Pauhia ferry crash

[K4309 263]

39 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

We have stepped a LONG way from the original subject. 

So what?

[Psyche 633]

The rot is deeper, we are subject to a political managerial class who's main contribution to running these agencies and making the rules for everyone appears to be devoid of real life experience. People who do have practical experience are often not politically adept and get swept aside to be replaced yes men, consultants and reports which confirm the bias and the agencies keep making more rules because they have to do something nevermind that its ineffective or impractical.  If only they had the right rules then this tragedy wouldn't occur so lets make more of them! You could argue that walking around on an active volcano is extremely risky and likely to end in a disaster sooner or later, and even if that was the position (not a bad one) then it would follow on that tours would only proceed under the most benign conditions. Not so profitable but a lot safer.

Caulerpa is classic, as far as i can tell there is no know method of eradication and with the sheer area of the coastline to monitor, its effectively impossible. Any diver will tell you how hard it is to survey even a small bay, I doubt that anyone could cover all of Barrier in 5 seasons let alone one without massive resources that we simply dont have. Usually the more you look for something the more you find it, it could have been here 20 year, who knows?  Where will this end up and what happens when it migrates around Cape barrier and off to eastern Coromandel, will everywhere be off limits or do they think that if they leave it then Caulerpa will go away magically?

 

 

[harrytom 644]

9 minutes ago, Psyche said:

Caulerpa is classic, as far as i can tell there is no know method of eradication and with the sheer area of the coastline to monitor, its effectively impossible.

Why would a simple style gold suction dredge not work?? Bring ashore and dump it rather than what we are told,put it back,treat it like didimo?

[Psyche 633]

Should probably get back to the Paiha crash though I will say despite every "disaster" doomer predicting the worst over the years we are still here and life goes on so I dont expect things will be much different with caulerpa

[K4309 263]

4 hours ago, Psyche said:

The rot is deeper, we are subject to a political managerial class who's main contribution to running these agencies and making the rules for everyone appears to be devoid of real life experience. People who do have practical experience are often not politically adept and get swept aside to be replaced yes men, consultants and reports which confirm the bias and the agencies keep making more rules because they have to do something nevermind that its ineffective or impractical.  If only they had the right rules then this tragedy wouldn't occur so lets make more of them! You could argue that walking around on an active volcano is extremely risky and likely to end in a disaster sooner or later, and even if that was the position (not a bad one) then it would follow on that tours would only proceed under the most benign conditions. Not so profitable but a lot safer.

Caulerpa is classic, as far as i can tell there is no know method of eradication and with the sheer area of the coastline to monitor, its effectively impossible. Any diver will tell you how hard it is to survey even a small bay, I doubt that anyone could cover all of Barrier in 5 seasons let alone one without massive resources that we simply dont have. Usually the more you look for something the more you find it, it could have been here 20 year, who knows?  Where will this end up and what happens when it migrates around Cape barrier and off to eastern Coromandel, will everywhere be off limits or do they think that if they leave it then Caulerpa will go away magically?

 

 

This is a very good appraisal of the issue Psyche.

Of primary relevance to the original topic, we have this serious crash of a passenger ferry. We now have three govt agencies investigating it. They have said it will take them a couple of years to work out what happened. We can all see what happened. It is beyound me why we can't have just one govt agency investigate this, and determine what happened within a week. If there are some minor details to work out, that can be done in a court of law, assuming what we all believe, that the guy in the fizz boat was negligent.

More widely, we have a basic issue with more govt agencies both imposing more rules on us, or not doing their job properly in the first place.

We hade a number of posts to establish this for Worksafe and White Island. Surprisingly we have perfectly intelligent people like Carpe Diem who, for various reasons, don't appear to see that Worksafe themselves were negligent in their duties as regulator.

Then we have the fan worm issue and movement restrictions up and down the Auckland / Northland coast. Black Panther has been repeatedly asking what is the objective or purpose of these restrictions. I've not seen that answered. Yet we have a triumvirate of bureaucracies growing and feeding on the need to control the 'exacerbators', oh, and to establish funding channels.

Now we have the very real possibility that boating will be banned in parts of the Hauraki Gulf, due to caulerpa. The logic behind this is jaw droppingly bad. But that wont stop it happening anyway.

Three of the four topics I've touched on directly impact boating. So for Aardvark, I think that is fundamentally on topic for a boating / sailing forum. But more widely, I am in consternation as to what is going on here. Further, our national advocacy body (YNZ) wont say a word for fear of upsetting anyone but us boaties and risking their Olympic funding.

Something really has to change. And soon. Perhaps if they do ban boating in parts of the Hauraki Gulf it will be the trigger for sorting all this twaddlebollocks out.

[Black Panther 1,589]

When the mnz report is eventually produced I've got $10  that says it'll talk about who had the right vhf channels and who was wearing lifejackets.

[K4309 263]

1 hour ago, Black Panther said:

When the mnz report is eventually produced I've got $10  that says it'll talk about who had the right vhf channels and who was wearing lifejackets.

Or worse, the old guy who's ferry got nailed will get prosecuted for having an expired first aid certificate.

It is all they have on the Enchanter Skipper, with 5 dead.

[CarpeDiem 430]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

Or worse, the old guy who's ferry got nailed will get prosecuted for having an expired first aid certificate.

It is all they have on the Enchanter Skipper, with 5 dead.

Slightly misleading,

The charge against the skipper is: exposing individuals to risk of death or serious harm.

The charge against the company is: operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel.

[aardvarkash10 960]

3 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Slightly misleading,

The charge against the skipper is: exposing individuals to risk of death or serious harm.

The charge against the company is: operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel.

Hell CD, whats wrong with you, bringing facts to an argument?

Next you'll be rattling on about due process.

[K4309 263]

3 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

Slightly misleading,

The charge against the skipper is: exposing individuals to risk of death or serious harm.

The charge against the company is: operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel.

We are all obviously very interested in how the prosecution will play out. I think that is what aardvark calls due process, but the substance of the charge against the company, "operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel" is in relation to an expired first aid certificate. Now, I might be wrong, the particular qualification may have a slightly more convoluted name, but for all intense purposes, it is a first aid certificate.

This is the reality of where our regulators and watchdogs have gotten to.

Worksafe were fully aware all but one of the tour operators were not registered under the adventure tourism requirements, yet did not sanction any of those operators before the fact. After the fact, they put 40 of the countries investigators onto the case to work out how to ping them. It has been stated by far smarter people than me, that if Worksafe wasn't both the regulator and prosecutor, their regulatory arm would have been charged with negligence also.

Lets just see how this MNZ prosecution goes, but all they have at the moment is an expired first aid certificate.

[K4309 263]

Goodhew is charged with breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and in doing so allegedly exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine.

His business, which trades as Enchanter Charters Ltd, is charged with operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel. It alleged Goodhew did not have a medical certificate at the time of the incident.

The business is also charged with allegedly failing to address voyage and passage planning in its Maritime Transport Operation Plan, and allegedly failing to identify and address the risks arising from the trip.

By failing to take those steps, the business exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury, the charge, which carries a maximum penalty of a $1.5 million fine, alleged.

Enchanter tragedy: Skipper faces charges relating to the deaths of five men | RNZ News

[aardvarkash10 960]

42 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Goodhew is charged with breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and in doing so allegedly exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine.

His business, which trades as Enchanter Charters Ltd, is charged with operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel. It alleged Goodhew did not have a medical certificate at the time of the incident.

The business is also charged with allegedly failing to address voyage and passage planning in its Maritime Transport Operation Plan, and allegedly failing to identify and address the risks arising from the trip.

By failing to take those steps, the business exposed individuals to a risk of death or serious injury, the charge, which carries a maximum penalty of a $1.5 million fine, alleged.

Enchanter tragedy: Skipper faces charges relating to the deaths of five men | RNZ News

The more serious charges are the later ones.  Hence the final paragraph.

[K4309 263]

53 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

The more serious charges are the later ones.  Hence the final paragraph.

Yes, indeed.

That is why I copied the whole lot from the RNZ story. It will be very interesting to see what comes of this. In isolation the charge on the medical certificate looks pedantic. But it may also be a symptom of someone that is not across their responsibilities and requirements. (this of course just conjecture).

Is there an equivalent commercial shipwreck where the Master survived and was prosecuted? I can't immediately think of an example. The Mikhail Lermentov was a fair while ago, but I don't believe the Pilot got prosecuted. He continued to work on the MV Straitsman (I made an unfortunate comment to him when passing that area on that boat before I knew who he was. Lets say I was far younger than I am now).

I have zero understanding of MOSS and other commercial ship requirements. I understand the Master has absolute responsibility for the safety of the vessel and those onboard. But does a risk assessment need to be documented for every voyage, or a standard risk assessment / standard operating procedures for the general operation of the ship?

[aardvarkash10 960]

11 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Yes, indeed.

That is why I copied the whole lot from the RNZ story. It will be very interesting to see what comes of this. In isolation the charge on the medical certificate looks pedantic. But it may also be a symptom of someone that is not across their responsibilities and requirements. (this of course just conjecture).

Is there an equivalent commercial shipwreck where the Master survived and was prosecuted? I can't immediately think of an example. The Mikhail Lermentov was a fair while ago, but I don't believe the Pilot got prosecuted. He continued to work on the MV Straitsman (I made an unfortunate comment to him when passing that area on that boat before I knew who he was. Lets say I was far younger than I am now).

I have zero understanding of MOSS and other commercial ship requirements. I understand the Master has absolute responsibility for the safety of the vessel and those onboard. But does a risk assessment need to be documented for every voyage, or a standard risk assessment / standard operating procedures for the general operation of the ship?

I would expect that a generic assessment would be completed and regularly reviewed.  One of the SOPs associated with the RA would probably be a review of relevant factors before and during each trip.  It would be the SOP that operationalized the analysis 

 

[K4309 263]

Whilst this may appear to be a major thread drift, this is a very good example of taking action / sanctioning an operator BEFORE a major fatal incident. We can only lament if Worksafe took action against all of the White Island tour operators it knew weren't registered or complying with the Adventure Tourism requirements.

The Te Huia Train has ran a red light twice in a month, so NZTA / Waka Koathanger has now banned it from Auckland.

Perhaps if more government agencies did their job, and / or didn't wait for disasters, we wouldn't need so many rules and regulations, given the ones we already have a perfectly adequate. When applied.

Given this train is supposed to be the Hamilton to Auckland Train, I'm not sure what happens now. If I comment on that aspect it will fall well within political comment, so I will just leave it there.

Te Huia train banned from Auckland city after twice failing to stop on red | Stuff.co.nz

[aardvarkash10 960]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

Perhaps if more business owners did their job, and / or didn't wait for disasters, we wouldn't need so many rules and regulations, given the ones we already have a perfectly adequate. When applied

There.  Fixed it for you.

[K4309 263]

30 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

There.  Fixed it for you.

Yup. I understand exactly what you are saying. The onus falls on the businesses. In the case of WI, the tour operators.

So why bother with a regulator? Are we supposed to have oversight of high risk industries? Mining? Adventure Tourism?

While the WI trial is all over the media, the businesses are getting all the bad rap. The whole reason I'm going on about this so much, is that Worksafe as the regulator were negligent and should be charged and in the same prosecution. It has been stated by various specialists in the field that if Worksafe weren't the regulator and the prosector, i.e. if they were different entities, then Worksafe would have been charged too.

Bear in mind that Worksafe charged NEMA of all people. Exactly why isn't clear. Surely if they were going to charge NEMA, they would have charged themselves as well? (I would pay money to see that).

So, if the regulator can't do it's job, why bother with it? Across the whole H&S sector, we don't have regulation, we only have prosecution after the fact. We either need to formally seperate these two functions of Worksafe, or just accept it is a joke.

What is really interesting with this Te Huia thing is the regulator (NZTA in this case) have actually gotten off their arse and done something, prior to a fatal incident. This is remarkable.

[CarpeDiem 430]

18 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Bear in mind that Worksafe charged NEMA of all people. Exactly why isn't clear.

NEMA was charged to get the law defined. Worksafe needed to understand the definition of the law so they charged NEMA under the act and the judge declared that it didn't apply to them for whatever reason. 

Now that there is legal precedent and the meaning of the law is defined in that precedent, Worksafe know the boundary of their authority and they will never bring a charge for this particular thing again.  The fact they didn't appeal it says Worksafe were happy with the clarity. 

Can't remember what exactly it was now, but this is is quite normal in our legal system.

Unfortunately it sometimes bankrupts private individuals or organizations that get caught up in getting the law defined.  But it's a necessary evil. 

[K4309 263]

58 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

There.  Fixed it for you.

PS, I'd be most appreciative if one of you inteligent gentlemen could explain to me how it is that Kiwirail can't do it's job and needs regulator intervention.

[harrytom 644]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

The Te Huia Train has ran a red light twice in a month, so NZTA / Waka Koathanger has now banned it from Auckland.

No the train didnt run the light,. For the train to run the light suggests its automatic so then the fault would be with computor system but thats not the case. The driver did,why did he/she run the light and does he /she still have their employment is the question?

Have been thinking about White Island,active volcano and that is a risk you take?

Metservice gives bum forecast and you have a diaster,can you then sue metservice? All based on computor modelling but White Island monitored by Geonet so are they answerable to the diaster?