Jump to content

Safety Inspections for foreign flagged boats


Guest

Recommended Posts

Thanks Dan -Sounds like you know what you are on about?

 

Used to have a professional interest (edit: as an engineer and operator not a lawyer!) in maritime law, for now though just an unhealthy interest :oops:

 

Not so much NZ maritime law, but its all the same in western countries really, as evidenced by the NZ courts!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Dan -Sounds like you know what you are on about?

 

Just further on the last line of my spiel - this is from the RYA but it applies everywhere - http://www.rya.org.uk/infoadvice/regssa ... tions.aspx

 

You'll see under SOLAS that it is 'always under review' and the last changes bringing in SOLAS V for pleasure craft happened in 2002, it wouldn't take much for a member state to trigger the further extension of SOLAS V into pleasure craft - states like NZ and AUS with big SAR areas.....

 

Commercial ships and insurers lose a lot of money, time and fuel picking up survivors and they have the most influence at IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My original post was saying I found it funny at the way Ogre thinks news articles he disagrees with are lies and tripe yet he likes many that are obviously 100% bullshit and have no counter opinion.

 

As to checking offshore boats I personally would like to see them given a once over and any failings mentioned to the skipper but have nothing compulsory about them being remedied. At the same time a list of all safety gear the boat has and a note taken about the crews apparent skills also taken.

 

That will do 2 things -

One is alert the crew to any potential issues as it's knot uncommon to see them overlook stuff due to slow deterioration or as they have been 'in port' for a while something may have just been overlooked. It happens to us all and at times it's only a comment from a 3rd party that alerts/reminds us to fix it. If they choose knot to so be it, good bye sail safe and we hope you make it. So a once over can only be positive for the boat.

 

Secondly the list of safety gear will help NZ save money when it comes time to suss for boats. If one goes missing and the aircraft see's floating wreckage then checks the boast gear list to find no liferaft, the aircraft can just turn around and come straight home as we'll know the crew is fish food and knot floating around waiting to be found. Just think of the saving for the NZ taxpayer.

 

So a check would be a win-win situation for everyone as opposed to the current hit and hope method that will have cost lots of people time, money and their lives. All depends on what your priority for the tax dollar spend is I suppose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot understand why anyone would want to sail offshore without at least some form of comms (SSB/Satphone) and an EPIRB - I'd be willing to bet that even the most anti-tech idealist would love to be able to phone home when everything turns pear shaped. I get the whole freedom ethos that offshore sailing brings, but one or two modern "help-me" electronic items should surely be a minimum for departure. Very, very hard to search the ocean for anyone who can't pinpoint their position...

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what is being debated though. The issue here is whether one country has the right to impede the free passage of a boat from another country by insisting on certain safety standards.

By the treaty we signed they do not. Safety is the responsibility of the country of origin. The treaty was signed in that form as anything else would be a giant shitfight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot understand why anyone would want to sail offshore without at least some form of comms (SSB/Satphone) and an EPIRB
They think they are cool or have some sort of twisted Bear Grills he-man thing going on when in fact all they are doing is costing other people lives and money they wouldn't need to be spend if they had any tiny smidgen of social responsibility? Most I've meet have and still use calendars at least 40 years old, they don't seem to realise the rest of the world lives in 2013.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Knot bad from a keen motorcyclist, How many overseas yachts have called for help this year???

 

I cannot understand why anyone would want to sail offshore without at least some form of comms (SSB/Satphone) and an EPIRB
They think they are cool or have some sort of twisted Bear Grills he-man thing going on when in fact all they are doing is costing other people lives and money they wouldn't need to be spend if they had any tiny smidgen of social responsibility? Most I've meet have and still use calendars at least 40 years old, they don't seem to realise the rest of the world lives in 2013.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan is at least sticking to the issue. KM's comment was beneath contempt so I let it slide.

Interesting that a change to NZ law is unlikely, or any other country that tries anything equally silly. they would hit the same wall NZ did.

But the danger lies in too many countries getting together to change UNCLOS(?). At least that would be harder and take a lot longer, maybe with luck the Zombie Apocalypse will happen first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears for many here 'social good' only counts in some areas and knot if it involves them personally, NIMBY I think the name of that is. The public love NIMBYs with a passion so I'm sure should push come to shove they would back you in your desires to say "it's all about me f*ck you lot, but please pay the many $1000's an hour SAR will chew up" as they are obliged to do for you, whether you like it or knot. But hey, so what if a kid leaves school knot knowing how to read and write as we can't afford enough teachers, at least we spend a week looking for a boat that if better equipped and/or we knew what it does have aboard and/or if it was shonkey, we wouldn't have to have had.

 

I think being that selfish in this day and age will only lead to harder stronger negative repercussions than taking active small steps now to minimise that future risk for everyone, especially when it can be done at no cost to any cruisers and at a huge saving to the taxpayer. But if you think otherwise that's fine, just don't bitch when the next pimply faced lawyer turns out to have enough swing in the eyes of the public and Parliament to get laws changed as we all know if that happens it won't be in a good way.

 

Bad analogy Steve. If I crash off my bike the public will see I have done all I could to minimise the risks i.e. they will see a full set of safety gear. How many this year? No idea but that's also irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be right, my point though was that (if they could) the powers that be would not allow us on our bikes no matter how well equipped we were in the first case.

 

Bad analogy Steve. If I crash off my bike the public will see I have done all I could to minimise the risks i.e. they will see a full set of safety gear. How many this year? No idea but that's also irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears for many here 'social good' only counts in some areas and knot if it involves them personally, NIMBY I think the name of that is. The public love NIMBYs with a passion so I'm sure should push come to shove they would back you in your desires to say "it's all about me f*ck you lot, but please pay the many $1000's an hour SAR will chew up" as they are obliged to do for you, whether you like it or knot. But hey, so what if a kid leaves school knot knowing how to read and write as we can't afford enough teachers, at least we spend a week looking for a boat that if better equipped and/or we knew what it does have aboard and/or if it was shonkey, we wouldn't have to have had.

 

I think being that selfish in this day and age will only lead to harder stronger negative repercussions than taking active small steps now to minimise that future risk for everyone, especially when it can be done at no cost to any cruisers and at a huge saving to the taxpayer. But if you think otherwise that's fine, just don't bitch when the next pimply faced lawyer turns out to have enough swing in the eyes of the public and Parliament to get laws changed as we all know if that happens it won't be in a good way.

 

Bad analogy Steve. If I crash off my bike the public will see I have done all I could to minimise the risks i.e. they will see a full set of safety gear. How many this year? No idea but that's also irrelevant.

 

I'm completely undecided on this, I haven't done that much 'blue water' sailing and when did al will do in the future, you can bet I will have every safety device possible available, just because I am risk averse when it comes to my own life! So any international law change would probably not affect me, except for the hassle of yet more admin to do to get in and out.

 

So part of me sides with KM on this, in that most boats will already meet the requirement anyway, and it would save some hassle for SAR authorities.

 

But. There is the law of unintended consequences. The reality is, even with an international law many many states will just not enforce it, so the cruising community will just go to those places and not the places that enforce. Just look at the merchant fleets for evidence of that. The bastards will still pass through NZ SAR areas anyway, so we will still be stuck with rescuing them.

 

The other problem is a border issue, a lot more boats will not bother to check in and out, so NZ will spend a lot more time patrolling for boats illegally entering and leaving that are otherwise no threat to the country. Whereas now, we know 99.9% will check in and out and the combined NZ maritime resources (Police, C&I, Navy, Airforce) can spend there time catching the real bad guys (or eating donuts).

 

You might just find money saved on SAR goes towards law enforcement and patrols. In any case you couldn't enforce the law on those in our SAR areas but NOT entering or leaving NZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt Steve. The powers that be are weird to say the least and I'm also sure they would prefer us all wrapped nicely in cotton wool.

 

While I would far prefer to live in Ogres world I just don't see that as a reality of these times. Ogre will fight tooth and nail to hold the status quo which he has every right to do but he's in a microscopic sized minority that understands all the risks...unlike the law makers and 'We just can't have these needless deaths. Someone stop them!!' public, possibly riled up by a pimply faced lawyer for example. Sooner or latest they will reach a tipping point and when they do it will most likely be extreme, in the eyes of us who do know the subject better than most. When that happens Ogre and us all will lose so much more than we realise.

 

Here is an example of that very thing from this evenings news. As we all know, all get told often and is in the headlines a lot, all real estate agents are going hard out bumping up the house prices by selling them to rich Asians at the expense of locals, some of which are 1st timers. As that's been going on so long and driven the costs so high Rangi Public have squealed that much the pollies have had to step in and find some way of stopping all the house sales to these rich asian investors. So what's the angle on stopping that? The Reserve Bank looks like it's about to impose a 20% minimum deposit for any bank house loan. There seems to be zero allowance for the 1st timers to get in with a smaller deposit. And just like that BAMM!! the whole shebang gets stirred up hugely and at the expense of many including the very people it's supposed to be helping i.e. those 1st timers.

 

An over reaction? To many of the public No it's a good move as most see all property fiddlers as all rich scum who deserve to be fucked over, or so one could think based on the many comments made in assorted places. But will Ogre think that knowing what he does from having skin in the property game? I seriously doubt that as he'll know it's far from that simple and the prices are knot just due to asians with Visa cards on methamphetamine.

 

Smaller changes sooner would mean less shock, awe and in some cases big gloom as those 1st timers now have to find another large sum of money from somewhere to buy that house Ogre has on his books.

 

Maybe small costless tweaks to the visiting boat situation that can only be neutral or positive for said boat is better to happen sooner rather than have a polly lead huge drama filled one later when the public noise gets too much for those pollies to allow. A lead from the front and pre-emptively chop the legs from under the pollies/naggers theory. To me that seems something worth discussing and considering even if nothing changes at the end. If nothing else at least the Ogres can say 'Hey, we're already looking and discussing this, calm the f*ck down' if the natives get too restless.

 

Or at least I though it was......

Link to post
Share on other sites
but he's in a microscopic sized minority that understands all the risks..

And that is it in nutshell. We have all discussed it here before, you too Squid, in regards to GPS and other modern day wonders making getting a boat and taking it out into the wild blue yonder an easy task.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On finding out what gear foreign yachts have could be as simple as a declaration at point of entry, a couple of pages with tick boxes and space for comments - to be filled out by skipper on arrival, top copy kept by customs - second copy then submitted on departure with any alterations. But include a statement worded something like - "NZ does not require foreign vessels to comply with NZ Cat1 requirements blah blah..."

Link to post
Share on other sites

IF ever the pimply lawyer dude got his way it might be fairer to have them declare their ability to comply with cat 1 standards when they applied for a visa or on the form that they have to send to NZ a minimum of 96 hours before arrival. That way they would know what they are letting themselves in for and could say Yep thats OK or Feck this, NZ's a hard place to get to or leave from, this makes my decision easy, I'll spend my dollars elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I just detect some common sense from Rigger?

 

 

KM - If you were to convince me your argument had any merit you would have to provide evidence for a few things first (remember we are only talking about foreign flags leaving NZ, not arriving and not NZ vessels - thus automatically limiting the effectiveness of any measures immediately).

 

1) Is there even a problem? How often do we mount a search for a foreign flagged vessel that has left NZ? We've just had one but off the top of my head I can't remember the last one. Is the Rescue Centre lobbying government coz they are swamped by all the work searching for foreign boats sailing away from NZ? Are the insurance companies who pay for ship rescues lobbying govt to do something coz they are going broke as a result? Is a $200,000 search even expensive? As pointed out we should be looking at the incremental cost, i.e the extra cost associated with searching for a real boat vs the cost of practicing looking for an imaginary boat. Are the Navy/Airforce complaining?

Or put the bean counter's hat on. If a search cost $200,000, and when rule 21 was introduced the numbers of visiting boats dropped by half - then , we know that the "average spend" of a visiting cruiser is about $35,000, if half don't come, then call that 300 x $35k roughly $10 million that comes out of the economy, if 30% would have eventually found its way back to the govt coffers we have lost $3 million, or about 15 major searches.

We should be looking at ways to encourage these people to come, and to stay longer, not trying to piss them off.

 

2) If there were a problem would this solve it? That can be resolved easily, go back to when rule 21 was dumped, count the number of searches for NZ boats leaving NZ, and the number for foreign flags leaving NZ (cat 1 vs not cat1) - then show me a statistically significant difference. Again only from my failing memory I believe this was done a while back and the foreigners were slightly "safer".

Based on which maybe we should dump cat 1 for NZers instead.

 

3) If there were a problem, and if this would solve it - would there be other effects that should be considered.

Cost? At the moment inspections are free. Let's say 300 foreign boats leave NZ in a 6 week period around May. that's 10 per week. So we need at least one full time inspector in Opua for 6 weeks. Hmmmm

My biggest fear is the other countries that would eye this (many considering it a cash cow) and jump in to join the fun. They would charge whatever the market would bear, in some of these countries corruption is a way of life, expect to pay a backhander to some official to be allowed to leave. NZ is remote, in some cruising grounds you can change countries 3-4 times in a month($200 a pop?). The various countries will never agree on standards, and in those corrupt places the rules will change capriciously so you will pay more.

 

 

 

Nope- it opens a giant can of worms and we should fight it tooth and nail. And I don't buy KM's suggestion that tightening the thumbscrews yourself slowly is somehow an improvement over getting them tightened by somone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ogre, you aren't listening up what I am saying and personally I think you're using the head in the sand method when you yourself have all the evidence you need to make a pre-emptive strike and negate the exact thing you don't want to happen. You're also full of 'show me', it's knot you anyone has to show, it's the other way around. Open your mind to the other side of the equation, that is the side that will crush your ideals if you let it.

 

I suppose we'll see how it pans out over time. I hope I'm wrong but history does suggest I'm knot.

 

And stop saying 'where's the evidence?' followed in the same post by a mother load of 'ifs', 'buts' and assumptions. That post is full of chocker with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ogre, I agree 100% that that is the logical position.

Unfortunately, our NZ authorities are not always (often?) logical, and I think the rule is likely to be re-instated at some point. I will do what I can to prevent that.

 

Also everyone, consider this. Our regs (enforced for NZ boats via inspection) are close, but not the same as Ausy (ours are stricter). If theirs were enforced, you would be only allowed to enter their waters or leave. To sail locally you would need a local boat masters ticket. This happens NOW in Singapore. Despite having an internationally recognized yacht masters ticket, I was not allowed to leave the marina, (for a local voyage - international was ok!) even for a test sail, without sitting, of all things, a powerboat captains licence! I left the marina all right - and the country!

 

Also, it could get as petty as "your (brand new) lifejackets don't meet our local standard (they are WAY better, but don't have the local tag), so you will have to buy new ones before you leave". This could happen in every country, thereby putting an end to cruising. Yes, this example is extreme, but it is to illustrate the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...