Coastguard Vision

[Clive 13]

Coastguard Vision

Our vision is “Everybody safe on the water. We will save lives through

rescue, education, communication and example”.

 

I'm not sure I am in alignment with this Vision they have for me and my sport. Like most sports there is risk.

 

For a start CG were behind the mandatory wearing of life jackets taking it away from being the responsibility of the skipper.

 

Is it safe for SSANZ to send us out 2 handed with a gale warning of 45 knots like the last race?

Is it safe for racing to go ahead with gale warnings?

Is it safe for boats to go out in a gale warning?

 

How about a slight change?

“Promoting safety on the water. We will save lives through

rescue, education, communication and example”.

[Dambo 44]

As a l/t CG member whose never actually called them up ('thought about it' once after cracking open the center-board casing on Milford Reef )

 

I have to agree. I like your suggestion. I think I particularly like the question of who takes responsibility. The skipper or 'The Law'. (well, rules and recommendations by an autonomous body that MNZ listen to?)

 

It's a nice idea that everybody will be safe on the water but many people simply aren't and cannot be made so...

 

I'll be honest, I do not include the people who race yachts in this equation. I'm thinking of the groups of people who're packed 11 to a 6mtr tinny, with no lj's, fishing in the Motuihe channel (I've seen exactly this) while we go past, sometimes tethered onto the boat or at least conscious of having safety lines, lj's, life-ring, VHF, flares, epirb etc, etc, etc.

 

As for gale warnings... how often do you find yourself standing on the deck having a conversation about how, "..yes there's a gale warning but this feels like a #2 and no reef". How many times do the CG have to rescue stricken yachts who're racing or having a play in some rough conditions vs motor-boaters. Sitting on my deck any sunny day of the week I watch with bemusement, the motor-boaters struggling to start their motors for 20minutes or more and the moment it does start they're off to dog-knows where, come the afternoon, I get to watch the same parade inevitable being towed back in.

 

The question is, how long before some noddy who's only experience of sailing is watching the AC on TV decides that there should be another LAW governing yacht racing because it must be irresponsible to go out in a gale warning right? Dog forbid that the insurance companies should get a sniff of it...

[Guest]

Is it safe for SSANZ to send us out 2 handed with a gale warning of 45 knots like the last race?

SSANZ did knot send you or anyone out in 45kts 2 handed, you and the rest chose to go.

 

The problem CG has is a significant number of the team see a race yacht no different than a tinny loaded with idiots. That's a problem they have had for a long while. So they need to be very careful in how they handle each 'section' of the maritime users as they can be wildly different in many regards. If they treat every boat the same they will lose both their goal and respect.

 

An example - We had a CG boat pull up alongside my commercial barge on a glass clam day 20mts off the Orakei breakwater and they went into rant mode as we didn't have life jackets on. The dude with me went ballistic and gave the CG lads a very comprehensive run down of their ancestry. Since then the dude with me regards all CG as dumbarse wankers. CG played that very wrong on many levels which resulted in a tarnishing. Yes I know they were only trying to be helpful but knot everyone is going to see it that way.

 

That aside, they do an OK job and one no one else is going to.

 

I'd check your comment about them being behind mandatory life jackets. I'm under the impression that might knot be as cut and dried as you think.

[Clive 13]

Is it safe for SSANZ to send us out 2 handed with a gale warning of 45 knots like the last race?

SSANZ did knot send you or anyone out in 45kts 2 handed, you and the rest chose to go.

Yes you are right and I should have worded it better to get my thought across.

 

My thought was along the line that SSANZ Race Management, guided by CG may have called the race off as it was not deemed 'safe'.

 

I'd check your comment about them being behind mandatory life jackets. I'm under the impression that might knot be as cut and dried as you think.

I stand by my comment about Life jackes and I have the emails for CG Education to back it up.

[Changed 10]

I can live with the concept of everyone being safe on the water. Craft capability, fitness for purpose, levels of equipment and crew competency are all part of that. 45 knots for one person may be OK but for someone else it is outside of their competency. There in lies the difficulty as rules are hard to apply on an individual basis. So it gets back to the skipper/owner. I was getting a cat inspection done the other day and John L was telling the story of a SH Russian sailor who was getting a cat inspection done, didn't need to but wanted to. The inspector drew his attention to the fact that he didn't have a life bouy and all the associated gear. His response was "Who throw?" So rules and recipes will never fit all occasions or contexts. Thought it was a good question though.

[Jon 360]

Seeing as you have brought me into it I will reply.

 

As SSANZ RO I am charged with running a yacht race.

I will choose the course and start time most applicable to the conditions for each fleet.

You under the rules of sailing shell decide wether or not to race (as 1 yacht decided to at the start of race two).

 

As for metservice forecasting I personal believe that they are running the risk of crying wolf once too often, as many of the boating public are starting to discount it as just another over the top guesstimate. This comes with very real risks !!

[philstar 61]

good point danaide . last weekends forecasts from metservice, wind guru and metvuw were vastly different. met service seems to be constantly taking a pessimistic view whereas metvuw and windguru seem to be much more accurate.

I thoroughly believe in skipper responsibility and also darwins theory and see coastguard rescuing a lot more fizzers than yachts.

[Guest]

The first sentence seems a nonsense to me. Will never happen and I wouldn't want it to.

[Clive 13]

Seeing as you have brought me into it I will reply.

 

As SSANZ RO I am charged with running a yacht race.

Sorry... I have not made myself clear - apologies.

I was asking the questions saying that it may not be safe as defined or visioned by the Coast Guard.

 

I am pro skipper choice and pro Race Management making their own decisions as opposed to other forces coming to bear on them.

Some clubs in the UK are worried about racing in over 25 knots due to implied responsibility on the Club! I don't want that to happen here too.

 

Again:

I was asking the questions saying that it may not be safe as defined or visioned by the Coast Guard.

[grant 40]

Don't forget that Coastguard in NZ are not a regulatory body, in the states for example the USCG is a part of the government and a regulatory with significant powers.

 

Here in NZ CG are more akin to the AA (the car one not the drinking one). They are accepted as an "expert" body for their area of work and provided an essential safety service, but are not government mandated, nor have powers of government. As far as the life jackets etc they are consulted as are a large number of other players in the marine industry and recreational areas, and have no special say on those matters.

 

 

Is their vision be any different than say the Salvation Army saying they would like to see the country free from alcoholics?

[Clive 13]

They are accepted as an "expert" body for their area of work and provided an essential safety service, but are not government mandated, nor have powers of government.

Is their vision be any different than say the Salvation Army saying they would like to see the country free from alcoholics?

True, although if the CG suggest or are pro regulatory measures are the council going to go against those suggestions? Unlikely.

 

Sorry ... really I am still banging on about the CG being behind the mandatory wearing of lifejackets in the Coromandel which could also be law in Auckland too if the by-law goes through. It fits perfectly with their Vision.

[Guest]

I suggest a widespread use of civil disobedience should that occur. In other words - ignore it.

[Clive 13]

I suggest a widespread use of civil disobedience should that occur. In other words - ignore it.

[Grinna 2]

That's precisely why I asked what would be the costs to individuals for a campaign of civil disobedience on this issue. It seems that Harbourmasters actually have quite a measure of legal grunt behind them.

[Guest]

out of curiosity, what would happen if say i was out standing on my 12'6, 200L solid foam & glass flotation device (and just so happen to be holding a paddle) and i get called up by mr. harbour master/CC for knot wearing a flotation device, what powers do they have to stop me if i just say no and paddle off? can they drag you onboard? herd you into shore?

[Guest]

what powers do they have to stop me if i just say no and paddle off? can they drag you onboard? herd you into shore?

They can get you many ways so saying No is likely to only make your life harder. To the Police and Harbourmaster at least as those dudes and dudess's do have powers.

 

The CG can't touch you though.... but be nice as if they turn up they only are trying to help, rightly or wrongly as it maybe at the time.

[Elenya 33]

Powers of the Harbourmaster are held in the Local Government Act 1974 (extracts below) these are inaddition to powers given by a bylaw).

650C General powers of harbourmasters and enforcement officers

 

(1) A harbourmaster or enforcement officer of a regional council may at any time, for the purposes of carrying out his or her duty, enter and remain on any ship in waters within the council's region.

 

(2) A harbourmaster or an enforcement officer (together with such assistants and equipment as are considered necessary) may enter and remain on any maritime facility, or on any land or property of a port company or other operator of a port facility, within the region of the council that appointed the harbourmaster for the purposes of carrying out his or her functions.

 

(3) For the purpose of ensuring navigation safety, a harbourmaster or enforcement officer may give directions regulating—

(a) the time and manner in which any ship may enter into, depart from, lie, or navigate in those waters:

( the position, mooring, unmooring, placing, removing, securing, or unsecuring of any ship within those waters:

© the manner in which any ship within those waters, or at any maritime facility, may take in or discharge its cargo or any part of its cargo, and the manner in which cargo is secured or is being handled on a ship where there is a risk of cargo falling overboard and becoming a hazard to navigation

 

 

650D Harbourmaster may remove ships

(1) For the purposes of ensuring navigation safety or enforcing navigation bylaws, a harbourmaster of a regional council may—

(a) direct the master of any ship in waters within the region of the council, or lying at any maritime facility, to moor, unmoor, anchor, weigh anchor, secure, unsecure, place, or move his or her ship; and

( cause the ship to be moored or unmoored or to be anchored or to weigh anchor or to be secured or unsecured or to be placed or removed according to the harbourmaster's directions, and employ a sufficient number of persons for the purpose.

 

(2) A harbourmaster of a regional council may, in relation to any floating, submerged, or stranded object (other than one to which section 650K applies) that the harbourmaster considers is a hazard to navigation, do or cause to be done anything referred to in subsection (1)( (as if the object were a ship).

 

(3) The expenses incurred by a harbourmaster under subsection (1) or subsection (2) are payable by the master and the owner of the ship, or by the owner of the object (as the case may be), and are recoverable as a debt due to the council

 

650E Harbourmasters and others may regulate some navigation activities

(1) A harbourmaster of a regional council may, in the interests of navigation safety, do all or any of the following things in relation to any waters within the council's region:

(a) require the person appearing to be in charge of any ship or seaplane to stop, and to give his or her name and address, on being requested to do so by the harbourmaster:

( require any person found committing an offence against the council's navigation bylaws to give his or her name and address:

© on informing the owner of a ship or seaplane of an alleged offence against the council's navigation bylaws, and on requesting the owner to do so, require the owner to give all information in the owner's possession or obtainable by the owner which may lead to the identification of the person by whom the offence is alleged to have been committed:

(d) regulate and control the traffic and navigation, and provide specially for the direct and personal control of that traffic, on any day or occasion of unusual or extraordinary traffic.

 

(2) A person authorised by the council, or any constable acting on the request of the harbourmaster or such an authorised person, who—

(a) has received a complaint that there has been a breach of any of the council's navigation bylaws; and

( on investigation of the complaint, is of the opinion that there has been a breach of the council's navigation bylaws,—

may exercise any power under subsection (1)(a) to ©.

 

(3) If a harbourmaster or enforcement officer of a regional council believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a breach of maritime rules involving navigation safety, the harbourmaster or enforcement officer may exercise any power under subsection (1)(a) to ©, and those provisions apply with any necessary modifications.

 

(4) No honorary enforcement officer may exercise any power under subsection (1)© or (d).

650G Offence

 

Section 650G

A person commits an offence against this Act who fails without reasonable cause to comply with a direction or requirement given or made under section 650C or section 650D or section 650E.

 

And powers of Council to make bylaw are given in section 684B

 

684B Bylaws relating to navigation and related activities

 

 

A regional council may from time to time, by bylaw under this Act, do all or any of the following things in relation to waters within its region:

 

(a) generally regulate and control, for the purposes of navigation and safety, the use or management of ships (including the mode and place of their mooring, anchoring, position, unmooring, and removal):

 

( regulate the placing and maintenance of moorings and maritime facilities (which bylaws may not be inconsistent with the Resource Management Act 1991):

 

© regulate and control, and prevent nuisances arising from,—

(a) the speed, use, anchoring, mooring, and management of ships and seaplanes:

( the towing of any thing or person:

 

(d) if the council is satisfied that such action is necessary in the interests of navigation safety,—

(i) reserve any specified waters for use by any specified kind of ship or seaplane, or by any persons:

(ii) regulate or prohibit the use of those waters by other ships or persons:

(iii) on the occasion of boat races, yacht races, launch races, or swimming races, or similar events,—

(A) provide for the prohibition or regulation of the use of specified classes of ships:

( regulate admission to specified areas or authorise the organisers of the event to regulate admission to specified areas:

 

(e) regulate and control the use of any anchorage:

 

(f) put in place ship traffic separation schemes and ship traffic management schemes:

 

(g) specify requirements (which may not be inconsistent with maritime rules) for—

(i) the provision of life jackets and buoyancy aids on pleasure craft:

(ii) the wearing of life jackets and buoyancy aids by persons on pleasure craft:

(iii) the marking and identification of personal water craft; and, for the purposes of this subparagraph, a personal water craft is a power driven ship that—

(A) has a fully enclosed hull; and

( does not take on water if capsized; and

© is designed to be operated by a person standing, sitting astride, or kneeling on it, but not seated within it:

 

(h) fix fees and charges in respect of the use of any land, building, equipment, or other property, that is owned by the council and operated for navigation-related purposes, and in respect of navigation-related activities the council undertakes, including (without limitation) bylaws—

(i) fixing fees and charges for any function, duty, power, or service carried out or exercised or provided by the council in respect of any ship, maritime facility, offshore installation, pipeline, oil transfer site, navigational aid, or marine farm, or in respect of navigation generally:

(ii) fixing such fees and charges on the basis of the nature of the facility, the location and use of the facility, the size of the vessel, or on any other differential basis:

(iii) specifying the persons who are liable to pay such fees and charges:

 

(i) exempting specified classes of persons from compliance with any provision of the bylaws or providing for the council to exempt any person from compliance with any provision of the bylaws; and providing for the council to suspend the operation of any provision of the bylaws, in any class of case or in any particular case, in circumstances specified in the bylaws

 

 

As you can see powers are extensive, particularly the power of direction. You will notice that these powers are not abused on the water, people are not removed from boats and boats taken away even where the power does exist. It would appear New Zealand actually has a system that gives enough power to make things happen when it is needed but the powers are not abused or even used that often. Seems most people want to do the right thing....but there will always be one!

 

hope this helps

[Elenya 33]

out of curiosity, what would happen if say i was out standing on my 12'6, 200L solid foam & glass flotation device (and just so happen to be holding a paddle) and i get called up by mr. harbour master/CC for knot wearing a flotation device, what powers do they have to stop me if i just say no and paddle off? can they drag you onboard? herd you into shore?

 

A quick answer, you'd be told not to be a muppet and to get a lifejacket sorted for yourself, and then they would go. The next time they saw you may be different, may be not that would be your choice.

[1paulg 17]

out of curiosity, what would happen if say i was out standing on my 12'6, 200L solid foam & glass flotation device (and just so happen to be holding a paddle) and i get called up by mr. harbour master/CC for knot wearing a flotation device, what powers do they have to stop me if i just say no and paddle off? can they drag you onboard? herd you into shore?

 

While paddling my surf ski on the harbour I have been approached and asked that question...they were polite and accepted the fact that I was no novice and in full control of the situation...however did suggest I should wear one in future ...I took no offense at all to the way that they handled it but was surprised as we were a small group of experienced paddlers in flat calm conditions....I fully agree that some people should be wearing flotation devices whilst paddling 2 nm from land but would like to think in future the decision is still mine

[Clive 13]

 

While paddling my surf ski on the harbour I have been approached and asked that question...they were polite and accepted the fact that I was no novice and in full control of the situation...however did suggest I should wear one in future ...I took no offense at all to the way that they handled it but was surprised as we were a small group of experienced paddlers in flat calm conditions....I fully agree that some people should be wearing flotation devices whilst paddling 2 nm from land but would like to think in future the decision is still mine

Make sure you don't do that in the Coromandel as the HM will now nab you. Again, I have emails to back this up that they will be enforcing all life jacket wearing as it's now mandatory.

Auckland could be next.