep avgas depoted anywhere in Tai Tokerau?

You yourself have said that Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, they just coordinate them. Can you not see the blatant issue with coordinating them in this example? That inability to coordinate cost 4 lives.

Does that not warrant some sort of enquiry? 

I am assuming once the court cases are settled a coroner will look at this. That could be a white wash, or it could be the platform needed to get to the bottom of how much of a clusterfuck the emergency response was.

PS, I didn't realise the Lermentov got hit by a rogue wave, I thought it ran aground? (I've missed your point on that, is it about fatigue and poor decisions?)

[K4309 320]

7 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Uninformed response here, but in all likelihood the difference in response is the result of: the locations; access to crew and appropriate equipment; risk assessment; time of day.

The cost of operating a rescue helicopter service is significant.  Crew alone (pilot, medic and winchman) would run around $3k a day if you assume 24 hour cover with provision for training and credentialing.

This from a Stuff article in 2015

"The trust operates rescue helicopters out of Christchurch and Greymouth, costing more than $10 million annually, with $4m of that covered by operational payments and $6m by sponsorship, grants and community donations.

An average one hour trip costs the trust $11,500."

The balance then is cost benefit.  Everyone wants goldplated service, no one is keen on paying for it.

We COULD have rescue helicopters located so they can service the entire country to 50km offshore at a 30 minute response time, with overlap between them to provide for larger rescues.

Feel free to calculate the cost.

 

 

I'm not following your response as an explanation for the shortcommings of the Enchanter rescue.

If these rescue helos are so expensive to operate, what was the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while they scratched around for fuel?

Are you saying the 4 guys that died waiting for rescue was due to budget constraints?

The point I'm tyring to make is Maritime NZ are responsible for coordinating rescue assets. In this case it was a clusterfuck. Others have already said Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, that falls to Trusts and Charities. It is the coordination that was at fault here. And given almost all our maritime traffic comes via North Cape, I would have expected a govt organisation with Maritime in the name would have been able to plan for or run scenario's of incidence and rescues in that area.

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

I'm not following your response as an explanation for the shortcomings of the Enchanter rescue.

If these rescue helos are so expensive to operate, what was the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while they scratched around for fuel?

Are you saying the 4 guys that died waiting for rescue was due to budget constraints?

The point I'm tyring to make is Maritime NZ are responsible for coordinating rescue assets. In this case it was a clusterfuck. Others have already said Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, that falls to Trusts and Charities. It is the coordination that was at fault here. And given almost all our maritime traffic comes via North Cape, I would have expected a govt organisation with Maritime in the name would have been able to plan for or run scenario's of incidence and rescues in that area.

They can co-ordinate all they like, if the operator doesn't have the capacity to respond, no response will happen.

It's the operator who makes all the logistics arrangements.  MNZ basically asks if they can do it.  If the operator deem they can't, that's it.

It may well be that they have run the scenarios.  It could well be that within the funding and operational limits that are ultimately set by budgets, they decided that an Encounter-type event was not a high probability.

In short yes it is a fact that people die in New Zealand because we decide we cannot afford the cost to assure they live.  This happens hourly in hospitals across the country.  It happens daily on our roads. 

Again, you are proposing a centrally coordinated agency with essentially unlimited funding and an open brief.  Large scale, multiple small vessel situation?  Respond. Large scale single large vessel situation?  Respond.  Multiple vessel wide scale event? Respond.

Where do you want to stop spending? 

Assuming that MNZ could legally co-opt the resources it deemed necessary, what happens to everyone else when those assets are diverted to a large maritime rescue?  How many medical or land incident responses should be sacrificed?  Should they ALL be assured 100% service?

How's your tax bill?

This isn't an intellectual exercise, or an argument against provision of a comprehensive rescue service.  It's a confrontation of real world practicality against a proposal for world leading all encompassing service.

Bear in mind, only a year ago when surf lifesaving teams rescued people from sewerage-contaminated water in Auckland, our civil defence system decided they could not and would not reimburse these volunteers for cleaning or replacement of there contaminated wetsuits...

[Steve Pope 251]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

I'm not following your response as an explanation for the shortcommings of the Enchanter rescue.

If these rescue helos are so expensive to operate, what was the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while they scratched around for fuel?

Are you saying the 4 guys that died waiting for rescue was due to budget constraints?

The point I'm tyring to make is Maritime NZ are responsible for coordinating rescue assets. In this case it was a clusterfuck. Others have already said Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, that falls to Trusts and Charities. It is the coordination that was at fault here. And given almost all our maritime traffic comes via North Cape, I would have expected a govt organisation with Maritime in the name would have been able to plan for or run scenario's of incidence and rescues in that area.

K, I follow your line of questions, they are very relevant. and your concern re the helo f---up. The helo crew were doing their very  best against the odds, with head office not really even in the picture. None of the f---up was the fault of the helo crew.. the lack of fuel should never have happened and hopefully (fingers crossed) won't happen again, but it took this event to tell head office  what they should have already known or at least considered.Their are many instances where head office just isn't there, (though they think they are)  but in "their" heads "they know" best!. (cyclone Gabrielle the most recent one) they had all gone home! No planning for the unexpected, boring job, yes, but when the sh*t hits the fan nobody home! That is what they are employed to do, understand and be ready for. their is a serious lack of respect for local knowledge, Wellington knowing best has cost lives. Don't even think of chch and the quake, almost 70 years after the Napier quake. Nobody working in EQC was still alive when it happened and apart from small local events, there was a clean sheet, nothing to see here. 

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

2 minutes ago, Steve Pope said:

K, I follow your line of questions, they are very relevant. and your concern re the helo f---up. The helo crew were doing their very  best against the odds, with head office not really even in the picture. None of the f---up was the fault of the helo crew.. the lack of fuel should never have happened and hopefully (fingers crossed) won't happen again, but it took this event to tell head office  what they should have already known or at least considered.Their are many instances where head office just isn't there, (though they think they are)  but in "their" heads "they know" best!. (cyclone Gabrielle the most recent one) they had all gone home! No planning for the unexpected, boring job, yes, but when the sh*t hits the fan nobody home!

Expect it to get worse, not better.  By definition, the planning roles you describe are not front line.

To keep with our apolitical approach, I'll allow you to join the dots.

[K4309 320]

14 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

They can co-ordinate all they like, if the operator doesn't have the capacity to respond, no response will happen.

It's the operator who makes all the logistics arrangements.  MNZ basically asks if they can do it.  If the operator deem they can't, that's it.

It may well be that they have run the scenarios.  It could well be that within the funding and operational limits that are ultimately set by budgets, they decided that an Encounter-type event was not a high probability.

In short yes it is a fact that people die in New Zealand because we decide we cannot afford the cost to assure they live.  This happens hourly in hospitals across the country.  It happens daily on our roads. 

Again, you are proposing a centrally coordinated agency with essentially unlimited funding and an open brief.  Large scale, multiple small vessel situation?  Respond. Large scale single large vessel situation?  Respond.  Multiple vessel wide scale event? Respond.

Where do you want to stop spending? 

Assuming that MNZ could legally co-opt the resources it deemed necessary, what happens to everyone else when those assets are diverted to a large maritime rescue?  How many medical or land incident responses should be sacrificed?  Should they ALL be assured 100% service?

How's your tax bill?

This isn't an intellectual exercise, or an argument against provision of a comprehensive rescue service.  It's a confrontation of real world practicality against a proposal for world leading all encompassing service.

Bear in mind, only a year ago when surf lifesaving teams rescued people from sewerage-contaminated water in Auckland, our civil defence system decided they could not and would not reimburse these volunteers for cleaning or replacement of there contaminated wetsuits...

You are asserting a lot of things I haven't said.

Not even close to haven't said.

All the assets already exist. 17 rescue helos in the north island, only one dispatched. Why?

Question. Given the circumstances and outcomes of the rescue, do you think an inquiry is warranted? Or should we just carry on Business as Usual?

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

You are asserting a lot of things I haven't said.

Not even close to haven't said.

All the assets already exist. 17 rescue helos in the north island, only one dispatched. Why?

Question. Given the circumstances and outcomes of the rescue, do you think an inquiry is warranted? Or should we just carry on Business as Usual?

I think we should always debrief incidents to understand what happened and why, and to identify opportunities for improvement.

Part of that should be identifying what resources exist and why they were chosen or not chosen for deployment.

To me, one of the issues is that ALL rescue and response bodies are not fully govt funded.  They are therefore independent and make their own decisions on how and when they deploy.

The coastguard, Westpac rescue, nest, st John's, surf lifesaving, even FENZ, are all in the same situation.  They all rely on volunteers and donations to perform their services.

If we want a full professional emergency response, we seem unwilling to pay for it.

It's a timely discussion since it is reflected in the report this week about the emergency response to last year's cyclone.  That identified a huge number of failings including failure to resource staff, training, equipment, and a subsequent lack both strategic and tactical knowledge and planning.