Maritime NZ proposed new anchor watch rule enforcement

[eruptn 95]

https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/news/have-your-say-maritime-anchor-watch-rule

Who keeps a night watch ?

 

[Zozza 293]

So "if" they enforced it, that would pretty much outlaw singlehanding....

[harrytom 643]

looking at it .I would commercial at this stage.

 

Maritime NZ has recently shared the interpretation as: “At all times – during the day, during the night, when travelling to and from fishing grounds, fishing, while at anchor, or drifting.”

[Zozza 293]

Commercial at this stage?

Nope, says recreational too...

Maritime New Zealand recently stated that all vessels (recreational and commercial) must maintain a continuous anchor watch (lookout by sight and hearing) under Maritime Rule Part 22.5. 

[CarpeDiem 430]

We covered this in another thread somewhere...

I am not sure what YNZ are trying to achieve - they aren't going to get the IMO to change COLREGS.

 

[Island Time 1,235]

32 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

We covered this in another thread somewhere...

I am not sure what YNZ are trying to achieve - they aren't going to get the UN to change the treaty.

 

There is no need for that. All jurisdictions can make there own rules for their territories. And do. They can quite easily say that a watch is required for vessels underway (IE not anchored or aground).

[CarpeDiem 430]

45 minutes ago, Island Time said:

There is no need for that. All jurisdictions can make there own rules for their territories. And do. They can quite easily say that a watch is required for vessels underway (IE not anchored or aground).

I don't think that's not how it works, if a country is a signatory to the treaty then that country is required to have local legislation that gives effect to this treaty clause:

Every vessel shall at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and of the risk of collision.

If a country wants to have something different, then they either have to opt out of the treaty, or alternatively opt out of the specific clauses in the treaty.  (Or get the treaty changed).

Not surprisingly, this is the exact clause that the NZ Government has put in the Martime Act 1994.  They literally copied it straight out of the treaty... cause that's the easiest way to ensure you are meeting your treaty obligations. 

This is one of the (many) reasons why the USA refuses to sign up to so many treaties, because they want to be able to change stuff whenever it suits them.

Also the treaty has been tested in various courts around the world and those courts have ruled that it means "at anchor" so it isn't really an "interpretation" of MNZ - they are just regurgitating what other jurisdictions have ruled.  The likelihood that a NZ court would regurgitate exactly the same finding is right up there next to 100%.

Not saying it isn't possible for the NZ Govt to change the law, just saying that it's impossible for YNZ to change the law. 

Happy to be proven wrong - but I suspect the same law will continue to be in our law books long after I have given up overnight anchoring.

[grant 40]

This isn't new and has been pointed out not even specific to NZ.  When I was at maritime school and doing various other courses, it was drummed in that keeping a lookout was a basic requirement (as has been pointed out above) and also pointed out if two vessel collide both are at fault, the COLREG's then help work out who was more/less at fault. I believe this is primarily aimed at commercial vessels (yes I know it says recreational but that's not where the focus is). I think the push behind this are the small commercial fishing vessels where fatigue, often caused by undermanning, lead to collision, dragging ashore etc.  If this starts becoming a regular feature then there might be a shift in focus to recreational vessels

If nothing else maybe it will give some people reason to stop and think about how they can look after their boat and themselves at night or when ashore, double check the anchor, maybe set an anchor watch on the sounder/plotter.   

No idea what YNZ are trying to do.... its' not a rule change or a consultation and as pointed out these are international rules so whatever 'feedback' they get is going to do what? looks a bit odd....

[Psyche 633]

What cant be enforced, wont be enforced. Most people cruising locally don't keep continuous watch unless its fresh or adverse and more to the point why would you?  

 

[alibaba 77]

yet another rule honoured in the breach. Anyone know of someone who  has been prosecuted for not displaying an anchor ball when anchored and fishing? Who will enforce this anyway. The harbour board crews have enough to do, and cannot even enforce the harbour speed limits [ which is far more dangerous than having a zzizz at anchor]. The maritime police are also busy with  real crimes. Was there a  recent incident which I missed which caused damage etc to provoke this promulgation?

[Psyche 633]

This is just noise, and its not going anywhere, political managerial classes love rules. The logic is if you followed the rules everything will be ok including my job.

Get rammed at anchor and no anchor ball you say? Off to prison you criminal, if you had followed the rules then Mr Maratimo would not have rammed you at 30 kts and damaged his paintwork.

[Ex Machina 366]

25 minutes ago, alibaba said:

yet another rule honoured in the breach. Anyone know of someone who  has been prosecuted for not displaying an anchor ball when anchored and fishing? Who will enforce this anyway. The harbour board crews have enough to do, and cannot even enforce the harbour speed limits [ which is far more dangerous than having a zzizz at anchor]. The maritime police are also busy with  real crimes. Was there a  recent incident which I missed which caused damage etc to provoke this promulgation?

  Vaguely remember a comm fishing boat that dragged anchor at maybe hen and chicks ? Maybe loss of life ? Teenager in the wheelhouse asleep who was assigned the anchor watch but wasn’t qualified ? 
 

[K4309 258]

With respect, I think all you guys have been conned.

The real question is, why are we funding a federation of yacht clubs with enough resources to employ comm's specialists to worry about doing survey's on laws that haven't changed for decades?

Yachting NZ are about as effective as a pimple on my arse for anything that matters. They didn't even know about the caulerpa ban in the BoI until I phoned them, so clearly weren't engaged with govt departments and advocating for boaties, nor influencing any decisions. They've left all the heavy lifting to the AYBA on one of the most existential threats to boating, and then had a bit of a laugh when AYBA got burnt.

This little exercise is a charade in tricking you all into believing that YNZ actually do something, and are important.

Ask yourself, what would happen if YNZ did not exist?

What would happen if Maritime NZ did not exist? We would be free of a great load of pointless regulations, there would be significant financial savings and f*ck all else would happen.

[CarpeDiem 430]

44 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Ask yourself, what would happen if YNZ did not exist?

All yacht racing, at speeds over 5 kts, would be illegal until the government changed the law.

 

[waikiore 399]

There are good reasons for Maritime NZ to exist. YNZ I am not so sure about, and this is a case in point - get back to throwing large amounts of my money at the vv small number of Olympians David , as that seems to be all that is understood. What have YNZ done for keelboat yachting in say the last 20 years ?? Or for that matter someone sailing a Zephyr, Cherub or R class?

[CarpeDiem 430]

41 minutes ago, waikiore said:

There are good reasons for Maritime NZ to exist. YNZ I am not so sure about, and this is a case in point - get back to throwing large amounts of my money at the vv small number of Olympians David , as that seems to be all that is understood. What have YNZ done for keelboat yachting in say the last 20 years ?? Or for that matter someone sailing a Zephyr, Cherub or R class?

YNZ exists for some good reasons and they certainly make a difference in the community in specific cases.

But this is certainly not one of those times.  This is a complete woftam.

[K4309 258]

3 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

All yacht racing, at speeds over 5 kts, would be illegal until the government changed the law.

 

Yup, the sole reason for YNZ's existence is a copyright issue.

The single thing that keeps YNZ levying our yacht clubs, and us, so much, is that they control the copyright of the racing rules of sailing, via world sailing.

When the Weiti BC moved to withdraw from YNZ, and all the paid staff came and gate crashed out SGM (accept, of course his holiness) the only thing they could come up with that the Weiti BC would miss out on was the RRS. Nothing else. Nil. Zip. Nadda.

Imagine what the launch owners and Ma & Pa cruisers thought of that?

[aardvarkash10 960]

20 hours ago, Zozza said:

Maritime Rule Part 22.5

22.5 Look-out Every vessel must at all times maintain a proper look-out by sight and hearing as well as by all available means appropriate in the prevailing circumstances and conditions, so as to make a full appraisal of the situation and the risk of collision.

Users should note that this is a part of Subsection 1 entitled "Steering and Sailing".  Everything in that subsection refers to ships mutually in motion.  I take from that that the intent of the subsection to only address the requirements of ships in motion, not at anchor.  If it were to include at anchor vessels, they would specifically be noted, as they are elsewhere in the rules.

Thats my statement and position y'Honour.  The defence rests.

 

[Ex Machina 366]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

Yup, the sole reason for YNZ's existence is a copyright issue.

The single thing that keeps YNZ levying our yacht clubs, and us, so much, is that they control the copyright of the racing rules of sailing, via world sailing.

When the Weiti BC moved to withdraw from YNZ, and all the paid staff came and gate crashed out SGM (accept, of course his holiness) the only thing they could come up with that the Weiti BC would miss out on was the RRS. Nothing else. Nil. Zip. Nadda.

Imagine what the launch owners and Ma & Pa cruisers thought of that?

That’s kinda where our club sits . Only 3-4 boats ever enter YNZ sanctioned events yet we pay nearly 10k PA to them . I would happily join another club to retain eligibility to enter coastal etc and save our club major coin .

[Norwegian Blue 10]

Can anyone provide a link to the actual MNZ interpretation? I can only find unrelated articles on their website (vessels were all moving and either collided with another vessel or with terra firma).