Jump to content

aardvarkash10

Mod
  • Content Count

    2,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    80

Posts posted by aardvarkash10

  1. 20 minutes ago, K4309 said:

    2 months to form an opinion. Wow.

    After 3 weeks of trial.

    Yes, forming a defensible legal opinion to support the conviction (or not) of a person involved (or not) in the wrongful (or not) death of 5 individuals should be a rushed thing.

    Speed is of the essence.  There shouldn't be any need to refer to precedence or consider the wider circumstances as set out in the Sentencing Act.  No need to wade back through the volumes of evidence, cross referencing and untangling the various lines of the submissions from prosecution and defence. Really that stuff is just so much toilet paper.

    As for the endless writing and rewriting of the findings - they go on for pages quoting case law and legislation thats just irrelevant - all that is needed is guilty or not guilty, get on with it.

    I support anyone who moves us closer to Judge Dredd - perfect justice is summary.  No messy loose ends that way.

    • Haha 5
    • Upvote 1
  2. 6 minutes ago, Jon said:

    An Outbound 46 hit Navutu reef in the Lau a couple of nights ago

    ’Thursdays Child”

    bdf954c8-20d1-48dd-800a-05a39f7ce8f1.jpeg

    Serious question; how does this happen in a time of precision GPS and boat/course management systems?

  3. 7 hours ago, K4309 said:

    What was the doco on? as in youtube, Netflix, or some strange terrestrially transmitted platform where you have no choice when it starts and stops and have to sit though people trying to sell you stuff in your living room that you didn't invite in, and never knew your wanted or needed?

    That last one.  Can't recall the last time I watched linear tv.

  4. 17 minutes ago, K4309 said:

    I'm not sure if this H&S charge is a criminal charge requiring 'beyond reasonable doubt', or is it some civil thing with 'the balance of probabilities'. Be great if someone can clarify that. I suspect that legal test will be pivotal to a conviction or not.

    Beyond reasonable doubt.

    Which is why the issue of relative culpability will be important.

    • Upvote 1
  5. The jets in those carbs are tiny ( ours is worse, it's the 2.5hp version) so even invisibly small crap can block them.  Fresh fuel less than 3 months old helps.

    TBH, if it hasn't been serviced in a while just drop the whole thing in to Ray Bryant and let them sort it.  Then you are good for another year.

  6. 18 hours ago, Guest said:

    Explain that to me, Not-guilty owing to insanity? Otherwise totally agree. I've banged a few corners,

    figuratively. In hind sight it was all three and unnecessary.

    Legally there are levels of culpability.  Let's put it in an everyday setting.

    I stop at a stop sign, check for cross traffic, don't see any, and so I pull out into the main road.

    A motorcycle hits me on the right side as I pull out.

    I have deliberately acted, pulling out from the stop sign and prima facie causing an accident (failure to make sure the way is clear, failure to give way to the right).

    Was I careless?  Only if it can be shown that I should reasonably have seen and so given way to the motorcycle.  If, for instance, it turns out that motorcycle was travelling at 150kph in a 50kph zone and it is clear I stopped and checked, it's unlikely I will be found guilty.

    Was I reckless?  Only if it can be shown that I was acting without any regard for others and the law.  If I had deliberately driven through the stop sign at speed while fiddling with my phone, it's likely I will be found guilty of reckless conduct.  In the current parlance, no fcuks are given.

    • Upvote 1
  7. Hi K.

    You have repeatedly stated that there was 17 helicopters....

    Your continued statements gave me the impression that you understood 17 different helicopters were or should have been available to be directed to the search.

    If that was not your intended sense, please let me know what you were meaning to say.

    The reality is set out very clearly in the report.  There are almost no dedicated, marine capable, SAR helicopter units nationally.  Those units that are available are primarily medical services and aggregated they operate 95% of the time in that configuration.

    To operate in SAR configuration they have to physically change the aircraft and call in crew as well as determined the operational requirements.  They also have to consider the operational safety of the crew.  This was the primary reason given for Coastguard not deploying there unit (albeit a rigid inflatable boat not a helicopter) from Hohora.

    The report identified why this is a problem and, broadly in line with my contention, the report diplomatically says we are getting the service we are prepared to pay for.

     The report states that, more likely than not, the boat was in the shallows and susceptible to a rogue wave.  The skipper put the boat there, more likely than not.  He either did that deliberately or accidentally.  Even if he did it deliberately, that doesn't mean he was careless, reckless or guilty of neglect.  

    I don't have enough knowledge or information to claim whether the skipper was right or wrong (a moral / ethical judgement), guilty or innocent ( a legal judgement with much higher burden of proof).

    But the report says what it says.  The boat was in a position of risk and when that risk was realised the boat and it's passengers and crew were not well prepared for what happened next.

    RCC acted appropriately in the first instance, and continued to make appropriate decisions overall as events unfolded.  They were not perfect, but they neither caused nor aggregated the event.

    It will be interesting to see what changes happen in the response preparation of the various agencies.  From the boating community's point of view, a change to the current SAR settings and relationships could well improve our chances of a successful rescue when needed.

    I wonder if we are prepared to pay for that, as a country.

     

    • Upvote 3
  8. 1 hour ago, K4309 said:

    You are asserting a lot of things I haven't said.

    Not even close to haven't said.

    All the assets already exist. 17 rescue helos in the north island, only one dispatched. Why?

    Question. Given the circumstances and outcomes of the rescue, do you think an inquiry is warranted? Or should we just carry on Business as Usual?

    I think we should always debrief incidents to understand what happened and why, and to identify opportunities for improvement.

    Part of that should be identifying what resources exist and why they were chosen or not chosen for deployment.

    To me, one of the issues is that ALL rescue and response bodies are not fully govt funded.  They are therefore independent and make their own decisions on how and when they deploy.

    The coastguard, Westpac rescue, nest, st John's, surf lifesaving, even FENZ, are all in the same situation.  They all rely on volunteers and donations to perform their services.

    If we want a full professional emergency response, we seem unwilling to pay for it.

    It's a timely discussion since it is reflected in the report this week about the emergency response to last year's cyclone.  That identified a huge number of failings including failure to resource staff, training, equipment, and a subsequent lack both strategic and tactical knowledge and planning. 

  9. 2 minutes ago, Steve Pope said:

    K, I follow your line of questions, they are very relevant. and your concern re the helo f---up. The helo crew were doing their very  best against the odds, with head office not really even in the picture. None of the f---up was the fault of the helo crew.. the lack of fuel should never have happened and hopefully (fingers crossed) won't happen again, but it took this event to tell head office  what they should have already known or at least considered.Their are many instances where head office just isn't there, (though they think they are)  but in "their" heads "they know" best!. (cyclone Gabrielle the most recent one) they had all gone home! No planning for the unexpected, boring job, yes, but when the sh*t hits the fan nobody home!

    Expect it to get worse, not better.  By definition, the planning roles you describe are not front line.

    To keep with our apolitical approach, I'll allow you to join the dots.

  10. 1 hour ago, K4309 said:

    I'm not following your response as an explanation for the shortcomings of the Enchanter rescue.

    If these rescue helos are so expensive to operate, what was the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while they scratched around for fuel?

    Are you saying the 4 guys that died waiting for rescue was due to budget constraints?

    The point I'm tyring to make is Maritime NZ are responsible for coordinating rescue assets. In this case it was a clusterfuck. Others have already said Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, that falls to Trusts and Charities. It is the coordination that was at fault here. And given almost all our maritime traffic comes via North Cape, I would have expected a govt organisation with Maritime in the name would have been able to plan for or run scenario's of incidence and rescues in that area.

    They can co-ordinate all they like, if the operator doesn't have the capacity to respond, no response will happen.

    It's the operator who makes all the logistics arrangements.  MNZ basically asks if they can do it.  If the operator deem they can't, that's it.

    It may well be that they have run the scenarios.  It could well be that within the funding and operational limits that are ultimately set by budgets, they decided that an Encounter-type event was not a high probability.

    In short yes it is a fact that people die in New Zealand because we decide we cannot afford the cost to assure they live.  This happens hourly in hospitals across the country.  It happens daily on our roads. 

    Again, you are proposing a centrally coordinated agency with essentially unlimited funding and an open brief.  Large scale, multiple small vessel situation?  Respond. Large scale single large vessel situation?  Respond.  Multiple vessel wide scale event? Respond.

    Where do you want to stop spending? 

    Assuming that MNZ could legally co-opt the resources it deemed necessary, what happens to everyone else when those assets are diverted to a large maritime rescue?  How many medical or land incident responses should be sacrificed?  Should they ALL be assured 100% service?

    How's your tax bill?

    This isn't an intellectual exercise, or an argument against provision of a comprehensive rescue service.  It's a confrontation of real world practicality against a proposal for world leading all encompassing service.

    Bear in mind, only a year ago when surf lifesaving teams rescued people from sewerage-contaminated water in Auckland, our civil defence system decided they could not and would not reimburse these volunteers for cleaning or replacement of there contaminated wetsuits...

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...