syohana
-
Content Count
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by syohana
-
-
HI there,
Does anyone have up to date information about Ngunguru? Local knowledge or recent experience? The bar has a reputation for moving so I don't trust any of the charts or pilot books, never been in there before.
I'm considering going in tomorrow with a 1.1m draft.
1. What's the least depth on the bar (and is that at high tide, low tide or chart datum?)
Tides are curently neaps, range 1.1m-2.2
2. Does the channel currently align with the channel markers and are the markers good?
3. Where is good to anchor inside? depth at low tide? Enough space for a 50ft cat between moorings? Good holding? (Might be windy on Friday from the North).
Thanks!
-
15 hours ago, Mitchell said:
Hi, I have a 72' Van de Stadt Ketch
Sorry only our jetty can take that length and we are currently using the jetty ourselves. The mooring directly opposite is available now, max length for that is 15m/50ft.
-
I'm writing to mooring owners, boating clubs and commercial vessel operators in the Far North to draw your attention to the proposed new FNDC bylaw targeting us and ask you all to please make submissions on it.This by-law gives the council unlimited control over commercial users of FNDC landings, wharves and boat ramps without any accountability. The new bylaw seems to have been designed to give the council extra powers for the purpose of taking revenge on me and my boat hire business after I prosecuted a council official who had abused council powers to attack me, but it will affect all users of FNHL and FNDC wharves, jetties and boat ramps.The council has made no secret that the purpose of the new bylaw is to attack commercial users of marine facilities, HOWEVER, it quietly abolishes the current bylaw which stipulates that every mooring owner in the Far North pays $25 per year to FNDC which is collected by NRC annually together with the other mooring license fees and then passed to FNDC.That $25 is ringfenced to pay for services at public wharves, particularly the drinking water supply provided at Waipapa landing, Stone Store and other locations for the use of moored boats. There is nothing about those services in the new bylaw and no ringfencing of the fees collected under the new bylaw. If the old bylaw is abolished then the council could remove the water taps from the wharves.Even more important, the current $25 annual fee on all moorings gives all mooring owners the legal status of "ratepayers" and access to FNDC council services. This is essential for live-aboards and important for all mooring owners.The council are hoping to sneak this important change through and didn't mention it at all in their announcements. Please make sure everyone writes a submission.If mooring owners are no longer going to be ratepayers then the "mooring owners and ratepayers association" might need a change of name - we don't all own land! If you have a mooring and you're not already a member please consider joining at https://www.russellcommonsense.com/ because Klaus has been doing good work representing the interests of mooring owners against the council.Here's the FNDC announcement - note the bizarre presumption that for some unstated reason recreational users should always have priority over commercial ones in what have traditionally been commercial facilities:The proposed new bylaw:The artificial attempt to make a distinction between recreational and commercial users makes no sense - in fact most commercial vessels such as charter yachts and boat hire are recreational vessels. Extra costs for commercial vessels will have to be passed on to the recreational customers who hire vessels and are less able to afford it than recreational boaters who own their own vessel - it's a tax on the poor.The council assumes that for some unstated reason recreational users who own a boat should have priority over commercial users who create employment and make boating accessible to everyone, including those who can't afford to own their own boat or are too elderly to launch a boat themselves. No explanation whatsoever is given for the assumption that recreational users should be prioritised, nor is any reason given why recreational users who hire a boat are to be banned or charged fees while recreational users who own their boat are not.The wharves and boat ramps are mostly legal roads themselves. Navigable rivers are also legally "roads" along which anyone can travel without hindrance. In terms of the law, the wharves and boat ramps are simply junctions in the road network where the mode of transport changes and along which everyone has the right to pass. For most of the history of Kerikeri there were no roads inland and all traffic to other places passed through the wharves which have historically always been primarily commercial facilities, for example passengers and goods at the Stone Store wharf and timber at Waipapa landing where the old tramway delivered it to be towed away by commercial vessels. The legality of restricting access to parts of the road network in this way is very questionable, especially when the council now wants to give themselves the power to deny access to any commercial user they hold a grudge against, without accountability.At the least, the requirements and costs for commercial vessels to use the facilities need to be clearly set out and consistently applied to both commercial and recreational vessels.We all need to use commercial operators to maintain our moorings and it will become impossible if they need written permission in advance and fees to pay before launching vessels or loading materials at public wharves and boat ramps. It can take months to get written permission (or not) from the council and sometimes commercial operators need access at short notice.There are many live-aboards on moorings in the river who rely on the drinking water supply at the jetties to fill their tanks and provision of those services needs to be guaranteed. Purely recreational users also need to fill their tanks with drinking water, even for day trips.For contrast you can see the old, relatively sane bylaws here:The main factor of interest to mooring owners will be the abolition of the annual rates on moorings, which were ringfenced to pay for facilities at the wharves including drinking water for mooring owners. Mooring owners (including commercial ones) rely on the public ramps and jetties to access their moorings, denying them the use of those facilities would deny them access to their moorings.As a boat hire operator who has been the victim of a long running vendetta against my business and my family by staff in the FNDC legal department (one of whom has lost his job there and is now facing criminal charges) I would be very grateful for everyone's support on the other aspects affecting commercial users, even though they may not impact you personally.Commercial users should all oppose this strongly please - even if you currently have friends at the council who will grant you access on reasonable terms, council staff change frequently and the new bylaw allows them to pull the plug and destroy your business at any time without notice. It will become impossible to operate a marine business in the Far North which relies on any public facility if the council can pull the plug any time without notice.Please note that the definition of "maritime facility" includes the Bay of Islands Marina (Opua marina) so it looks like all commercial vessels (including hired boats) will be banned from there too unless they have special written permission from the council and if they do get permission they can be charged unlimited extra fees to use it. Commercial vessels will also require special written permission and may need to pay unlimited arbitrary fees to use any of the FNDC/FNHL controlled fuel docks such as those at Opua, Russell and Paihia. This includes visiting commercial vessels from overseas and outside the Far North who will need to apply for written permission in advance before docking at any council facility.But how will they know that? Crazy!Besides making submissions in the consultation, please could everyone contact your councillors, community board members and the mayor so that they can help put a stop to this. Certain council and FNHL staff have clearly already decided to push this through, they pretend to do a consultation and will probably ignore the response but the elected councillors and mayor can still put a stop to this.The existing bylaws are functioning perfectly well, the existing commercial use of these facilities doesn't pose a problem to anyone and nobody is complaining about it. The right thing to do is to retain the two existing bylaws and not waste council resources on creating these ill-considered new laws. The existing bylaws already provide clearly defined, affordable fees for commercial users with a clear application process and rules requiring the council to grant the permits on application.Please don't forget to pass this on to all your contacts who might be affected by the new bylaw.Many thanks for your support and best wishes,Chris
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Addem said:
Yacht is Dutch for fast ship (another Dutch word) and i understand that Americans began using 'sail boat' to distinguish from steamers. So yacht started to be reserved luxury or racing classes. English were more traditional and stuck the older usages. Something like that.
Actually Yacht comes from Jacht which is dutch for "hunt" (if you go back far enough "hunt" and "jacht" are actually the same word, the sound just gradually changed apart in English and Dutch).
The very first boats used exclusively for pleasure/leisure in the Netherlands rather than for commercial, military or transport purposes were for wealthy people to go hunting (mostly shooting ducks). So hunting boats were the only pleasure craft and the name eventually stuck to all pleasure craft, then got adopted into English because we didn't have our own word for pleasure craft.
... back on topic, Topsides are only the sides between the waterline and the bulwarks or toe rail. Definitely cannot include decks or coachroof.
-
2
-
-
We have used Cook Islands and Jersey. Cook islands is expensive, a lot of paperwork and only lasts a short time. Jersey is cheap and lasts ten years before renewal. All you need is a tonnage measurement. Jersey is definitely the best and lowest cost option.
We used Cook Islands when we were operating commercially because they have the same commercial survey requirements as NZ but Jersey do not. Use Cook Islands for a commercial vessel but Jersey is best for recrreational yachts.
-
2 hours ago, grant said:
Section 65 of the Maritime Transport Act https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0104/latest/DLM335758.html casuing unnecessary danger or risk to any other person. It is the section of the Act that is used in relation to recreational craft, and, although not often, it does get used .
That does seem to cover it, though the maximum sentence is rather low.
I wouldn't be surprised if Maritime NZ say the launch isn't a commercial vessel so they will leave it to the police to prosecute (and perhaps MaritimeNZ decide to prosecute the ferry on a technicality because it's commercial). ....Meanwhile the police say it's under the Maritime Transport Act, they'll leave it to Maritime NZ to prosecute. .....Meanwhile the deadline to file charges slips by.
-
17 minutes ago, Rats said:
The vessel is a Boston Whaler Conquest 305 and it would appear the boat is built like the proverbial brick out house considering the relative damage to the vessel compared to that of the ferry.
I am guessing there may be some delamination below that gel coat though.
Looks like the anchor sticking out on the bow did most of the damage like a battering ram. I'm not so sure the boston whaler was especially well built, it just hit head on. Triangles of any material are very strong, the triangular bow of the launch hit the flat side of the ferry and easily swept off the wheelhouse which was non-original, non-structural, lightweight and just tacked on top of the ferry.
If it had been the other way around then I'm sure the triangular bow of the ferry would have destroyed the flat side of launch quite effectively.
The lack of damage below the waterline is actually testament to how strongly built the ferry was. Pretty impressive that the hull below water stayed intact even with the beam shelf and top of the frames smashed in. Such a shame that nobody bothered to tow her to the haul out before she sank but I guess nobody wanted to be blamed for sinking her if she sank while being towed.
Presumably the sinking was was just due to plank seams and the wakes splashing into the hole from all the boats coming to have a look. Bilge pumps would have kept up until the battery died.
As for suggestions the ferry could have done something to avoid collision, it was effectively almost stationary compared to the launch and had no idea which way the launch might turn at the last moment. Any avoiding action the ferry took would have been as likely to make things worse - turning to starboard could have caused the launch to hit the passengers rather than the wheelhouse.
There was only one thing the ferry could do - the ferry should have been sounding their horn in a continuous series of short blasts to alert the launch of the impending collision from the moment the skipper became aware of the launch on collision course. Apparently this was not done, either the ferry skipper never saw the launch coming or his horn was not functioning, so there does appear to be a small technical fault on the part of the ferry but overwhelmingly the launch was at fault. It was probably too noisy on the launch to hear the horn so this is purely academic.
Sadly MaritimeNZ will probably focus on trying to find some kind of technical fault like that with the commercial vessel (however minor) and will largely ignore the leisure vessel because their jurisdiction is primarily over commercial vessels. It will be hard to find a suitable offence to charge the leisure vessel skipper with. Manslaughter would be appropriate if someone had died but fortunately nobody did die (hoping the ferry skipper makes a full recovery) so there are very limited options to hold the launch skipper criminally accountable. Assuming they had insurance then their insurance company will end up footing the bill and there may be no consequences for them personally.
-
1
-
-
All NZ standards are available free of charge from public libraries. Considering the extortionate price to buy them, that's a good workaround! If they don't have it at your local library they'll be happy to order it from Auckland in a few days.
-
1
-
-
If you're worried about the metal seacocks being old and corroded, replace them with Trudesign type. If you're not sure, hit them with a hammer next time you're out of the water. If they break then you need new ones
If the metal hasn't gone soft then keep them, just poke a stick up into them with a blob of waterproof grease on it and work them back and forth a few times a year so they don't seize up.
The hose is usually too short to come off but replace it if it's getting old and make sure there are two tight stainless hose clamps in good condition on each end.
One potential safety issue on cockpit drains is that the hoses should usually be crossed to opposite sides so they cant siphon water in when you are heeled over (may or may not apply to the cav 32). If you get the outlet in the wrong place then water can get forced up it by your stern wake even if it's above the waterline. If you put the outlets above the waterline then you might find the crossed hose goes uphill and doesn't work or even fills the cockpit when you're heeled over.
I never heard of any problem with original below the waterline seacocks when they are as the designer intended, they are very common on that type of yacht. The original designer knew what they were doing, changing the arrangement could create more problems than it solves.
The main safety consideration with seacocks is they are often not big enough - the cockpit can hold a tonne or so of water if you get hit by a big wave, you want to get rid of that weight really fast before the next wave comes along, and not into the cabin or cockpit lockers. It might be worth adding extra drains if you ever go offshore but not removing the originals, like Battleship, if his Cat1 inspector recommended it then they had reasons.
-
On 14/02/2022 at 4:08 PM, ex Elly said:
Manly beach
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/XH5QS5ZEZFVOQE3PY7GD23HGOE.jpg)
They did get Crumbs off the beach, and in style! About 20 people pushed her all the way down the beach by hand!!!! I tracked down this video on reddit, well worth watching:
returning_a_beached_yacht_back_into_the_wild
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, CarpeDiem said:
How awesome. Thank you for helping those stranger's and protecting their property.
It was fun, plus there was a fair chance she'd smash into one of our boats if she broke loose so it wasn't entirely an act of charity! We eventually tracked down the owner in Wellington, they had only just bought the boat.
Some pics below. A lot of the piles round here are rotten...
-
1
-
-
On 14/02/2022 at 4:08 PM, ex Elly said:
Manly beach
Ouch! Crumbs was my old boat. She has a good strong hull, did they get her off OK?
Meanwhile in a relatively sheltered bit of Kerikeri river opposite us a very big heavy timber launch on a pile mooring first broke both her bow lines before the storm even got started (they were more properly described as rotten strings) and was swinging around one pile bumping it so I went over in a small boat and put a bow line on her and attached an extra stern line from the other pile. Next morning after the storm that new bow line was holding fine but the pile at the other end had broken off completely and again she was held by one line! Before the tide turned and swung her into the neighbouring boat I managed to get another long line on to the next pile down the row. Considering she had been swinging around bumping that rotten pile the night before, attached to nothing else, it's a miracle I caught her before she broke loose completely and crashed into other boats.
-
4
-
-
MMSI starting in 5 denotes a vessel (not a shore station) registered either in NZ or another nearby country in Oceania.
I believe within that "number space" 512 is allocated to NZ so any number starting with 512 would be nz registered and they are allocated starting from 1 so this would be the 2022nd vessel to register an MMSI in NZ. Seems like a plausible real MMSI.
Or could be a made up or spoofed MMSI, but if someone just picked a random number then the chances are that it wouldn't start with 512 unless they really knew their stuff. If they knew their stuff well enough to use the right MMSI code then they'd probably choose to impersonate a shore station rather than a vessel.
Considering they didn't provide a vessel name, it's dodgy on some level. Self-appointed speed police? It's not the real police, Deodar is 512000369 so she was registered earlier...
-
One more thought - if you can't find a local, call Far North Radio on channel 60, they will know and probably be happy to give up to date info on the bar, or they will know who to ask.
-
... looking at the swell direction, the karikari peninsula should actually shield Houhora from most of it, only looks like 1m swell at most in the bay there. Still, check with a local, I've never been there...
-
Oh, and happy new year to you too! see you soon!
-
Monday looks like a day to enjoy Houhora. I'd wait until Tuesday, you should be able to make good progress that day. Wednesday looks good too though it's a bit far out to say for sure. windy.com gives great visualisations of what's happening and you can hop between all the different forecast models to see if they agree.
The forecast is the big picture and doesn't do a good job of predicting sea breezes. Should be plenty of those with the sunshine forecast. You'll find the wind is different if you hug the coast, sea breezes will take over there if the prevailing wind dies, either replacing the prevailing wind, cancelling it or reinforcing it, or changing the direction. Although the forecast shows no wind some of the time, actually if you stay the right distance off the coast you might get a decent beam reach for at least some of the time with perhaps some spells of motoring.
If you don't like the wind you're getting, try moving either nearer or further from the coast.
I don't know anything about getting out of Houhora, you'd be best to ask a local about crossing the bar there as the sand on a bar can move around even from month to month, charts might not be accurate.
-
Check for barnacles unbalancing the prop first.
Second make sure the shaft is exactly central in the shaft log (stern tube) first before doing the feeler gauge bit. Perhaps actually put wedges around the shaft to hold it dead centre. That might involve removing the water seal from around the shaft (unless it's a traditional stuffing box) so might have to be done out of water depending on the setup.
Feeler gauges work. If you use an R&D coupling it has a special bolt head for using the feeler gauges on which makes it easier and more accurate. THe rubber coupling also helps absorb minor vibrations.
If all else fails use a python drive (like the CV shafts on a car) and then you don't have to bother with exact alignments and it doesn't matter if the engine bounces around a bit on the rubber mounts.
This becomes way more critical on electric drives - when the motor is silent you notice all the little knocks and vibrations from the shaft which otherwise get drowned out by the noise of the diesel, so the tiniest misalignment becomes annoying. A Python drive is a great solution then.
-
-
14 minutes ago, Psyche said:
Good discussion, I want to get a panel but since space is limited to an area approximately 1.2 m square on the coachroof I will need one that I can walk on when flaking the main if it is to be permanently fixed. I for boats under 12m that is probably the biggest issue; spare real estate. The alternative is a demountable rigid panel but that has its own set of issues with stowage, so its a bit of a tricky problem if you need a permanent power source.
Consider a panel "hinged" to your top guardrail wire and outside it, either across the stern or beside the cockpit where dodgers would go. Have it vertical when sailing so it takes zero space, adjust the angle towards horizontal when moored (depending on height of the sun so don't raise it so much in winter). That will keep the coachroof free to walk on and the space taken by the panel is entirely outside the boat.
-
Juice panels are either nominally 12v or 24v depending on the size. If the maximum "open circuit" output of your panels is around 36-40v then they are actually nominally 24v panels - the same voltage as the larger Juice panels.
If you need smaller panels then two 12v panels can put in series to make the output nominally 24v (actually maximum around 36-40v open circuit).
It is true that a higher voltage set up will give better low light performance because the panels will only charge when their output voltage is higher than the battery voltage. Even an MPPT controller will only charge when the panel voltage is higher than the battery voltage. There is not an advantage to going with panels more than twice the battery voltage, except you can get away with smaller cables on higher voltages.
If you have multiple small panels then there might be more advantage to wiring them each on separate charge controllers so that shade on one panel doesn't affect the output of the other panels. That's likely to be a much bigger factor than improving low light performance by putting them in series, especially on a sailing boat where the rig always puts shade on something.
If the nominal voltage output from the panels is not the same as the nominal battery voltage then you MUST use an MPPT type charge controller which can step the panel voltage down to the battery voltage, not PWM (some very cheap controllers with MPPT printed on the front may not actually be MPPT).
Glass panels (or just one big one) would easily fit that coachroof with chocks under the corners. Not as pretty but a lot less headaches and better performance in the long run.
-
1
-
-
47 minutes ago, Tigermoth said:
I think the water pump is not going to hold out much longer by the looks...
Another thought...
As a temporary solution to get you sailing this summer you could dump the heat exchanger, header tank and the leaky impeller pump and just cool the engine with raw sea water just going through the engine cooling circuit and into the exhaust. Throw in an anode and it should last at least a year or two until the rust gets it. Maybe it was originally raw water cooled anyway? Perhaps it was a lake boat on fresh water though?
It's a good heavy thick block, won't rust through in a hurry and should cope with sea water for a while. You could simplify and get all that crap out of your cabin!
EDIT: As for the oil leak, it's a feature, called "self changing oil", you just keep adding new oil in the top and never have to drain the old oil out.
-
Another thought for the purpose of that hose. If it wasn't clipped up in the top corner of the coachroof then I'd say it was an emergency bilge pump. Close the seacock and open the valve on the end of the pipe, then the engine will pump water out of anywhere you put the end of that hose. I still think anti siphon based on where it goes though.
-
I can see why you are not keen to keep this engine
Ngunguru bar pilotage
in MarineTalk
Posted
Thanks very much, so you think anchoring in the channel will be a problem with limited swing room and possibly circling with wind against tide breaking the anchor out and resetting? Maybe better to anchor outside at Wellington bay? Or is it sheltered enough further up that she'll lie to the tide reliably?