Transponder fittings urged for all boats

[Herdy 0]

Interesting public hearings in Blenheim regarding the new navigation bylaws. Seems that they want to have all commerical vessels regardless of size fitted with AIS transponders. The commercial operators and the company that wrote the report (Marico) think that all vessel should then have transponders including recreational craft.

 

If this gets through what will happen else where in the country??

 

Also an interesting statemnet from the NZ director of Marico regarding recreational uses!

 

Transponder fittings urged for all boats

By CHERIE HOWE - The Marlborough Express

Last updated 12:00 04/03/2010

 

Controversial plans to force Marlborough Sounds commercial boat operators to install movement-tracking transponders should also be extended to recreational users, a marine risk expert conceded on the first day of a hearing into the Marlborough District Council's proposed navigation bylaws yesterday.

 

Commercial users have expressed their opposition to that proposal and others, including plans to introduce a scale of fees on commercial Sounds users. Up to 110 of their submissions will be made to the hearing committee, made up of Queen's Counsel John Marshall, district councillor Graeme Barsanti and independent technical adviser Captain John Lee-Richards, before Tuesday next week.

 

The changes follow a comprehensive report by Marico Marine NZ, which listed 14 recommendations to improve safety in the Sounds.

 

Marico Marine NZ director John Riding told the hearing committee that transponders, which allow the harbour master's office and boats to track the location of vessels, would improve safety, including the danger at blind headlands, and be a major help in emergencies.

 

If the pleasure boat Timeless had had a transponder the collision between it and Bluebridge inter-island ferry Santa Regina in 2005 might have been prevented, he said. Picton man Norman McFarlane died in the collision.

 

However, the bylaw is proposing to make transponders compulsory only on commercial boats and counsel assisting the hearings committee, Peter Radich, questioned Mr Riding on what the difference was between commercial and recreational users.

 

There was a difference in "legal terms" because commercial vessels had passengers who had paid for a safe journey, he said.

 

"[Recreational boats are different] because you've got a common law right to go and kill yourself."

 

However, Mr Riding said, while he would like to see transponders on recreational boats, it was more practical for the council to limit the bylaw to commercial users for now.

 

"I think you have to start somewhere and not run before you can walk."

 

The hearing panel also heard from former engineering economist consultant Peter Farley.

 

Before his retirement, Mr Farley was commissioned by the council to review charges for harbour control in Marlborough and see if there were fairer and more efficient ways to meet the costs.

 

A push for government funding to help the council meet its obligations with the new national port and harbour safety code had been unsuccessful, Mr Farley said.

 

"Harbour control services in Marlborough are costly because of the extensive harbour area and the high level of commercial shipping ... [but] in comparison with the other ports in New Zealand, Marlborough has a very low rating base in relation to the level of commercial shipping, as well as probably the highest level of maritime traffic generated from out-of-district sources."

Ad Feedback

 

Marico Marine NZ had recommended commercial users should pay 70 per cent of the costs of existing harbour control and planned investment to meet the new code.

 

Mr Farley agreed with this.

 

"At present, council ratepayers meet a large proportion of the costs, although a substantial majority of the users, both commercial and recreational, are located out of the district and most make no direct contribution to the costs they create."

 

The hearing continues today.

[Guest]

Sigh - think we can hold them off a few more years, then I'll be gone.

[Guest]

Dicks!!!!

 

I hear that everyone will soon be required to carry a Titanium reinforced umbrella as well. Apparently there is a 1 in 9879463494553835284956352834 chance someone in NZ will be hit by space dust.

 

Dicks!!!!!

[Guest]

Should the worst happen I would advocate a widespread campaign of civil disobedience.

[wheels 543]

I posted a list of all the costs on here probably a year ago, when this first came up. Squid, if you did a search, you may find that list. It is quite horrific the costs about to be imposed on the already struggling commercial operators.

 

There are major major concerns and the commercial operators are strongly voicing their "opinions" shal we say.

The entire situation is a joke from get go. Barsanti is an retired cop that became a usless councilor. Has no clue. Radisich is the Councils Lawyer. I would hate to imagine what he is charging.

Comercial traffic is a Log boat maybe once every couple of months, the Rail Ferries and perhaps the Salt Barge once a year.

The issue is not that the harbor is big, but that the harbor limits are way the heck out at the end of the sound and there are lots of twists and turns and hills in the way, so a radio transponder network would need to be set up to relay the AIS to the Port Company office of the Harbor master.

So we have had one death from a Ferry going over top of a private launch. AIS would not of helped as the launch operator new the Ferry was there and thought he could cut across the bow instead of being a little more patient and going behind.

We have had one near death when a Big launch went over top of a smaller one. AIS would not have helped there, as the Big launch skipper went down below and left the boat on AP. Small launch skipper stuck to right of way till both collided.

We had two die due to a commerical Fizznasty running into the back of a parked ex Naval vessel. No AIS would have helped there either. Parked ex Navla vessel is now private, was anchored with no one aboard, so AIS would not have been on if fitted anyway and Fizz nasty still would not have seen a 90ft steel ship in front of his nose.

I can not understand two points. First is, who actually passed this Navigation law in the first place. Was it Gvt. or Marlborough Council? Port Company say they are forced to implement it because it is law, they have no say. I am not sure that is exactly true.

Why the cost, which is in the millions, when it would be commercial traffic that would have to fit it themselvs anyway and why is it an annula on going cost. A lot does not make sense, but then, it may not make sense because very little has actualy been said about it.

[grant 40]

I can not understand two points. First is, who actually passed this Navigation law in the first place. Was it Gvt. or Marlborough Council? Port Company say they are forced to implement it because it is law, they have no say. I am not sure that is exactly true.

 

the bylaws has not been passed, that is the purpose of the hearing to discuess the matter. When final agreement is reached (insert tui billboard) then MDC will pass the Bylaws as finally agreed by the Council, i.e. in current or propsed or modified form.

 

The port company would be obligied to follow any requirements in the bylaw but they are not the agency that is responsible for the enforcementof the bylaws, that would be MDC (including the Harbourrmaster)

 

clear as mud?

[Herdy 0]

Grant do you think that any council would take up Marico's recomendation regarding transponders on recreational craft?

 

The quote from Marico seems to be to be the usual one size fits all from the big ship boys. I think their recomendation could open a huge can of worms if passed, as well as create a very hostile reaction from the boat public, bigger than the commercial operators in the sounds.

[grant 40]

Grant do you think that any council would take up Marico's recomendation regarding transponders on recreational craft?

 

The quote from Marico seems to be to be the usual one size fits all from the big ship boys. I think their recomendation could open a huge can of worms if passed, as well as create a very hostile reaction from the boat public, bigger than the commercial operators in the sounds.

 

As far as I am aware that recommentdation is in regard to a specific issue in a specific area.

 

There would be benefits but at the moment also significant costs, I guess the question is how/where/if these would balance out, that's about as much as I'ld like to say at the moment

 

however looking at it another way.....30+ years ago how many recreational boats carried a VHF?

 

[Chewing Gum 17]

Tossers

[rigger 47]

In relation to VHF, how many of the 1000s of VHF radios out there are actually turned on when the boat is out on the water? How many yachties sail with all the gear on all the time, VHFs, Echo sounders etc, the most commonly turned on piece of electronic equipment would be a toss up between the stereo and GPS these days.

 

Personally I think fitting AIS unit to all recreational vessels is wrong, the cost, the times that the device is left off, just another piece of expensive gear that would have little impact on safety for the majority of recreational users

 

My old boat had such a simple power system I'd have to upgrade the batt and charging system just to manage the extra power demand of the AIS. A hidden cost to some boat owners that the decision makers have no idea about, or it seems that way to me.

[wheels 543]

If everyone had to have one, I can imagine the mess on the screen it will be to try and make sense of all the little dots with messages of speed and heading and so on. It will be a nightmare and most likely unusable. If it is commercial operators only, then I just don't see the need. There is just not enough traffic to be concerned with. There is hardly enough traffic in a Port like Wellington. I don't know about Auckland and Tauranga. But once again, if you had everyone including the general boater transmitting AIS in a harbour like Auckland, imagine the mess on the little screen.

[Guest]

Yes on the power angle Rigger. They want me to fit a AIS they'll also have to pay to supply the power, I sure as hell won't be. I have a finite supply and it's all spoken for already.

 

It's really only a secret plan by the makers of Skittles to ensure they can track the homosexuals {see other thread, it's a gobsmaker but bloody funny}

[DrWatson 372]

But of course, if everyone is to have one, then I guess kayaks will also need one, and your tender. That way the ferry can see where the kayaks are and not run into them. oooh and while we're at it, lets make all swimmers wear a transponder (and swim with a gen. set)....

 

The country has gone to the dogs. People in power who have no real commonsense ability to determine risk, policy or rules.

 

Authority complexes.

[Fogg 427]

Call me controversial (for a change!) but I sometime think you guys are all a bunch of bango-playing die-hards who resist ANY change for the sake of it.

 

Whilst AIS might sounds like the technology of the future to you, it's a echnology of the present elsewhere in the world. And there are numerous cases of it having saved lives both on commercial and private vessels.

 

So no, I don't advocate that it should be complusory on private boats but what's the issue on commercial boats? It's a bit like saying "Why should we all be required to use headlights when we drive in the dark?" Answer: because it helps you see each other!

 

The extra cost over a standard VHF/GPS setup is negligible, especially on a commercial vessel. So what's the problem people?

[wheels 543]

I don't have an issue with it on coimmercial boats. Actually I thought that was already required by law, but I must be wrong.

What I am concerned with is the cost and chargers being implemented here in the sounds. It's in the millions...10's of millions if I remember rightly and it is an annual charge. Noty a one off. I can't work out why. Maybe it is for more than just AIS, but nothing has been said what. And if this is just an idea so far, then where did the intitial costing come from? I am sure that when this first came out, there was a big article put in the paper from the Local council and I am sure that it was "because of recent navigational law changes in NZ ports". But it seems that that may not be correct.

My only other concerns are that in a confined space like the sounds, the AIS screen is goign to be cluttered and complex if more than just commercial vessels are made to have it. That it means an Authority can track any boat and know just exactly where you are at any given time. And that if this is being brought in with the excuse of the history of boating accidents and deaths, that I really don't believe that one single accident could have been avoided with AIS.

Another point is that all commercial Shipping floows a set course in the Sounds anyway. It's a narrow waterway, where else can they go. The only thing AIS is going to aid any other boat is the speed and where abouts of a ship. As everyone knows the sailing times of the Ferries, what's the need. It is only the very occasiona log ship that comes in the Northern entrance that is going to be of concern. There are a couple of water taxis, but they are nothing in relation to boats the size of the Fullers Ferries. They are just like every other launch out there and they can manouver just like the rest of us.

I like the info AIS gives. I like that it can give you an early warning. I just don't see why the cost.

[Guest]

The problem is this peckerhead is "urging " it to be compulsory on recreational vehicles. If we don't shout out a loud NO, the next round of peckerheads , who would be the politicians, will impose it on us, and we don't want it. Simple really. If you do nothing then be prepared to quietly acquiesce.

Same for compulsory registration, licensing, permits to sail more than 5 miles from the marina, compulsory rescue insurance, compulsory epirbs on any vessel over 5m, compulsory reporting every time you move your boat . All these exist somewhere in the world, I'm not making them up.

[Murky 1]

It's a bit like saying "Why should we all be required to use headlights when we drive in the dark?" Answer: because it helps you see each other!

It's a hard job finding the perfect analogy and I don't seek to be mischievous with what you have posted.

 

But cars do crash into each other all the time, killing hundreds of people a year and injuring many more. The "solution" to that is seatbelts, helmets on motorcycles and some TV ads warning us that death lurks at every intersection. But halfway-decent eyesight is still considered sufficient to prevent collisions between vehicles travelling at 100 km/h.

 

This just seems to be an excessive response, particularly given Wheels' breakdown of the incidents and the low likelihood that AIS would have made any difference.

[wheels 543]

Same for compulsory registration, licensing, permits to sail more than 5 miles from the marina, compulsory rescue insurance, compulsory epirbs on any vessel over 5m, compulsory reporting every time you move your boat . All these exist somewhere in the world, I'm not making them up.

And to add, filing a Flight plan....I mean a navigational plan of where you are going, how you intend to get there, putting into the equation tides, weather and navigating all those. Am I correct in saying that this is already in place in UK waters?? That would be a nightmare for crusing here.

AIS and the cheapest of EPIRB are close to the same coin. I would rather not be told I have to have either, but I would far rather be told to get and EPIRB than AIS. If I was ailing across the English channel, now that is a totaly completely different story. That is almost like play Russian Roulette trying to cross that shipping lane. But that is one of only a very few shipping lanes in the world as busy as that.

Now if NZ waters were very prone to Fog and we had to endure navigating in Fog conditions regularly, then I would have a completely different mind set to AIS.

So I guess what I am trying to say is, that I want the choice of being able to chose equipment that suits my needs in the waters that I cruise in to suit the way I cruise. And that could well be very different to how every body else on this Forum cruises. So why should some body in an office somewhere who does not know me or my boat or my Cruising style, say what I should or shouldn't have. Especially when the only real person that it is going to benifit is that person in the office.

And more than likely I imagine, it will be used as a record for navigational accidents and near misses. The harbour master will have information of exactly what boat was in the wrong. This could be of benifit. But at the same time, from an office, the Harbour Master would have information to say where you are, what speed you are going, what direction you are traveling, what other boats are around you, how close you are to them at that speed and who should have given way to whom.

All good information, but good or bad depending on how it gets used.

[rigger 47]

Whilst AIS might sounds like the technology of the future to you, it's a echnology of the present elsewhere in the world. And there are numerous cases of it having saved lives both on commercial and private vessels.

 

So no, I don't advocate that it should be complusory on private boats but what's the issue on commercial boats? It's a bit like saying "Why should we all be required to use headlights when we drive in the dark?" Answer: because it helps you see each other!

 

The extra cost over a standard VHF/GPS setup is negligible, especially on a commercial vessel. So what's the problem people?

 

There have been numerous cases of AIS assisted collisions, not sure how many lives have been lost (if any), but you could say that those collisions would never have happened if the vessels had not had AIS.

 

Is the reason that AIS prevented a collision because the people onboard payed attention to the AIS and ignored the Radar or mark one eyeball and then claimed the AIS saved them?

 

AIS used and understood properly can be a great aid to collisions avoidance, but everything relies on the operator doing the right thing in the end

[wheels 543]

The total story is not clear to me, so I may be wrong, but wasn't Jessica Watson on AIS when she hit the ship? or was it turned off as her excuse?