Enchanter Northland

[Cameron 90]

3 minutes ago, Black Panther said:

Let a few people drown. Preparedness and skill levels will improve and fewer  people will drown. (only slightly tongue in cheek)

Darwinism at its finest!

[Psyche 684]

 

15 hours ago, K4309 said:

Now, we have a situation where 4 men died awaiting rescue. There are known issues with the conduct of the rescue.

Dying while awaiting rescue is very common, especially in remote locations. Reading the report the rescue services did an outstanding job in adverse circumstances at a remote location. It sounds like you are simply trying to blame the rescuers, defend the skipper and smear MNZ. 

[Guest 108]

It seems  K that you are putting the right to be rescued above the moral obligation of a skipper to keep his crew and passengers safe. 

Calling us prejudiced against the skipper is like us saying what connection do you have with the skipper?

Its just what one believes is more probable, that your undocumented eddies, wind and chop overrule the current/drift modeling which is corroborated (once activated) by actuals with timestamps.

Repeating it over and over with innuendo doesn't make it any more valid. (Whatever stance)

 

 

[CarpeDiem 492]

1 hour ago, Psyche said:

Dying while awaiting rescue is very common, especially in remote locations. Reading the report the rescue services did an outstanding job in adverse circumstances at a remote location. It sounds like you are simply trying to blame the rescuers, defend the skipper and smear MNZ. 

I think there is a bit of fact missing going on and a few assumptions being made, particularly that there was only one helicopter.

Helicopter A was tasked at 2035, they were the most operationally ready helicopter in the area, they advised RCC they would be airborne in 30 minutes, but they took 2 hours to convert the aircraft into SAR mode and source qualified crew.

Helicopter B was tasked at 2200 out of Auckland at the request of Helicopter A because they were taking longer than predicted to get ready.

It's important to remember that at this point in the operation, this was a routine "go check on an EPIRB" operation - RCC had no idea what was about to unfold.

1. Helicopter A was first on the scene at 2340 and picked up 3 people from the fly bridge

2. Those 3 people told the helicopter crew where they had seen 2 other people

3. Helicopter A returned immediately and picked up those 2 people from the inverted hull

4. Helicopter B arrived on the scene 20minutes after Helicopter A departed, and searched for ~1.5Hrs no more survivors were found

5. A P3 arrived overhead about when Helicopter B arrived and searched electronically for signs of life (heat sources) directing helicopter B to items of interest

6. The helicopters were then grounded due to fuel constraints for ~4.5hrs

7. The P3 continued to search and directed maritime assets to items of interest which arrived within the 4.5Hr period  that helicopters were grounded

There's nothing I can find in the report that proves either way that survivors were still alive after helicopter A or helicopter B departed the scene and became grounded.

The survivors reported, at the time of the event that: 

• two passengers were on the inverted hull (2)
• the skipper, first mate and one passenger were on the inverted flybridge (3)
• three passengers were last seen alive in the water, one with a lifebuoy (3)
• one passenger was assumed deceased and in the water (1)
• one passenger was unaccounted for. (1)

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, my opinion is that it's more likely than not that the 5 who tragically did not survive, perished in the 3 hours before the first helicopter even arrived and that it was not the lack of fuel that contributed to their death.

It's also my opinion that had the passengers all had life jackets on, and, if they all had PLB's the outcome could have been very different.  I have a high degree of confidence that if 5 - or even 10 PLBs were going off a sh*t load more helicopters would of been activated.

The inquiry just reinforces to me that the demand I place on my crew to have a PLB and always wear a life jacket on overnight races, even while sleeping, is justified.  I am pleased I have read up on this inquiry, if it wasn't for this thread I would not have.  As a number of our PLB's come up for battery replacement ($$$) I have been thinking about relaxing said policy - I now won't be.

When the holes in the Swiss cheese line up, people fall through and die.

[K4309 320]

2 hours ago, Psyche said:

 

Dying while awaiting rescue is very common, especially in remote locations. Reading the report the rescue services did an outstanding job in adverse circumstances at a remote location. It sounds like you are simply trying to blame the rescuers, defend the skipper and smear MNZ. 

Have you actually read the TAIC report? Just wanting to know if we are on the same page with the facts before we debate opinions.

Delays so long in getting helo A ready they have to ask someone else to do the rescue.

5 hours without operating helos, just because.

Those 4 guys were well within range of rescue. MRCC would have known 10 were onboard after phoning the EPIRB contacts, but only sent one helo...

Noting the second helo was tasked cause the first helo was having a clusterfuck, the third helo was tasked the following day. MRCC only tasked one helo in the first instance to an EPIRB knowing their were 10 people onboard...

[K4309 320]

1 hour ago, Guest said:

It seems  K that you are putting the right to be rescued above the moral obligation of a skipper to keep his crew and passengers safe. 

Calling us prejudiced against the skipper is like us saying what connection do you have with the skipper?

Its just what one believes is more probable, that your undocumented eddies, wind and chop overrule the current/drift modeling which is corroborated (once activated) by actuals with timestamps.

Repeating it over and over with innuendo doesn't make it any more valid. (Whatever stance)

 

 

Solely blaming the skipper is like saying accidents should never happen. It is incredibly overly simplistic.

If accidents aren't allowed to happen, why do we go to such great lengths to prepare boats for Cat 1? Offshore first aid kits and liferafts?

Avoiding fatallities is about preparedness. My position is, post the capsize, preparedness was lacking at multiple levels. This is highlighted with major shortcommings in the rescue, but also a couple of basic facts no-one has gotten into yet.

The liferaft didn't self activate like it was supposed to. The EPIRB didn't self activate like it was supposed to.

This focus on saying the Skipper shouldn't have capsized his boat is missing many, many opportunities for learning and improvement.

As for undocumented eddies, have you never been to a surf beach? been spearfishing around a reef or headland? The 'documented drift' is after the EPIRB was turned on. I can't see how anyone can use that to extrapolate where it was prior to being turned on, noting there is a 90deg sudden change in direction in the documented drift. What caused that? Aliens?

[K4309 320]

1 hour ago, CarpeDiem said:

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one, my opinion is that it's more likely than not that the 5 who tragically did not survive, perished in the 3 hours before the first helicopter even arrived and that it was not the lack of fuel that contributed to their death.

It's also my opinion that had the passengers all had life jackets on, and, if they all had PLB's the outcome could have been very different.  I have a high degree of confidence that if 5 - or even 10 PLBs were going off a sh*t load more helicopters would of been activated.

The inquiry just reinforces to me that the demand I place on my crew to have a PLB and always wear a life jacket on overnight races, even while sleeping, is justified.  I am pleased I have read up on this inquiry, if it wasn't for this thread I would not have.  As a number of our PLB's come up for battery replacement ($$$) I have been thinking about relaxing said policy - I now won't be.

When the holes in the Swiss cheese line up, people fall through and die.

This is a good and constructive post, thank you CD.

My understanding was that it was confirmed 4 were alive when the helo was full with rescued people, but I do acknowledge I need to go back and confirm that.

You points about PLB's are highly relevant.

However, I suspect that if everyone were wearing LJ's they all would have drowned due to being trapped in the initial role over (or at least a high number).

If all were wearing PLB's then the rescue outcomes would have been entirely different. I understand via FB that now punters on the charters do wear PLB's -  I don't know if it is all, but from FB photos many of the fisho's are visibly wearing PLB's.

One of the reasons I'm going about this so much is I feel some of the recommendations TAIC report are a nonsense. Storing LJ's in a more accessible cupboard would have made zero difference to outcomes here, but is a recommendation. No recommendation on everone wearing PLB's - which is one of the easiest things to do and would have dramatically improved chance of rescue...

[harrytom 666]

18 hours ago, K4309 said:

The context is that 4 guys died

Why do you constanly say 4 died when it was 5?

Now who hasnt read the report?

[K4309 320]

1 minute ago, harrytom said:

Why do you constanly say 4 died when it was 5?

Now who hasnt read the report?

Now now, who didn't read what I wrote?

If you had read what I wrote, you would see I was referring to the 4 guys that died waiting to be rescued. One was believed / confirmed dead caught in the hull at the time of the role over.

Any chance you want to discuss this constructively, or are you just keen on taking potshots now?

[aardvarkash10 1,034]

18 hours ago, Guest said:

Explain that to me, Not-guilty owing to insanity? Otherwise totally agree. I've banged a few corners,

figuratively. In hind sight it was all three and unnecessary.

Legally there are levels of culpability.  Let's put it in an everyday setting.

I stop at a stop sign, check for cross traffic, don't see any, and so I pull out into the main road.

A motorcycle hits me on the right side as I pull out.

I have deliberately acted, pulling out from the stop sign and prima facie causing an accident (failure to make sure the way is clear, failure to give way to the right).

Was I careless?  Only if it can be shown that I should reasonably have seen and so given way to the motorcycle.  If, for instance, it turns out that motorcycle was travelling at 150kph in a 50kph zone and it is clear I stopped and checked, it's unlikely I will be found guilty.

Was I reckless?  Only if it can be shown that I was acting without any regard for others and the law.  If I had deliberately driven through the stop sign at speed while fiddling with my phone, it's likely I will be found guilty of reckless conduct.  In the current parlance, no fcuks are given.

[Guest 108]

Don't see how that is an applicable analogy seeing as the stop sign was in the skippers head (or not) and any incoming  has to be assumed at 100% probable to be safe. But I get your drift.

Forgoing the WP and dragging lures over a drop off could conceivably result in some last minute fun and disincentivize stop signs. TIC.

 

[harrytom 666]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

Now now, who didn't read what I wrote?

If you had read what I wrote, you would see I was referring to the 4 guys that died waiting to be rescued. One was believed / confirmed dead caught in the hull at the time of the role over.

Any chance you want to discuss this constructively, or are you just keen on taking potshots now?

No as you defending the skipper all the way through. And I will say skipper was neglect on all accounts,remember dead men tell no lies. At first skipper hung to dry by no first aid cert but seems more to the case now.

I will wait for the court verdict before any more discussion. Transmission over.

[K4309 320]

1 hour ago, harrytom said:

No as you defending the skipper all the way through. And I will say skipper was neglect on all accounts,remember dead men tell no lies. At first skipper hung to dry by no first aid cert but seems more to the case now.

I will wait for the court verdict before any more discussion. Transmission over.

C'mon, what else is there to the case? I'm keen to know.

Do you mean the other fishing vessel that was called as a key witness that said it was too rough to leave the anchorage, but was found under cross examination to have been fishing all day? In contravention of their own SoP's if the wind was as high as they said, that one?

Or the Predict Wind forecast that said 20knts easing, or the observed 10 to 12knts at the time of capsize?

What more is there to the case?

[CarpeDiem 492]

4 hours ago, K4309 said:

However, I suspect that if everyone were wearing LJ's they all would have drowned due to being trapped in the initial role over (or at least a high number).

I disagree with your opinion

My opinion is that seasoned fisherpeople, going on the trip of a lifetime to the Three Kings, would be smart enough to know not to inflate their LJ's until they are outside.

[CarpeDiem 492]

5 hours ago, K4309 said:

I can't see how anyone can use that to extrapolate where it was prior to being turned on, noting there is a 90deg sudden change in direction in the documented drift. What caused that? Aliens?

Is this an expert opinion?  Or one of those everyone-has-one opinions?

If the former, then I strongly suggest you get in touch with the defense team, as they have produced no expert witness to discredit the tide modelling, and no other people that have local knowledge of the area have come forward to discuss phantom eddies.

I also don't know how it was done, but that doesn't mean it wasn't and it certainly doesn't mean that I am qualified to discredit the people/teams/companies that did.

[K4309 320]

55 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

I disagree with your opinion

My opinion is that seasoned fisherpeople, going on the trip of a lifetime to the Three Kings, would be smart enough to know not to inflate their LJ's until they are outside.

I was assuming the fully spec'ed auto inflating with 250n of bouyance, auto-deploying sprayhood, light and double crutch straps, as per the ones I have on my boat. It didn't occur to me that the fisho's would be using the old manual variety. 

But yes, there is a wide range of opinions on LJ's, especially around risk of entrapment in upside down boats. If I were in the sea, I'd want my fully pimped LJ on, if I was inside an upside down boat with it on, well, perhaps I'd be reaching for the inbuilt strap cutter

[K4309 320]

51 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

Is this an expert opinion?  Or one of those everyone-has-one opinions?

If the former, then I strongly suggest you get in touch with the defense team, as they have produced no expert witness to discredit the tide modelling, and no other people that have local knowledge of the area have come forward to discuss phantom eddies.

I also don't know how it was done, but that doesn't mean it wasn't and it certainly doesn't mean that I am qualified to discredit the people/teams/companies that did.

How do you define an expert?

I can be an expert in anything if you want to pay me enough. That's how it works isn't it?

I do have reasonable knowledge of modelling and I know that sh*t out of a computer / model is only as good as the sh*t in.

I have enough knowledge of surf beaches to know rips / strong outgoing currents can be just meters away from incoming waves / strong incoming forces.

Whilst sailing I have seen tide lines with measurable currents going in random directions, normally 90 deg to the current I was in. Whilst spearfishing / snorkelling around reefs and headlands I have seen currents going all over the place in relation to the tidal set.

Up our river we know there is a strong back eddy that gets going a wee while (an hour or two) before the change of the tide.

So I don't believe anyone can model with any accuracy the tides and currents that close to those rocks with any accuracy. You may be able to use something like a (forget the name, tide modelling outfit based in the UK that now supports predict wind - Tide Tech?), but I'm fairly sure the highest resolution those go to is 1km. You need something with maybe 10m resolution to be accurate for what they are trying to extrapolate from. Maybe they have, I haven't seen that detail reported from the trial. Would be interested if anyone knows how to get more detail from the trial than what is in MSM?

What we do know is:

1) it was some time before the EPIRB was activated post rogue wave, I understand about 40 min, but even the facts around how long are uncertain

2) there are strong tides and currents there, cause debris went everywhere and the rescue helo's couldn't find survivors or the boat itself the next day

3) the EPIRB track, of which we are certain, had a random 90 deg change in direction, supporting my assertion that the tides and currents are changeable and difficult to predict.

Now, the main issue is reliance. Prosecution are relying on this as the sole evidence to say he wasn't where he said / thought he was. That is fine, but what is the legal test for conviction*? Reasonable doubt? I posit that there is clearly reasonable doubt on the EPIRB track prior to activation.

*I'm not sure if this H&S charge is a criminal charge requiring 'beyond reasonable doubt', or is it some civil thing with 'the balance of probabilities'. Be great if someone can clarify that. I suspect that legal test will be pivotal to a conviction or not.

[K4309 320]

2 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

@K4309 I have begun to draw the conclusion that you have not actually read the report.

You'll be pleased to know it wasn't Aliens.

 The report further clarifies how the commission determined the location of the capsize:

I am no expert, but from my simple calculations - for the flybridge to have drifted from the location the skipper claims the capsize occurred to the point where the EPIRB was activated and attached to the Fly Bridge, would of required a phantom WSW eddy of ~6-8 knots that was able to counter the Northerly tidal stream.  It's therefore unsurprising, (at least it is to me), why no expert witness has come forward to discuss the possibility of an eddy.

"About as likely as not"

As in 50:50.

Yes, I have read the report. Most of it when it first came out and parts of it in the last few days.

[CarpeDiem 492]

2 minutes ago, K4309 said:

3) the EPIRB track, of which we are certain, had a random 90 deg change in direction, supporting my assertion that the tides and currents are changeable and difficult to predict.

 I have begun to draw the conclusion that you have not actually read the report.

You'll be pleased to know it wasn't Aliens.

Quote

The RCC drift modelling is consistent with the observed track of the EPIRB once it had been activated, which was initially northward and then turned east.

 So, RCC were using a model at the time of the incident that said this is exactly what would happen - low and behold it is exactly what happened.

The report further clarifies how the commission determined the location of the capsize:

Quote

When considering all the factors that could affect the drift of the flybridge, the Commission concluded it was about as likely as not that its rate and direction of drift after the EPIRB had been activated was similar to the 30 minutes prior to the EPIRB being activated (noting the EPIRB was attached to the flybridge). Therefore, it is about as likely as not that the location of the capsize would have been within an area about 0.07 nautical miles (about 130 metres) south of the first encoded position

Both the first GNSS position transmitted by the EPIRB and this calculated area of capsize were within the 10 metre depth contour.

I am no expert, but from my simple calculations - for the flybridge to have drifted from the location the skipper claims the capsize occurred to the point where the EPIRB was activated and attached to the Fly Bridge, would of required a phantom WSW eddy of ~6-8 knots that was able to counter the Northerly tidal stream.

It's therefore unsurprising, (at least it is to me), why no expert witness has come forward to discuss the possibility of an eddy.

[CarpeDiem 492]

 

14 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Yes, I have read the report. Most of it when it first came out and parts of it in the last few days.

You must have missed the bit where the EPIRB track lined up with the drift modeling - proving that the Easterly turn wasn't Aliens but was actually the expected/modelled tidal drift.

I think you have a better chance of convincing people that it was Aliens which moved the EPIRB, the Flybridge and all the debris from 1mile north east of the EPIRB activation point into the Northern tidal stream at the 10m contour.

Cause you'll never convince anyone who knows anything about the tide, that a 1Nm wide eddy was moving at 6knots in a WSW direction.