Jump to content

Safety Inspections for foreign flagged boats


Guest

Recommended Posts

You are saying -

There isn't an issue.

Any rule changes will stop cruisers coming

and the cost of SAR's is less than cruisers are spending here.

 

Is that a fair assessment?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And - if this isn't shut down every time it raises its head it has the potential to shut down international cruising as we have known it to date.

That seems extreme at the moment, but is definitely a possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
first is the annual budget, drawn up for known tasks, training, etc and the second is a contingencies fund, allocated for specific objectives as the arise.

Not any longer. No contingency fund. If something takes place outside normal operation, they have to pullback on something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree Ogre.

 

The way to kill anything political is to ignore it.

 

If you think we have 120 politicians hanging off every word some lawyer spouts on TV3 on a Sunday, even the lawyers without pimples, then I'm not convinced you have quite the level of scepticism in you to truly understand politics.

 

The equation is in my mind very simple. Someone spouts off. If their spouting goes into a void as often it does, those very few politicians that might have noticed will correctly conclude "who cares", and this is indeed correct, who cares?

 

If a fuss seems to be being made in the wider press, they will conclude that (they don't like this), they may have to form an opinion.

 

Now opinions in politicians are dangerous things, what happens is if there are enough politicians with opinions, eventually one of these politicians with an opinion will also be one who is only marginally likely to be elected.

 

Now this is pretty terrible since at this point he/she/it will decide that they need to be perceived as a dynamic action-oriented person, appearing on TV, fighting for the greater good, appearing on TV, caring for their fellow man, appearing on TV and occasionally having lunch with journalists, between their TV appearances.

 

Now, when they're forming their opinion, the opinion they form has to be an opinion that actually involves doing something, so they can be dynamic, appear on TV and all that. If the downside of that opinion only affects, say, foreign boat owners, all of whom are obviously filthy rich, non working and most importantly non voting persons of a foreign persuasion, well I'm sure you can join the dots.

 

So in this specific case, you could :

 

(1), stay silent and trust in the inherent apathy of politicians and the miserable ratings of tv3 on Sundays

 

(2), get noticed and have a politician either :

 

(2a), Decide to be dynamic, appear on TV and be seen to be making legislation that saves lives, doing something, appearing on TV to say they're saving money (even if they're not) and lives (they won't mention that those lives are of filthy rich foreign non voting boat owner types), preventing the drowning of puppies and so on

 

(2b) decide to appear before the voting public vigorously in favour of doing nothing, in a very dynamic, telegenic way of course. That they are determined to protect the rights of filthy rich, non working foreign boat owning types, most of whom will drown themselves at the first opportunity (and their puppies), at great expense to the New Zealand government but that doesn't matter because it's the principle of foreigners having the inalienable right to drown themselves at NZ government expense that it's so important for them to protect (yes, I was determined to mention inalienable rights somewhere) .

 

 

Now of course as you know I pretty much only care about the whole issue only to the extent that I think it's a great opportunity to wind up people who do care about it, but I say to you, "Trust in apathy". If the public appear apathetic, if no one talks, apathy will spread through parliament quicker than the most contagious of zombie plagues, conquering all and presenting to our dedicated representatives in the legislative chamber yet another opportunity to do what they truly excel at, nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe I was listening, in fact I have been the whole time as I'd also leave it just as it is given a choice. But being realistic I just don't see that as a longer term winning plan in the times we are living in. I see Mark also recognises where the future problem will come from if no one goes on a pro-active offensive.

 

Now, when they're forming their opinion, the opinion they form has to be an opinion that actually involves doing something, so they can be dynamic, appear on TV and all that. If the downside of that opinion only affects, say, foreign boat owners, all of whom are obviously filthy rich, non working and most importantly non voting persons of a foreign persuasion, well I'm sure you can join the dots.
Oh by the way that pimply faced lawyer is a Maritime Law lecturer who also advises the Govt on nautical legal matters. So he ain't no dumbarse random making wild statements everyone will just ignore.

 

I know the intense passion you have for this specific subject and that's great but I do think it's blinding you to other possible outcomes and/or options.

 

I think I need to employ Mark as my speech writer :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark - I hear you and I am torn between wanting to tell this guy where he is wrong and wanting to totally ignore it and hope it goes away (but what if it doesn't?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also - who else is going to speak up against it? Not YNZ, not MNZ, maybe MIA????????????

Unfortunately the international cruising fleet has no representative common voice, in fact i'd guess 90% of the fleet would roll over every 7 years or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SO KM we agree in principle but disagree on how best to deal with it??

You think give a concession and try to retain control and I say fight the bastards tooth and nail - give them an inch and we're screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not any longer. No contingency fund. If something takes place outside normal operation, they have to pullback on something else.

 

just to keep some context....there is probably a differance between Oz and NZ in this....

but the "pull back" first up here is in operational training.

And again from someone at the top..."real operations not only meet "training" critera, but are the very best training........

Static training is to keep operational readiness.....

Active operations negate most of the need (and are better) for continuous operational readiness.

By virtue, they provide situations that "made up" training cant.

Further...if there is not a constant and reasonable "static training" component (that can be finacialy swapped for active duty"...then the SAR people are not adequately trained.

Again it may be differant in NZ , but here in OZ active operations do count as "time".

As a further point...

If it has got to the stage that the situation has out stripped what I have stated, then It is obvious that a fully funded and dedicated SAR is needed.

NZ and OZ has obligations under international treaties.

Problems with our domestic "private" vessels are miniscul in terms of cost. Pollution control monitoring alone (in flight time and crews) ...think rena..blow the

finacial argument that two or three anual lost private boats are in any way a burden worth the damage of change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are some crazy bastards...

 

let me give you a couple of quotes.

.

 

"Argue for your limitations and they will be yours"

.

And.

" People who insist on lmitations are usualy those who either have no intention of testing them, or a wealthy enough to pay their way passed them"

.

And

"Most small boats dont go to sea to die. The people who wish to apply unreasonable rules and finacialy constraints , care far less about the well being of the sailor than the couple of cents that a rescue may entail"

"They are at best pretensious in their sincerity, and at worst ridiculously foccused on something that makes no differance, in a world that needs quiet exchange of people."

"If you chose to limit the travelers, the sailors, to one type, then those places, those remote places will sadly lose "

Link to post
Share on other sites
SO KM we agree in principle but disagree on how best to deal with it??

You think give a concession and try to retain control and I say fight the bastards tooth and nail - give them an inch and we're screwed.

Yeap that pretty much it but rather than concede I'd say 'run a block' on the most likely path that will lead to any changes to the Regs, should they get a grumpy on. As much as I'd like to join your fight if you look at the arsenal both sides have, sadly yours just doesn't have the big guns nor the numbers the other team has, should all hell break loose. So once they took that inch, an inch you maybe could grudgingly live with, they would have a totally free unopposed ride all the way to the full mile, the very mile you want to keep, and just like that you've lost it all.

 

As I said earlier and now Dan also, this passion of yours is the very stuff needed to lead the charge to run that block.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh by the way that pimply faced lawyer is a Maritime Law lecturer who also advises the Govt on nautical legal matters. So he ain't no dumbarse random making wild statements everyone will just ignore.

 

that doesn't mean he's not wrong.

 

A government ministry has recently update some rule making legislation from an out date act to its new home, and "tidied it up" in the process, the intention was to remain the same. What they came out with would have completely change the shape of maritime regulation and control of shipping in NZ. To their credit once this was pointed out they hit the rewrite key pretty fast and got it sorted.

 

The legal "experts" in another growing government body (Not MNZ) have totally failed to grasp the very basic maritime concept the the Master is the one in charge of a ship at all times and are happily suggesting the various others people take over that role.

 

I have seen/heard/read various legal opinions on another bit of legislation that are all contrary to each other, all written by experts reading the same words. I've come to the opinion that legal opinions are a means for lawyers too have a nice holiday or get the new Merc

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ghandi would disagree with you
I could be wrong but I doubt he'll have any input.
that doesn't mean he's not wrong.
Totally concur. But who is Mrs Tufalava going to listen to 1st? A lawyer talking unneeded costs or a foreign person standing on a big dollar boat.

 

Note, Mrs Tufalava has 6 kids which one needs ongoing medical care, works 60hrs a week, thinks mince is a luctury and is a NZ voter in a marginal seat. She has never heard of any court descions that happened a couple of decades ago and doesn't give a rats arse anyway.

 

If I had totaly say in what happens I'd leave it eaxctly as is but I don't get that say. Its the Mrs Tufalofas who are the worry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have seen/heard/read various legal opinions on another bit of legislation that are all contrary to each other, all written by experts reading the same words. I've come to the opinion that legal opinions are a means for lawyers too have a nice holiday or get the new Merc

Or said another way. Author of legal document writes document in Black and White. Lawyer reads document, interprets it as Grey and then argues it was never Black and White but actually Blue. No one ever goes back to original Author and asks what colour it is supposed to be. Law is finally enforced and we all end up seeing Red and the only Black we ever get to see is the void left in our wallets. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly apart from sites like this yachties generally have no voice, they are a disparate group and are generally seen by the great unwashed as either rich pricks or aged hippies bludgeing their way around the world. ( or like the young guy who recently thought it was quite okay to overstay his visa)

The questions that will be asked will be directed at the public rather than those who know the answers to the "harder questions, plus little notice will be taken of actual statistics unless they reinforce the answers they want.

Rather like the toll road authority, they ran a poll on their web site canvassing whether motorcyclists should pay a toll, of course as at that time bikes went through free, the bikies had no reason to access the web site, so they never knew there was a poll, therefore they never had snowballs chance in hell of having any influence on the outcome. only car users voted!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem (as what happened here) is that boating people are a very diverse group. There is even a degree of animosity between the various groups which makes it hard to get both an understanding and a consensus,...let alone some kind of mutual action.

In our case, I do object to the rigiity of the rules here...

I have no problem with PDFs for small open boats at all times, it just makes sense. I do object to say having to wear a pdf (when solo) on my 38 footer, when I am harnessed on. As an aside, as a short handed crew, we always wear clipped on harnesses 24/7 when we leave a safe enclose water way. This is regardless of the weather state. To me it is one or the other...Time in the water unsupported in cold water is just to short. Best not to go overboard in the first place.

It has been suggested to me by someone up the ladder that he would like to see a rule change that allows a reduction of certain safety gear, such as flares etc for local waters if the crew all have PLBs.

That kind of thinking makes sense to me.

Fines for infringments here have been massively increased. There is no question that this was because a number of people said "I would rather risk the fine, and maintain my freedom" and also as an easy target for revenue raising.

My cynasism, never covers all people and all situations though, because there are genuine people who are well intentioned in the whole structure. Its those people who you need to get on board with and give them real reasons........before the local pollies and bean counters get their hands on it....

As a final thing...you may be very supprised at just how tight (and expensive) local laws are in places like Europe.

___________________________________________

STUPID RULES.

(I got pinged here in OZ for not having a 9 KG fire extinguisher, ...because I had extra fuel diesel above decks in Jerry cans as a mercy mission for another boat....I had passed the fuel limit in our rules.....ever tried to swing 9 KGs in a sea ?..dumb number one......my partner is little and she is not very strong.....dumb number two.....we had three smaller (and usable new fire extinguishers on board).....dumb number three.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...