Pauhia ferry crash

[funlovincriminal 163]

6 hours ago, K4309 said:

On the morning of 6 December 1917, the French cargo ship SS Mont-Blanc collided with the Norwegian vessel SS Imo in the waters of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The Mont-Blanc, laden with high explosives, caught fire and exploded, devastating the Richmond district of Halifax. At least 1,782 people were killed, largely in Halifax and Dartmouth, by the blast, debris, fires, or collapsed buildings, and an estimated 9,000 others were injured. The blast was the largest human-made explosion at the time.^[1] It released the equivalent energy of roughly 2.9 kilotons of TNT (12 TJ).^[2]

Mont-Blanc was under orders from the French government to carry her cargo from New York City via Halifax to Bordeaux, France. At roughly 8:45 am, she collided at low speed, approximately one knot (1.2 mph or 1.9 km/h), with the unladen Imo, chartered by the Commission for Relief in Belgium to pick up a cargo of relief supplies in New York. On the Mont-Blanc, the impact damaged benzol barrels stored on deck, leaking vapours which were ignited by sparks from the collision, setting off a fire on board that quickly grew out of control. Approximately 20 minutes later at 9:04:35 am, the Mont-Blanc exploded.

In this case, the captain of the smaller, unladen freighter refused to pass the Mont Blanc Port to Port, being in a hurry and having already passed two other smaller vessel's Stbd to Stbd. Restricted by depth he came to almost a halt and the Mont Blanc was barely squeezing by when the freighter restarted in reverse, the prop walk kicking the stern to Port and digging the stem into the side of the Mont Blanc. The sparks created when they pulled the boats apart ignited the Benzol and their fate was sealed from there 😔

[K4309 258]

All these stories of professional crews on large commercial vessels acting like c*nts only reinforces my point about the 'might is right' rule. Whilst it is not a formal legal rule, it is clearly both a law of nature and a law of physics.

Small sailing boats just need to stay well away from commercial shipping. Ideally so far away that the colregs never come into play in the first place.

I think it is fair to assume any commercial fishing boat anywhere is NOT keeping a proper lookout. On the odd occasion they are, bonus. But if I had a bottle of whisky for every story I heard from someone having a close call with a fishing boat, I'd need to be at Alcoholic's Unanimous by now.

[funlovincriminal 163]

I must admit I have been out on 2 handed races in the past, early hours, sleep deprived and approaching commercial/fishing/processing boats with all kinds of lights coming off them. 

Worked myself into a lather trying to decipher what they were up to, imagining sub surface tow cables, networking net dragging trawlers etc etc until I get to the point I have to wake the off watch crew for a second opinion or just tack/gybe and get the hell away from them.

Although the off watch crew has also told me in great detail about the rabbits that managed to stay 1 or 2 waves in front of the bow for most of his watch one night - and also been convinced we were going to smack into the cliffs of little barrier when were 10 miles off so probably not the best person to ask for opinions about mega bright alien lights on the water at 3am 🤔

Suffice to say I usually err on the side of caution when it comes to any commercial boats, either in or out of shipping channels. 

[K4309 258]

17 minutes ago, funlovincriminal said:

Although the off watch crew has also told me in great detail about the rabbits that managed to stay 1 or 2 waves in front of the bow for most of his watch one night - and also been convinced we were going to smack into the cliffs of little barrier when were 10 miles off so probably not the best person to ask for opinions about mega bright alien lights on the water at 3am 🤔

Suffice to say I usually err on the side of caution when it comes to any commercial boats, either in or out of shipping channels. 

Haha, wasn't on a seasickness medication was he? A bunch of mates chartered a cat in Cuba. First night out was a bit lumpy as there was a cyclone to the north of the country, we were on the south heading towards the Bay of Pigs. One of the non-sailing girls was prone to seasickness so I gave her some Stugeron, a fairly stiff seasickness pill from the UK (not allowed to get it in NZ). She was having a great time. Almost concerningly so. When she started going on about the wild horsemen riding alongside us we thought we'd better carry her downstairs to her cabin.

That same trip we had a close call with something one night. We could smell it and hear it, but couldn't see it and had no idea where it was. By the smell and noise I'm fairly sure it passed within about 50m of us. I could possible make out a glow from a cabin window with it s blinds down, but that was it. No nav lights or anything. Very friggin freaky. How do you avoid something if you don't know where it is? You know it is there and close, just not where.

[harrytom 643]

Been watching "channel patrol" on prime tv,talk about congestion but no real danger,why?? because they have proper harbour patrol with real harbour masters doing their job and a coastguard watching radar etc ashore,their lifeboat crews would be equivalent to our coastguard and their coastguard would be what our maritime police should be doing.

[K4309 258]

10 hours ago, harrytom said:

Been watching "channel patrol" on prime tv,talk about congestion but no real danger,why?? because they have proper harbour patrol with real harbour masters doing their job and a coastguard watching radar etc ashore,their lifeboat crews would be equivalent to our coastguard and their coastguard would be what our maritime police should be doing.

Watch what you wish for. We could have that here. But you would have to fund it. And me. And every other boatie on here. 

Perfect excuse for a new buearcacy. Fundamentally, we don't have any issues in NZ that aren't already addressed by existing rules and regulations. What this thread is about, the Paihia ferry crash, there are already clear and abundant rules to avoid incidents like that.

Just remember, murder is illegal, but we still have murders. Just because you make more rules and regulations doesn't mean people will suddenly stop doing dumb sh*t.

[Steve Pope 243]

39 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Watch what you wish for. We could have that here. But you would have to fund it. And me. And every other boatie on here. 

Perfect excuse for a new buearcacy. Fundamentally, we don't have any issues in NZ that aren't already addressed by existing rules and regulations. What this thread is about, the Paihia ferry crash, there are already clear and abundant rules to avoid incidents like that.

Just remember, murder is illegal, but we still have murders. Just because you make more rules and regulations doesn't mean people will suddenly stop doing dumb sh*t.

Laws and rules don't stop people breaking them, but they do allow bureaucratic jobsworths at the bottom of the cliff to lord it, after the event. Think White Island, Where it is apparently simpler and maybe cheaper to plead guilty to whatever the charge is than to fight to clear their name. The Encounter in Northland, the only thing he, (the skipper) appears to have been found guilty of is an out of date medical certificate.

[aardvarkash10 960]

42 minutes ago, Steve Pope said:

Laws and rules don't stop people breaking them, but they do allow bureaucratic jobsworths at the bottom of the cliff to lord it, after the event. Think White Island, Where it is apparently simpler and maybe cheaper to plead guilty to whatever the charge is than to fight to clear their name. The Encounter in Northland, the only thing he, (the skipper) appears to have been found guilty of is an out of date medical certificate.

This is a somewhat cynical comment.

NZ has an unenviable record of damaging and killing people who were in positions where they were owed a duty of care.  Our rate of death from workplace accidents is high when compared to our OECD partners.

We throw people off bridges tied to bits of rubber band, we hurtle them down and up river gorges at high speed in unstable craft both powered and unpowered, we take people out to unpredictble active volcanic islands, we clear trees on unstable and steep hillsides using cheap labour and hazardous equipment, etc.

In the case of White Island, the prosecutions to date have been for failure to meet a legally required standard of care.  They have not been for he inuries and deaths that ocured, but for a failure ot have appropriate risk assessment and/or risk mitigation in place.  This included a failure to undertake any hazard ID and risk analysis.  These failures potentially put employees or paying guests at risk.

New Zealand businesses are fortunate that our ACC system protects them against claims from victims for costs or loss suffered after an accident.  The price for that is that businesses need to show they are prepared before any accident occurs so they can demonstrate that they took all practicable actions to mitigate the risk.

[K4309 258]

5 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

This is a somewhat cynical comment.

NZ has an unenviable record of damaging and killing people who were in positions where they were owed a duty of care.  Our rate of death from workplace accidents is high when compared to our OECD partners.

We throw people off bridges tied to bits of rubber band, we hurtle them down and up river gorges at high speed in unstable craft both powered and unpowered, we take people out to unpredictble active volcanic islands, we clear trees on unstable and steep hillsides using cheap labour and hazardous equipment, etc.

In the case of White Island, the prosecutions to date have been for failure to meet a legally required standard of care.  They have not been for he inuries and deaths that ocured, but for a failure ot have appropriate risk assessment and/or risk mitigation in place.  This included a failure to undertake any hazard ID and risk analysis.  These failures potentially put employees or paying guests at risk.

New Zealand businesses are fortunate that our ACC system protects them against claims from victims for costs or loss suffered after an accident.  The price for that is that businesses need to show they are prepared before any accident occurs so they can demonstrate that they took all practicable actions to mitigate the risk.

What Worksafe failings did Worksafe apologies for when they laid charges against the, what is it, 13 other entities in relation to White Island?

[Steve Pope 243]

13 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

This is a somewhat cynical comment.

NZ has an unenviable record of damaging and killing people who were in positions where they were owed a duty of care.  Our rate of death from workplace accidents is high when compared to our OECD partners.

We throw people off bridges tied to bits of rubber band, we hurtle them down and up river gorges at high speed in unstable craft both powered and unpowered, we take people out to unpredictble active volcanic islands, we clear trees on unstable and steep hillsides using cheap labour and hazardous equipment, etc.

In the case of White Island, the prosecutions to date have been for failure to meet a legally required standard of care.  They have not been for he inuries and deaths that ocured, but for a failure ot have appropriate risk assessment and/or risk mitigation in place.  This included a failure to undertake any hazard ID and risk analysis.  These failures potentially put employees or paying guests at risk.

New Zealand businesses are fortunate that our ACC system protects them against claims from victims for costs or loss suffered after an accident.  The price for that is that businesses need to show they are prepared before any accident occurs so they can demonstrate that they took all practicable actions to mitigate the risk.

Yes, definitely cynical, you cannot stop people doing stupid (to us) things, what could possibly go wrong visiting a live volcano site. People queue up to climb Mount Everest, some will die, (just not me) they think. OH, the Titanic etc. etc. People are risk takers, (look at me! look at me!) always have been always will be.  Someone offers you a really good deal, probably too good to be true, but you go for it anyway We (those people) have to take personable responsibility for ourselves and the choices we / they make.

 

[aardvarkash10 960]

1 hour ago, Steve Pope said:

Yes, definitely cynical, you cannot stop people doing stupid (to us) things, what could possibly go wrong visiting a live volcano site. People queue up to climb Mount Everest, some will die, (just not me) they think. OH, the Titanic etc. etc. People are risk takers, (look at me! look at me!) always have been always will be.  Someone offers you a really good deal, probably too good to be true, but you go for it anyway We (those people) have to take personable responsibility for ourselves and the choices we / they make.

 

On that basis we would not have any safety standards for anything.

Its not about people who make informed choices - its about those making uninformed choices.  The tourists on White Island had a right, surely, to expect that the tour was safe.  Adventure activity providers have, for many years now, understood that their job was to provide an experience that held the FEELING of danger without the actual danger.  Bungee is an excellent example - in your mind you are plunging to certain death, but also in your mind the provider has done the engineering, training, product testing, maintenance etc that ensures you end up in a bar later watching a video of your screaming panicing self.

A roller coaster is a great example.  Most people will have no idea what is required to maintain these devices so they operate safely - they take it as an article of faith that the operator does and cares enough to take appropriate steps.  No-one, after the fact, would say "well you were an idiot for putting yourself at risk - of course there was a chance the car would derail and plunge 30 metres..."

Employees do not, in most cases, have a great deal of freedom to accept or decline risk - often they do not have the skills to even recognise it.  The employer does, or should have.  They are, by definition, professionals in their field and so should apply professional judgement.  Further, they are required by law to be competent in identifying hazards and managing risks appropriately.  Its part of what they earn income from.  

Arguaby, GNS did not, the owners of White Island did not, the tour operators did not, and others did not.

In respect of White Island, Worksafe is a regulator of workplace safety practises, not a licensor and approver of those practises.  They have no place (in most cases) to approve, disapprove or recommend any specific safety actions to any entity - that is the business of that entity.

New Zealand has what is widely recognised as a largely permissive business environment.  If there is no real reason not to do something, you can do it.  With that permissiveness comes responsiblity.

Worksafe isn't "lording it" after the fact.  They are holding entities accountable for failings in their operations that could, or did, lead to harm to others including people who paid for, and so had a right to expect, a safe tourism experience.  

 

 

 

[K4309 258]

4 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Worksafe isn't "lording it" after the fact.  They are holding entities accountable for failings in their operations that could, or did, lead to harm to others including people who paid for, and so had a right to expect, a safe tourism experience.  

So you've rightly pointed out that NZ has some of the highest rates of workplace accidents and deaths in the developed world.

You've also pointed out that Worksafe haven't laid charges in relation to the 22 deaths on White Island, but are laying charges related to procedural matters prior to those deaths.

Given those two points, I think it is clear that our workplace health and safety regulatory environment, or our regulator is not fit for purpose.

It took 22 deaths for Worksafe to wake up and do its job in regulating the entire White Island industry. Not just the tour operators, but everyone, including the Govt agency tasked with predicting eruptions. Could you imagine how many lives would have been saved if Worksafe had put down its slim-soy-mocha-chino before those 22 deaths and actually discharged its regulatory responsibility?

I've previously worked in safety auditing, and I can tell you Worksafe waste valuable resources on twaddlebollocks and ignore the elephant in the room. The adventure tourism sector, including White Island, has been known as a high risk area forever. Didn't prompt Worksafe to look at any of those operators. I understand was what there apology was for when they laid charges.

Post Pike River, we got a sh*t tonne of un-workable regulations placed on the trenchless pipeline installation sector. This is primarily directional drilling. Substantially safer than open-trenching of pipe construction. I kid you not, to lay a 20mm outside diameter water service across a road with a trenchless technique, Worksafe advised us that we must apply the new post-Pike-River mining regulations to it. Or, we had to demonstrate how the new mining regulations didn't apply to it, BUT, there criteria was so hopeless you couldn't. The outcome was that 99% of contractors and consultants ignore the requirements.

It is correct to say Worksafe wont 'approve' any safety plan, but they make the regulatory landscape so convoluted and illogical it is not possible for anyone else to work out if they comply with it. The upshot is, instead of adding any value or doing this better, everyone just ignores the regulations and slag off the regulator. For good reason. Our regulatory environment is not fit for purpose.

[aardvarkash10 960]

So is that a vote for greater govt regulation, or against it?  

[harrytom 643]

as a veseel owner,should I need to find out rules/regulations before leaving mooring/ramp/marina or should a governing body display rules regulation  in prominent positions? 

Currently no licence/rego requierd so why should I know the rules??

https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/recreational/rules-on-the-water/#:~:text=It is your responsibility to,the rules before heading out.

It is your responsibility to know and understand the rules before heading out.

 

[harrytom 643]

fair enough but surely there must be some resposibilty on seller/broker to inform me that there are rules/regulations I need to know before venturing to sea?

[K4309 258]

1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:

So is that a vote for greater govt regulation, or against it?  

Haha, neither.

It is a vote for people and organisations to do their job properly.

We don't have a Workplace health and safety regulator. All we have is a prosecutor. If someone dies in a workplace accident, Worksafe comes along and launches a prosecution against those that aren't dead. It is near physically impossible to be found 'not guilty' if Worksafe prosecute you, by fact that someone is dead. The charge is always 'failing to provide a safe work environment'.*

This focus is entirely reactive and punitive. I would argue an effective regulator would be dealing with issues prior to fatallities. Have you ever heard of worksafe taking a prosecution when nothing happened? As in where there had not been an accident, but that an audit found unsafe work practices?

Or, have you ever heard of worksafe giving guidance and industry best practice documents? You know, something useful to prevent harm? In my earlier example of the new tunnelling regulations post Pike River, we had the greatest minds in the country sitting around in a room, with Worksafe, trying to work out what the terms 'underground' and 'tunnelling' meant. Based on Worksafe's interpreptation and guidance, in encompassed almost all normal civil engineering involving trenchless installation of pipes. Clearly the intent of the new regulations was to prevent gassy coalmines blowing up, but no, a completely different and perfectly adequate industry was affected.

There is an extension to your question of more or less regulation. If the current regulations and regulator is not effective, why not just get rid of them and be done with it? It would save a sh*t-tonne of ball-ache if they just passed a law that said if someone dies, everyone left alive gets convicted. That is the situation we have now, but with all sorts of palava in between.

 

* I see another 3 companies leaded guilty to White Island charges today. This is the classic tactic. Spend millions on investigation and preparing a prosecution. Wait till the day before the trial starts, then offer lesser chargers of which they plead guilty to. It is just a standard negotiation situation. If the original charges were appropriate, why not press them? If the lesser chargers are now deemed appropriate, why were the other charges put, several years and several million dollars wasted? Its all just a charade.

[Steve Pope 243]

4 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

On that basis we would not have any safety standards for anything.

Its not about people who make informed choices - its about those making uninformed choices.  The tourists on White Island had a right, surely, to expect that the tour was safe.  Adventure activity providers have, for many years now, understood that their job was to provide an experience that held the FEELING of danger without the actual danger.  Bungee is an excellent example - in your mind you are plunging to certain death, but also in your mind the provider has done the engineering, training, product testing, maintenance etc that ensures you end up in a bar later watching a video of your screaming panicing self.

A roller coaster is a great example.  Most people will have no idea what is required to maintain these devices so they operate safely - they take it as an article of faith that the operator does and cares enough to take appropriate steps.  No-one, after the fact, would say "well you were an idiot for putting yourself at risk - of course there was a chance the car would derail and plunge 30 metres..."

Employees do not, in most cases, have a great deal of freedom to accept or decline risk - often they do not have the skills to even recognise it.  The employer does, or should have.  They are, by definition, professionals in their field and so should apply professional judgement.  Further, they are required by law to be competent in identifying hazards and managing risks appropriately.  Its part of what they earn income from.  

Arguaby, GNS did not, the owners of White Island did not, the tour operators did not, and others did not.

In respect of White Island, Worksafe is a regulator of workplace safety practises, not a licensor and approver of those practises.  They have no place (in most cases) to approve, disapprove or recommend any specific safety actions to any entity - that is the business of that entity.

New Zealand has what is widely recognised as a largely permissive business environment.  If there is no real reason not to do something, you can do it.  With that permissiveness comes responsiblity.

Worksafe isn't "lording it" after the fact.  They are holding entities accountable for failings in their operations that could, or did, lead to harm to others including people who paid for, and so had a right to expect, a safe tourism experience.  

A roller coaster, man made and man maintained, or nor as per a current one in the US. A Volcano ( please put in here who or what controls it) Some steaming, smoking, island that gives off large amounts of sulphurous fumes most of the time. If Worksafe was doing their job NO ONE would be aloud to land there. OH, Ruapehu, ski field, has blown many times and injured people. What is Worksafes position??? They don't save lives, they only react after the fact, with the unasailable use of hind sight and retroactive punishment. ACC does a good job, but has over many years become basically a pseudo insurance Co. Using its own inhouse doctors who only use ACC interpretation of what is acceptable. It started off and was sold to the public as a no fault system, wonderful, except that it hasn't been that for many many years.

 

 

 

[Steve Pope 243]

A roller coaster, Man made and man maintained, or not, as per the current one falling to bits in the US is a totally different accident waiting to happen compared to = A Volcano ( please feel free to put in here who or what controls it)  on a Steaming, Smoking Island Sulphurously fuming most of the time. If Worksafe was actually doing the job it is apparently supposed / expected to do, NO ONE would have been allowed to land there, end of story.  OH, and Ruapehu (Volcano) People ski there every year and climb it in the clearer months. As we all know it has blown many times, killed and injured people near and far over the years. 24th of December Tangiwai disaster 1953 main line train wiped out, for example. Of course Worksafe didn't exist in 1953 but wouldn't you think with all that data re damage and deaths caused by Ruapehu that by their professed standards it would be shut to protect those who might think that it is a safe place. Or wouldn't it make more sense that we all take responsibility for our selves and our actions. No doubt about it Living is dangerous!!

A relevant line from a poem I like, A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drowned, as he will go out when he shouldn't. A man who is afraid of the sea will only be drowned now and again. my apologies to the author.

[K4309 258]

38 minutes ago, Steve Pope said:

A relevant line from a poem I like, A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drowned, as he will go out when he shouldn't. A man who is afraid of the sea will only be drowned now and again. my apologies to the author.

When I was into my Alpine Mountaineering I always felt a bit inadequate due to a fear of heights (or at least being uncomfortable with a lot of air under my heals).

A wise man told me a fear of heights is a good thing, It is what keeps you alive when climbing mountains.

[eruptn 95]

18 hours ago, Steve Pope said:

A roller coaster, Man made and man maintained, or not, as per the current one falling to bits in the US is a totally different accident waiting to happen compared to = A Volcano ( please feel free to put in here who or what controls it)  on a Steaming, Smoking Island Sulphurously fuming most of the time. If Worksafe was actually doing the job it is apparently supposed / expected to do, NO ONE would have been allowed to land there, end of story.  OH, and Ruapehu (Volcano) People ski there every year and climb it in the clearer months. As we all know it has blown many times, killed and injured people near and far over the years. 24th of December Tangiwai disaster 1953 main line train wiped out, for example. Of course Worksafe didn't exist in 1953 but wouldn't you think with all that data re damage and deaths caused by Ruapehu that by their professed standards it would be shut to protect those who might think that it is a safe place. Or wouldn't it make more sense that we all take responsibility for our selves and our actions. No doubt about it Living is dangerous!!

A relevant line from a poem I like, A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drowned, as he will go out when he shouldn't. A man who is afraid of the sea will only be drowned now and again. my apologies to the author.

There is a lot of planning done to minimise risk around the Tongariro National Park volcanoes;

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-go/central-north-island/places/tongariro-national-park/know-before-you-go/volcanic-risk-in-tongariro-national-park/