Maritime NZ proposed new anchor watch rule enforcement

[CarpeDiem 430]

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

I don't think that is the best analogy CD. YNZ is not a club. It is a National Body, or otherwise referred to as a National Authority, esp with respect to category ratings and a national handicaping system. Originally it was a Federation of Yacht Clubs, put together to represent those clubs on a national scale. It is simply not doing that now. At best, it is an extension of High Performance Sport NZ.

Yachting New Zealand is an incorporated society, just like the Weiti Boating Club.  They can call themselves whatever they want, but they have exactly the same legal standing as any other incorporated society in NZ.

The issue is that they own the rights to something that you want to use, their handicapping system, the World Sailing RRS, the Sailing Regulations.  These are the assets that they control and you can't use these unless you play by there rules.

You don't have to use their handicapping system, you don't have to use their racing rules, you don't have to use there standards.

Organizations just create this stuff and then they go on to create a position for themselves in society.  Created by the people for the people and eventually rule the people.

There are many many examples of this in New Zealand and all around the world.

NZOIA is another great example - NZ Outdoor Instructors Association - a group pf people, with no government mandate, saw a need, got together and decided to create a minimum standard for outdoor instruction, a whole industry sprung up, courses, training, certifications etc etc... they have been so successful that our Health & Safety legislation now references them as REQUIRED training.  Can another organization start up and become just as successful - well yes - but it will be really really hard and very very expensive.

Can you start your own entity, with your own handicapping system and your own racing rules and your own regulations? Well obviously you can, because that's how YNZ started out - but it will be VERY VERY hard and expensive to catch up to YNZ.  Not to mention you need to get the Govt onboard with your new venture if you want to race at over 5knts.

1 hour ago, K4309 said:

Something needs to change. Many people have said it. Nothing has happened yet. Keen to hear your ideas.

The same way change gets facilitated in your own club.  Voting members have all the power.

Start with the YNZ constitution https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/default/files/2021-12/YNZ Constitution 2021.pdfv  S22.1 might be of interest to you

[Psyche 633]

I think it wouldnt be unfair to say in reference to YNZ that gongs are not important to local keelboat racing, especially when it appears that YNZ is primarily focused on the 5 rings.  As we all know keelboat racing apart from the odd anomaly is a slowly deflating balloon, if there was any time in history that it needs advocacy and an injection of positive energy its now and did the Americas cup help matters?  Ill leave that open for debate, but the point is that if YNZ is levying hundred of thousands of dollars from club members who are not interested or involved or supporters of olympic campaigns then they better be advocates for what really matters locally to claim they represent all club members. I am not sure they are, that or their messaging is not so great

[waikiore 399]

Absolutely right and this has been raised at the Mighty Milf cruising club of the last five years and YNZ promises each year to come back with a more equitable solution to suit the launchies and "social" members. Still waiting.............

[K4309 257]

37 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

Yachting New Zealand is an incorporated society, just like the Weiti Boating Club.  They can call themselves whatever they want, but they have exactly the same legal standing as any other incorporated society in NZ.

The issue is that they own the rights to something that you want to use, their handicapping system, the World Sailing RRS, the Sailing Regulations. 

Sorry, I didn't read past this bit.

I don't want to use anything YNZ has. Not the RRS. Not the Handicapping system. I want to be a member and use the assets of the Weiti BC, the Club rooms, moorings, hand stand and haulout. Currently YNZ have jacked the system so that for me, as a cruiser with a young family, I have to subsidise their 5 ringed circus. Currently it is not possible to be a member of a 'boating' club and not pay a large levy to YNZ.

If they were doing any advocacy for common or garden variety boaties, then so be it, but they aren't. What is worse is they just pay lipservice to it. The original post in this thread is a great example. Doing a press release on a rule that hasn't changed in decades. 

[CarpeDiem 430]

1 minute ago, K4309 said:

Sorry, I didn't read past this bit.

I don't want to use anything YNZ has. Not the RRS. Not the Handicapping system. I want to be a member and use the assets of the Weiti BC, the Club rooms, moorings, hand stand and haulout. Currently YNZ have jacked the system so that for me, as a cruiser with a young family, I have to subsidise their 5 ringed circus. Currently it is not possible to be a member of a 'boating' club and not pay a large levy to YNZ.

If they were doing any advocacy for common or garden variety boaties, then so be it, but they aren't. What is worse is they just pay lipservice to it. The original post in this thread is a great example. Doing a press release on a rule that hasn't changed in decades. 

I see you have five options:

1. Get your club to pull out of YNZ
2. Get your club to lobby YNZ to change the way they operate
3. Find another club that meets your needs and isn't a member of YNZ
4. Accept that the 80cents you pay per week to Yachting NZ isn't worth the effort
5. Drink a six pack less of beer per year to cover your YNZ fees and bank the health benefits  

[CarpeDiem 430]

27 minutes ago, waikiore said:

Absolutely right and this has been raised at the Mighty Milf cruising club of the last five years and YNZ promises each year to come back with a more equitable solution to suit the launchies and "social" members. Still waiting.............

I don't see what motivation they have to change.

Until critical mass is achieved and the majority of clubs demand change via the process available to them, nothing is going to happen. 

[ex Elly 197]

So I must now keep watch at anchor. I see a vessel approaching on a collision course. I don't have time to lift the anchor and move. What should I do?

  a) sound five blasts on the horn
  b) board the dinghy and row away
  c) don my lifejacket and jump overboard

10 points for the correct answer! 

[Ex Machina 366]

11 minutes ago, ex Elly said:

So I must now keep watch at anchor. I see a vessel approaching on a collision course. I don't have time to lift the anchor and move. What should I do?

  a) sound five blasts on the horn
  b) board the dinghy and row away
  c) don my lifejacket and jump overboard

10 points for the correct answer! 

Mount a GoPro 360 every night so you can prove someone collided with you .

On top of that mount an infrared sensor that’s connected to a horn …just before a boat collides with you the horn should be programmed to give 5 blasts . 
 

I will have a website up and running in a few days to sell above devices , watch this space ! 

[mattm 98]

Seems to me there is a disconnect between the words and the intent. Other than the title of that section of rules reading ‘Steering and Sailing’, I can’t see anything that says the proper lookout excludes anchored boats. It says ‘all boats at all times’. So, if we accept MNZ’s ‘new’ interpretation, does ‘all boats ant all times’ also include boats on swing moorings? Pile moorings? Marina berths? Where does it end? Hardstand, trailer? That’s surely not the intent, but the intent is not spelt out even poorly, let alone well. 

[harrytom 643]

Most of us do a sort of anchor watch, generally do a check of warp and position before retiring ,I wake up at least twice and  do a general check, but as for 24/7 watch I still claim the intention is for commercial more than recreational. As most recreational are anchored in bays/harbours with other vessels, commercial more likely(when not fishing) may anchor in remote places .

My last insurance policy quite clearly stated that insurance covered  anchored providing it was not left for more than 24hr period unattended, unless on its usual mooring/marina.

[K4309 257]

Note that a lot of fishing boats are 'actively' anchoring and fishing. This is usually in dodgy spots like trying to stray line onto reefs etc. Or in the middle of busy shipping areas, South end of Tiri Channel, Motuihe Channel. In that context I think keeping a proper lookout at anchor is entirely appropriate.

At anchor at the back end of Bon Accord at 3 am not so much.

Considering 98% of recreational boaties are fisho's in fizz boats, it is entirely likely the numpties 'interpreting' this rule have completely overlooked the fact that there is a small number of boaties that sleep on their boats, in sheltered bays with thoroughly considered anchoring gear, as opposed to fisho's chucking out a rusty old grapnel anchor for 2 hours at the top of the incoming tide. PS, not sure how to say this, boat racing yacht owners are substantially in the minority.

In saying that, I know of a large and expensive yacht share boat that dragged anchor and smashed the arse off. It is now a requirement for all yacht share skippers to run an anchor watch ap when at anchor. I've never used one, but now I actually have a smart phone, I may as well start using one, even though I've never dragged in 24 yrs of owning the boat.

[Terry B 71]

On that note, anybody got a recommendation for an anchor watch app?

[Terry B 71]

I should add its for an I-phone.

[Ex Machina 366]

Check the App Store there’s quite a few . Read the reviews they are a good indicator , mostly .

[Y88 5241 25]

Predict wind are releasing a very good one which could be linked to your boats instruments if off the boat

[motorb 26]

One would think that the coastguard app could include an anchor watch function..... but that can barely give updated nowcasting data when required so maybe I'm asking too much.

[DrWatson 375]

I read both the maritime Nz “guideline” and the actual rules. This really seems to be a storm in teacup. 
The rule includes the words “appropriate for the circumstances “ and appears  not at all to undermine the captain’s authority to determine what’s an appropriate circumstance. 
 

Does anyone here have any degree of actual legal experience? Has an actual lawyer at YNZ looked over this?

[CarpeDiem 430]

7 hours ago, DrWatson said:

I read both the maritime Nz “guideline” and the actual rules. This really seems to be a storm in teacup. 
The rule includes the words “appropriate for the circumstances “ and appears  not at all to undermine the captain’s authority to determine what’s an appropriate circumstance. 
 

Does anyone here have any degree of actual legal experience? Has an actual lawyer at YNZ looked over this?

It's a COLREGS treaty clause.

I can't find any NZ case law.  But there's several case law examples from overseas jurisdictions that have held that an anchored boat has been atleast partly liable during collisions, when both boats have been anchored and also where only one boat was anchored. At least one of these cases went back to 1921... and it's a 1970s treaty... 

NZ courts would look to these cases for definition. It's unlikely it would ever even make it into a NZ court because insurance companies would also look at these cases and work together to apportion liability based on an expected legal outcome. 

One case was interesting, a passing boat collided with an anchored boat when the anchored boat got caught in a tide shift in an estaury and swung 180deg quite quickly. The passing boat couldn't get out of the way.  This reminded me of a story @Black Panther told a couple of years ago where he was up North and he'd planned to start the engine as the tide changed but he wasn't fast enough. The tide had already swung him around 180deg, luckily no other boats got in his way

I certainly would expect my insurance company to hold me less liable if my boat collided with another boat in an anchorage and that vessel was unattended, or the occupants were asleep. Why should I wear the brunt of the cost of damages to my boat if I was present and trying to reduce damage and the other owners were off walking around the island? 

I think any reasonable person would expect more protection against financial loss in those circumstances.  For that protection to occur there needs to be a legal framework like this to fall back on. 

It's not going to be actively enforced. But if something happens, your insurance company, or the courts if it goes that far, will be looking to see which vessel should be held more liable to apportion blame.