Jump to content

Enchanter Northland

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, K4309 said:

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.

Beyond reasonable doubt.

Which is why the issue of relative culpability will be important.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

To roll a boat you need the following conditions;

  • Wave height must match the beam of the boat (risk of knock-down and rolling)
  • The boat needs to be broadside or oblique to the wave
  • The boat needs to be struck by a breaking wave: unless the wave is breaking, the boat should ride up and over the wave regardless of the wave height in comparison to the boat length and the boat’s orientation to the wave

When the wave height reaches 50% of the boat length, there is a high probability of capsizing, with more than 60% the boat is going to be capsized every time of course only if broadsided and with breaking waves. The most commonly used criterion for wave breaking is that it happens when the wave height to water depth ratio exceeds approximately 0.78. This means a 6-meter wave will typically start breaking at a water depth of approximately 7.69 meters and a 6m wave is a horizon darkening monster



  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:


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.

I still assert that even the report says "as likely as not", meaning 50:50, and for a prosecution you need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Note I've not been saying the capsize occurred where the skipper said, but I've been saying you can't rely on the location being where the modelling said. It could have been fairly much anywhere. But anyway, lets move on.

What does it mean for the case if the capsize occurred where the modelling suggests it did? - as opposed to anywhere else other than where the skipper thought he was, which could be anywhere.

They were heading in to anchor, in how deep water 5m? (I haven't actually checked), is it not unreasonable to transit 10m of water when heading into an anchorage?

Is 10 m some sort of problem? He didn't run aground, and wasn't caught in surf. There is an assertion there is a higher risk of rogue waves when close to landforms like that. But the defense is the wave was rogue. Definition being entirely unpredictable, freak occurrence etc. How can any reasonable skipper predict an unpredictable, freak occurrence?

Then there is the question of reasonable, as in what would any other reasonable skipper do? The media made a big deal about the Florence Nightingale and her own (Nate Davy?) laying into this skipper and saying he shouldn't have left the 3 kings, it was way to rough, etc etc, turns out his boat was fishing the whole time. So there is evidence to suggest the next best example of a reasonable skipper thought the conditions were fine.

We know there is high uncertainty as to the timing of the capsize, as there is uncertainty around the location. Given all witnesses had a near death experience, I think issues with recollection and accuracy of details can be expected. The skipper made a very big point at the start if his evidential interview he was very emotional and was denied a support person. That was made very clear. Was he even in a fit mental state to give an evidential interview? 

He may not have been where he thought he was at the time of interview. He is clear he had a route and stated he was following it. Would a reasonable skipper know where they were, this skipper thought he did.

All witnesses report a rogue wave. Very large, "too high to see the top of" "substantially taller than the boat" etc.

We've had no evidence to say the skipper was stoned.

Wasn't drunk.

Apparently wasn't otherwise distracted, on Only Fans or facetiming a Ukrainian Single. He was on the bridge, driving, wasn't he?

There is no smoking gun of gross negligence (and if it is shown he was drunk, stoned or doing lines of coke, I'll be the first to change my tune).

So linking back to the current topic of the thread around the position of capsize, it was a rogue wave which was unpredictable and a freak occurrence, does it matter where he was? Given the 10knts and 2m swell, would any other skipper have been heading for the same anchorage along the same route?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...