Jump to content

K4309

Members
  • Content Count

    567
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

K4309 last won the day on July 5

K4309 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

320 Excellent

About K4309

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

959 profile views
  1. There is some cover for 'self inflicted injuries', no? I couldn't see any lump sum payments, but I got the impression there were weekly payments for dependents?
  2. In saying that, I read that fact on the interweb, and now I am paranoid that fact itself was a product of AI produced content, and I've no idea what to believe anymore...
  3. The US navy does paint anchors of that size that colour on occasion. Some sort of status / show off / award thing for the ship. So I can see how AI got gold anchors into its head.
  4. I never knew until you posted that. And it is something I have given substantial thought to, pay moonbeams for life insurance, having two kids and an Auckland sized mortgage. In all my time investigating life insurance policies and benefits I never found out the cover from ACC for accidental death. And it is something I feel genuinely very warming to know exists. Partner knows a lady (acquaintance) who's husband committed suicide, they either had two under 5's or an under 5 and she was pregnant - absolutely guttingly heartbreaking situation. The exact situation this ACC policy is for
  5. With respect, it would appear you are getting distracted by a very minor point- I never said the rogue wave wasn't breaking - I don't see that as particularly relevant in that a 10m high vertical wave is going to destroy anything in it's path regardless. The assertion being made by yourself and several on here is that, allegedly, the boat was in shallow water and waves stand up, and that this increases the risk to the boat. This I agree with. BUT, that type of wave / effect IS predicable. However, it has been concluded after 4 weeks of trial with the best legal minds in the country that i
  6. You don't think a 10m high wave, that is clearly visible in the distance, is not a rogue wave? given the surrounding sea state was a 2m swell and 10 knt breeze. All eyewitness descriptions clearly met the definition of a rogue wave. Anyway, the Judge concluded it was a rogue wave, not surf, not a regular wave standing up etc, and I guess that is all that really matters. Wonder if Maritime NZ will now ban boats from getting closer than 3nm to land? (Referencing @harrytom's expectations MNZ will re-write the rule book.
  7. You guys need to look at the definition of a rogue wave. There is absolutely zero to do with shallow water. And by definition, they are entirely unpredictable. If the boat got nailed by surf then yes, your criticism would be warranted, but it wasn't. All agreed, including the prosecution, that it was a rogue wave. Not surf. Not a breaking wave. After that fact was established, everything else is just noise. Rogues, called 'extreme storm waves' by scientists, are those waves which are greater than twice the size of surrounding waves, are very unpredictable, and often come
  8. Are you basing that on the facts, or what Maritime NZ told you?
  9. It was really a rhetorical question, given the predominant view on this forum from the majority of posters is that he is guilty as sin for gross negligence and recklessness, despite what the evidence says. Strewth, we even have learned members stating the Judge, who sat through all of the evidence and gave it all thorough consideration, has made a ridiculous decision. @waikiore, please tell us, how do you predict a rogue wave? And, do you follow MNZ's rule of not going closer than 3nm to headlands? Remember that? MNZ stated Goodhew was guilty of gross negligence for rounding a h
  10. As the four-week trial progressed, weather experts gave evidence about the state of the sea around North Cape. They claimed rogue waves could occur anywhere, anytime and at any sea level. Judge Rzepecky decided he could not be certain Goodhew could have predicted a rogue wave would appear, evidence he believed was clear through the trial. “Based on observations and scientific evidence, I cannot be sure the presence of a wave was reasonably foreseeable and after considering all the evidence I cannot be sure that a reasonably careful mariner should have decided to stay. “I’
  11. Maybe it was the lying key Crown witness that did it? "Too rough to go fishing, Enchanter should never have left the anchorage" Accept AIS showed said key Crown witness spent 7 hours fishing that morning...
  12. Not guilty. Wow. How often does that happen?!? Can't wait for Maritime NZ to comment... From Aardvarks link: Judge Rzepecky said the terrible tragedy was caused by a significant rogue wave in otherwise benign conditions, and could not be sure Goodhew could have foreseen it given the information he had at the time.
  13. This is getting beyond my knowledge, But if the report was issued to the lawyers by Worksafe, does that immediately make it 'disclosable' as evidence? In the same way that the external lawyer (I understood to be the Crown Prosecutor) stated Paul Patterson should not send his original report, my understanding being that if he did so it would then be 'disclosable' to all, including the defense. The principals of full disclosure being that the prosecution must disclose all evidence, if it helps their case or not. The extension being a failure to make full disclosure can show p
  14. Yes, absolutely. I can't think of a professional situation where you can rewrite someone else's document, put their signature on it and issue it. More so and especially against that persons express and written wishes. In just about every scenario I can think of this would be labelled any one of: Fraud, Obtaining by deception, Altering a document for pecuniary benefit, etc. The unwarranted charges against the helo companies are one thing, and the bit relevant to this thread, but the way Worksafe conducted themselves and the lengths they went to to change the facts
  15. This is a deeply concerning story and relates directly the the MNZ prosecution of Lance Goodhew. It is way too long to do justice by copying the relevant paragraphs (just about the whole thing is relevant). I do recommend you read it. I feel it justifies my position on MNZ 'persecuting' Lance Goodhew in this situation, specifically in that the charges are not warranted based on the evidence, and that the charges were predetermined and political in nature, in that people died so the regulator must hang someone. Anyone. In this example, Worksafe assigned their leading helicopter indust
×
×
  • Create New...