Jump to content

Maritime NZ not investigating the Gypsy incident


Dagwood

Recommended Posts

There is a time limit someone needs to observe to action anything. That's been noted by someone else who is very highly respected in the game and can embarrass the 1st someone.

 

Can't say much as people do deserve the right to do the right thing before we call them wankers. They don't have much time left to do the right thing though ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries, happy to help :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

It is a twitchy subject so trying to let someone do the right thing before we hang them. There is a growing suspicion there is no need to put the rope away just yet though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MNZ culture changed very quickly after Russell Kilvington passed on the reins to a new lot. A quick google shows the current board have absolutely zero experience in hands on shipping/boating except for Dave Ledson, ex NZ navy. And a real eye opener was seeing Dinosaur Dave Morgan on the board. A big WTF??? MNZ is going to rapidly spin down to the whole OSH culture of blame and prosecute instead of their previous habit of prosecute where it will have a beneficial effect but preferably educate and advise. I've had very real involvement with MSA (now MNZ) in the past, including some serious accident investigations and had nothing but the highest respect for them and their actions. I'm glad I don't have to deal with the clods now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MNZ's technical people are no better. Even when given clear evidence which points to an obvious and logical decision with regards to even minor technical matters they are incapable of making any kind of decision. Very frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SO reading that letter beggars belief! The wording effectively blames a vessel under sail as being in the wrong for colliding with one under powered way!

 

Looks like they sent the letter to the wrong party involved. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That letter is no surprise. MNZ backed itself into a corner when it happened by saying they weren't going to suss it further. Now the pressure has come on for them to at least be seen to be doing something this is about all they can do without pissing many off bar the 'who the f*ck cares about them' public, that would be you.

 

MNZ could have come out and said 'one 100% wrong and one 0% wrong', but they can't as that is impossible. They could have said 'The Akl Harbourmaster jumped in too fast so we can't do anything now', they would have been shot down in flames for that and many were waiting to do that. They could have done nothing but we've seen what happens when they try that. Or as it's Team Gypsy doing most of the 'Oui!!' and quite correctly so, they could come out with the classic 'deflect, well technically' gambit, which they have. Technically that letter is right, harsh, a butt coverer, a deflection and many would say morally marginal but it's still technically correct.

 

Or they could try taking a completely differing angle if they are pushed hard enough........ watch this space as I'm pretty sure it's knot over yet ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That letter's interesting and I agree with KM it could have been done better, however it is still correct.

 

It does take two to tango and one thing drummed in many years back at boat driving school was "if there is a collision you are at fault".

 

The question then has to be raised as to how much was your fault and how much falls on the other fella. From what I know of this incident (which is only from media and here) I would throw the weight pretty heavy on the other bloke.

 

I'm guessing (hoping) teh letter to the other vessel was a touch different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is: What is a reasonable amount of time for a becalmed sailing yacht (with right of way) to start her engine and render herself able to avoid a collision with a motoring craft? If the craft about to run you over is doing 8 knots, you’d have to make the call when the motoring craft is a fair distance away to have any hope of avoiding the collision. I’d say 20 seconds to start a motor in a panic on an average boat. Then you have to get the boat moving…. It's pretty scary how far away the motor boat is when you're already too late to move.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My question is: What is a reasonable amount of time for a becalmed sailing yacht (with right of way) to start her engine and render herself able to avoid a collision with a motoring craft? If the craft about to run you over is doing 8 knots, you’d have to make the call when the motoring craft is a fair distance away to have any hope of avoiding the collision. I’d say 20 seconds to start a motor in a panic on an average boat. Then you have to get the boat moving…. It's pretty scary how far away the motor boat is when you're already too late to move.

 

And by starting the engine you blow yourself out of the race that you're competing in.

 

There's a fairly standard assumption that a yacht under power is going to give way to a yacht under sail ... just like there's an assumption that opposing vehicles are going to stay on their side of the centre line. By the time it becomes clear that isn't the case, its too late to do anything much about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i for one wouldn't want to be shooting below to start the engine with something that large heading for me..... we were just ahead of Gypsy and there was no breeze, drift central that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so the rules are as we have all read them above. But that does not negate a collision, or said another way, because there was a Collision, does not mean those steps were not carried out. So just because Gypsy was hit does not mean they are in any form of wrong. They did have a proper lookout, because someone was on deck. They did take all practicle steps to avoid collision. All steps that were practicle does not mean you can always avoid collision. I bet the skipper of Gypsy was "willing" his boat to move out of the way. You can only do so much when becalmed and have no easy way of starting an engine. If the Skipper of Gypsy was below having a cupper waiting for the wind to pick up, different story.

A scenario of both vessels being in the wrong would be like that dipstick that steered his vessel across the path of the Ferry traveling at 20+kts because he expected the ferry to turn because it had always turned at that point in the past. If the Ferry had just continued and the Yacht continued and both collided, then both vessels are at fault.

In the Gypsy incident, the other Vessel owner should be slammed with the book of the law in this situation. He was traveling too fast in a speed restricted area for a start, not to mention traveling too fast in the close vicinity of other vessels and traveling greater than 5kts close to the shore. So for three separate reasons right there, he was traveling too fast. If he was traveling too fast, how does anyone expect the stand on vessel to avoid a collision. In actual fact, the Harbour Master was wrong to fine both vessels, because an investigation should have been carried out which I am sure would have found that the stand on vessel was completely in all her rights and of no blame what so ever to the accident.

Lets take this to a possible scenario one step further. If the Woman on Gypsy had of been killed, I assume this would be a Man Slaughter situation and involve Police. I bet they would then fined the other vessel to blame. So why not the same in this current situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...