K4309
-
Content Count
475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by K4309
-
-
17 minutes ago, Guest said:
Hobsonville has had a rash of $1 auctions on trademe. Can’t give them away. Nobody wants to sign up to a 100k commitment.
A mate is currently trying to give away a 12m Hobsonville berth for 'free'. Lease till 2035.
All you have to do is pay this year's opex of $9,600....
-
58 minutes ago, Psyche said:
As we approach 2026, there are going to be a LOT of boats on the market in AK as the the main tranche of leases expire in Westhaven, owners who have had their boats their since the beginning are all swallowing the anchor for various reasons; too old, too expensive, no family interest in keeping a boat etc. All those boats that look like they are worth a few months rental- they are all going to go but where?
So what actually happens when the leases expire?
Do Punuku just bend you over and charge a monthly rental, price set by themselves?
Or is there a process to renew leases or something? Like a game of musical chairs where everyone runs around trying to secure rights to a new marina berth, and some people are going to miss out?
Noting I'm not in a marina, so the vagaries of marina leases and opex and what not are beyond me, but I am observing that the cost of berthing a boat is hugely prohibitive to owning a boat, and this is having a profound effect on the value of boats, particularly the classic kiwi designs that are now getting a bit older and need some more intensive maintenance and capital replacement of items. There is no difference in the cost of owning a $50k boat or a $200k boat, but the $200k boat but gives you far more utility (newer, nicer, more volume, less items needing capital replacement). Given each boat can fit in a 12 m berth, the berthage, insurance, anitfoul etc is the same annually, so who would go for the $50k classic NZ design?
The capital value / purchase price is becoming a distant second in consideration to the annual cost of ownership. Therefore really, million dollar euro boats are the only economically viable option (regards marina costs) and that is too expensive for many of us.
Lots of boat owners investigating the finer points of owning and towing caravans...
-
1
-
-
Goodhew told Maritime New Zealand it was so calm that the men were free to move around the boat and put fishing lines out.
He said he expected to arrive at their destination around 8pm, called his friend at around 7.40pm and believed it was around 20 minutes after that phone call when the wave hit.
Goodhew recalled it was getting dark and he was at the rear of the boat checking his client's lures and decided to give them another 15 minutes before calling it a day.
Goodhew's recollection was almost cinematic as he described a colossal wall of water with no end in sight.
"I looked up out my side window at a wall of water. An absolute wall, I could not see the top of it, I don't know how big it was," Goodhew said.
Enchanter trial: Courtroom in tears hearing emotional interview of Lance Goodhew | RNZ News
-
Now we have lying prosecution witnesses. MNZ case is getting even more tenuous.
Difficult to make this up. Just saying.
A commercial fisherman sent to rescue ten men in the water after the Enchanter fishing charter capsized off Northland has admitted in court he was fishing in weather he'd earlier said was too dangerous to be out in.
Maritime New Zealand's case is Enchanter's skipper should've known a front that smashed Northland overnight Saturday and early Sunday would have continued to impact sea conditions long after it'd passed.
Text messages between the Florence Nightingale skipper and his boss Nat Davey hint at conditions earlier on Sunday, March 20 where both the Enchanter and his own vessel were up at the Three Kings Islands.
Gentry told his boss of a plan to delay Florence Nightingale's journey to check cray pots at Hell's Gate because there were "white and big green ones".
"We are getting our asses handed to for 30kg (of catch). To which Davey replied, "do what you think is right, but it is going to glass off this avo [sic]".
But Pilditch KC, in cross-examining Gentry, challenged his evidence the weather was so bad his vessel had to stop fishing at midday. He presented Automatic Identification System (AIS) data to the court showing Florence Nightingale's movements to the North East Island, and the Princes group.
"You told us the weather was so bad you decided to anchor up for the day and do no more fishing?" Piditch KC asked Gentry.
"What you said was wrong wasn't it... it wasn't a full day's fishing. You fished from 7 in morning until 3 in the afternoon?"
"Yes," the Florence Nightingale skipper replied.
"Do you accept that's what you did... and what you told us yesterday and today is wrong?" To which Gentry said, "Yes".
Gentry admitted to the court this put him in breach of his Maritime Transport Operator plan when probed by Pilditch KC. Gentry has previously been praised for his work on the Florence Nightingale.
Witness evidence about weather in Enchanter trial discredited by defence | Newshub
-
3 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
But if the capsize happened where you are claiming, (well east of Miromoto) then the people would of followed the easterly drift of the epirb and not been up against the rocks and the land.
Are you suggesting that the current and winds changed direction in the 45 minutes between the capsize and the epirb being activated? (this isn't supported by the facts).
I think that you are confusing facts with evidence. The facts are that the current was pushing easterly as shown by the modeling. The evidence of the epirb following the easterly current supports the facts.
So how did the epirb end up west of the point of the capsize?
So I guess the court will determine if on the balance of probabilities the epirb was able to drift west before drifting east. So I suppose that the defence team will need to produce some current drift facts from a competing company that supports that.
8 hours ago, K4309 said:Yes, the whole debate, and infact the whole prosecution relies on establishing where he was at the time of the incident. We all understand that. That quote, "about as equally likely" in itself demonstrates high uncertainty as to exactly where he was when this happened.
On the EPIRB drift, have you ever been to a surf beach? Muriwai for example?
You can have tonnes of water pushing in at one spot, and literally 10m to one side, you can have a 3knt current ripping out. Most people on here should be able to understand rips. It is perfectly feasible for the incident to have occurred where the skipper said, the wave and current action push everything into the island, move 10m sideways and get into an outgoing current. A rip.
Or just a simple tide line. We've all seen them around the Rangi channel. Tide pushing one way, cross the line, a meter away, the tide is going in a different direction. Headlands and islands such as this are where tide lines are generally the strongest.
Given the topography, tides and swell at Marimotu Island, strong unpredictable currents are a certainty. That is verified by the trouble finding the survivors, bodies and wreckage. For anyone to then be able to turn around and say they can accurately model the drift of the EPIRB before it went off is a complete nonsense.
Anywhere there are waves pushing onto a shore, there has to be an equal volume of water heading out again. Somewhere nearby. The water heading out carries stuff in the opposite direction to the water heading in. It is fairly basic physics.
I'm not saying that is what happened. What I'm saying is there is sufficient doubt over where it happened to draw a conclusion. More so under our justice system with the burden of proof on the prosecution.
As per my previous post.
Note to clarify, I'm not making any ascertains as to where the capsize happened. I'm just pointing out that there are no facts as to where it happened, and the evidence MNZ is using to say it happened elsewhere from where the skipper said he was - is tenuous.
-
1 hour ago, waikiore said:
AVS 70 degrees as tested, and K those Epirb drifts are logged not modelled.
Crickey, have you read anything or are you ignorant?
MNZ are inferring the position of the capsize from the location of the EPRIB activation, and saying that based on that, he wasn't where he said he was.
Accept, the EPIRB was not activated for 45 minutes after the capsize. So where did the capsize happen?
If the EPIRB drifted for 45minutes, what grounds have you got to say the capsize didn't happen where he said he was?
I love it how people form opinions based on a couple of social media posts and then call for the guy to be hanged, when they clearly aren't across the issues.
-
10 hours ago, Psyche said:
Trying hard here K, read the report. The EPIRB ping was right on the shelf and given the drift pattern is eastwards then draw your own conclusions
Why it happened
The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident. However, it is about as likely as not the vessel had strayed into shallower water off Murimotu Island, an area that is prone to occasional, naturally occurring, larger waves peaking as they entered the shallowing water.
When the Enchanter rapidly rolled onto its side, the force of the water exceeded the design parameters of the vessel’s superstructure. This caused the superstructure to separate from the hull, resulting in the Enchanter fully capsizing.Yes, the whole debate, and infact the whole prosecution relies on establishing where he was at the time of the incident. We all understand that. That quote, "about as equally likely" in itself demonstrates high uncertainty as to exactly where he was when this happened.
On the EPIRB drift, have you ever been to a surf beach? Muriwai for example?
You can have tonnes of water pushing in at one spot, and literally 10m to one side, you can have a 3knt current ripping out. Most people on here should be able to understand rips. It is perfectly feasible for the incident to have occurred where the skipper said, the wave and current action push everything into the island, move 10m sideways and get into an outgoing current. A rip.
Or just a simple tide line. We've all seen them around the Rangi channel. Tide pushing one way, cross the line, a meter away, the tide is going in a different direction. Headlands and islands such as this are where tide lines are generally the strongest.
Given the topography, tides and swell at Marimotu Island, strong unpredictable currents are a certainty. That is verified by the trouble finding the survivors, bodies and wreckage. For anyone to then be able to turn around and say they can accurately model the drift of the EPIRB before it went off is a complete nonsense.
Anywhere there are waves pushing onto a shore, there has to be an equal volume of water heading out again. Somewhere nearby. The water heading out carries stuff in the opposite direction to the water heading in. It is fairly basic physics.
I'm not saying that is what happened. What I'm saying is there is sufficient doubt over where it happened to draw a conclusion. More so under our justice system with the burden of proof on the prosecution.
-
1 hour ago, Guest said:
Somewhat unsavoury after the fact and perhaps little consolation for those that lost family and friends. But, it remains, cause effect are how we move forward.
The track of the EPIRB, current mapping and the account given by skipper/crew are at odds. The current mapping shows North rotating thru NW around cape at 1930. At 2130 the current has decrease with a more north aspect going NE . The Epirb track confirms this..
The survivors say they could see between Murimotu isl and North cape before and after the roll. If they were North of the shoal, looking SW how did the EPIRB travel S against the current before it activated? If they rounded early East of Murimotu and got caught by a sneaker wrapping around as they entered shallows to "shelter". Possibly you could see the gap between Murimotu and NC looking NE. But you would have to be a decent distance West. Then the EPIRB could appear where it does and continue on the current as satellite mapping testifies. Unlikely, but easier to join dots?
"I remember seeing that swell coming in, and thinking, 'f***, that's a big swell', but it wasn't breaking, it wasn't cresting, it was just a big swell," Ward said. "The boat went up the swell, and it went up and up, the boat rolled over, and I just expected the boat to roll back as we went over the swell, but the boat didn't. That's when I heard a whole lot of swearing and yelling and I'm assuming that's when the breaking bit of the wave hit the windows. It was obviously just a big, steep, short, sharp swell, that crested and broke and hit us."
Regardless, Moderate to large waves unload a portion of there height for various reasons even in the absence of ground. The superstructure above deck is supposed to withstand this. If the wave didn't unload, as witnessed above (imploded starboard windows), just beam end to roll and the huge super structure couldn't stand the sideways pressure, then NFFP.
"The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident."
To me it looks overly windowed, over proportioned beam on area above deck, top heavy, consequently weak. Hence fit for purpose in light conditions only.
We get back eddies in our river all the time. The tide will be bombing in, and at the same time there will be an outgoing current along one side.
Given the complexities of wind, tide, current, swell and wave action, it is not possible for anyone to predict with any certainty a drift pattern with enough certainty to convict someone. Given that they couldn't find the missing people, nor actually find the wreck post rescue validates this. And on the missing people, this demonstrates dispersion modelling. As in, they all went in different directions. they spread out. So if the people and wreckage all went in different directions, how can you know where the EPIRB went before it was turned on?
The underlying fundamental issue is there are no facts. MNZ (and many on here) have a theory. That he went too close.
There is no GPS track, cause the boat sunk. There is no AIS track. There is no hard evidence as to where the boat was.
All witnesses report a rogue wave. Even MNZ have conceded rogue waves are a real thing.
All witnesses report moderate weather at the time of the incident (10 knts) - that is actually supported by video footage of the rescue helo, it did not look rough or blowey.
From a behavioral point of view people are assuming he cut the corner. But here is a behavioral aspect. Dinner wasn't ready. The deck hand was only putting the dinner on when the wave hit.
The Essence got hit by a rogue wave coming into the BoI. Everyone said it was bad luck. What is the difference here? Is it cause the skipper was commercial?
-
Peter "Shay" Ward, an experienced commercial fisherman from Te Awamutu, was one of eight friends who signed up for a five-day trip to the Three Kings Islands just over two years ago.
Ward told the court he was sitting on the rear deck on the evening of 20 March, 2022, as the Enchanter was nearing its planned anchorage for the night below the North Cape lighthouse.
At the time the wind was light, about 12-13 knots, and the swell about two metres, he said.
The other passengers were relaxing in the cabin so they didn't see the wave coming.
"I remember seeing that swell coming in, and thinking, 'f***, that's a big swell', but it wasn't breaking, it wasn't cresting, it was just a big swell," Ward said.
"The boat went up the swell, and it went up and up, the boat rolled over, and I just expected the boat to roll back as we went over the swell, but the boat didn't. That's when I heard a whole lot of swearing and yelling and I'm assuming that's when the breaking bit of the wave hit the windows. It was obviously just a big, steep, short, sharp swell, that crested and broke and hit us."
Ward said the weather at the Three Kings on 19 March had been "magic", and that night the Enchanter anchored in the main island's Little Bear Bay to shelter from the front passing over.
By about 9am on 20 March the wind had eased enough for the Enchanter to head for the Princes Group of islands for more fishing, and that afternoon they began the long journey back to North Cape.
Ward said there was nothing exceptional about the sea state or weather conditions at that time.
"There was a bit of roll, a bit of slop, but it wasn't uncomfortable," he said.
Enchanter sinking trial: Monster wave 'just got big then and there' - survivor | RNZ News
-
Here is the TAIC Final report.
Skippers route is shown on page 28. Couple of pages down is the EPIRB track.
-
TAIC states "about as likely as not" as in 50:50 the Enchanter strayed into shallow water.
That is a highly uncertain statement as to exactly where the Enchater was. It is 50:50 the skipper had the boat where he said, in safe deep water, and it was an actual rogue wave that got it, not shallow water effect. Just like the Essence off BoI.
50:50
Isn't our justice system based on 'reasonable doubt'?
Why it happened
The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident. However, it is about as likely as not the vessel had strayed into shallower water off Murimotu Island, an area that is prone to occasional, naturally occurring, larger waves peaking as they entered the shallowing water.There was a significant delay in the search for the five missing people while fuel for the rescue helicopters was sourced. Three of the missing people were alive in the water when last seen by the survivors but were later found deceased.
-
Many of the points posted here are opinions. Having a difference of opinion is not a criminal matter. Generally the criminal test is gross negligence.
The prosecution are saying he should not have been within 3 miles of land, but psyche has confirmed there is no rule regarding this.
His ship was apparently in good order, and approved for the area it was operating in. He checked the forecast regularly, so not like he was sailing blind.
The only paperwork he didn't have was an expired first aid certificate, not directly contributable to the incident. So it's not like he was trying to run a 12ft tinny to the Three Kings with the only qualification being a Bachelor of Fine Art.
Contrast this to the Kotuku incident of Stewart Is where the boat was grossly overloaded, with all weight on the cabin top, and the skipper actively avoiding the MNZ inspector.
However, 5 people have died, so an investigation is warranted.
MNZ (and many on here) are making a big deal out of how close he was over the shallow water. There is disagreement as to exactly where the incident occurred. Somewhere there is a link to the MNZ report, I had a look in this thread but couldn't immediately spot it. It showed the intended track with waypoints. Fairly sure it was safely outside the shallow area, otherwise it would be an open and shut case.
MNZ are using the EPIRB position and track to say he wasn't where he said he was. Only the MNZ report itself states the EPIRB did not go off for 45min to an hour after the incident. It was lost, did not automatically activate when it went it the water, then when found, the deck hand stated it was very hard to activate and took 15-20min to get going.
Therefore that position information is marginal at best to correlate to where the incident occurred.
The surviving passengers stated the conditions had abated considerably, 10knt breeze and calmer sea state. Refer a link posted by ex Elly a page back in the thread. Rescue Helo said conditions were challenging, noting they were FIVE HOURS late to the party. So again, not immediately relevant to the conditions at the time of the incident.
One other fact we know is that MNZ has already dropped two of the three charges due to lack of evidence. It is fair to say that the evidence for this charge is tenuous. It is all opinion based. There is no hard, factual evidence. Other than that the MNZ required and approved EPIRB didn't work and the rescue was a clusterfuck cause MNZ / MRCC didn't think to have fuel available anywhere north of Auckland - and that contributed directly to the fatalities.
So you guys may be right in that he was acting recklessly, that may be proven in this court case (although it is based on opinion, no hard facts). But there is certainly a perception that this prosecution is all about MNZ needing a public hanging for PR purposes.
Noting he bought a third boat after the accident and before the trial, and it appears he is having no trouble filling it with paying punters. That would indicate the court of public opinion (those with money & skin in the game) aren't seeing an issue, rightly or wrongly.
-
11 hours ago, Island Time said:
A B&G WS320 wireless wind MHU with a NMEA2000 interface is $1009 + GST....
Do you know if that integrates OK with a Nexus system?
-
25 minutes ago, kiwi_jon said:
There are several ways of integrating a Garmin gWind into the Nexus system. The first is as you mention the wired gWind mhu which comes complete with the GND10. The disadvantage is you need to run a new cable down the mast as the connector on gWind is different to the connector on the Nexus mast cable.
The second option is Garmin make a small adaptor cable that goes between the gWind mhu and the Nexus mast cable. The Nexus mast cable needs to be moved from the Wind port on the server to Nexus/instrument bus port.
My current mhu is wireless anyway, so I'm up for running a new wire regardless.
Since the mhu packed up, I've been going old school and just estimating the wind strength based on the feel on my face and the state of the sea. Given I'm probably looking at $2k to replace the wind transducer, I might just continue with old school wind speed for a bit.
The AP goes find on course heading. We have a powerful hydrualic ram on the back of our tiller steer (37fter), and that is the main thing for me at the moment. Noting I've not raced for a few years so the need for fancy lectronics is diminished.
-
2 hours ago, waikiore said:
Except that there was no "rogue wave" just the shallow bottom.
Are you saying they ran aground now?
I can't keep up.
-
1 hour ago, kiwi_jon said:
I currently have a hybrid Nexus/N2k system. One of my NX2 multis failed so I decided to replace it with a B&G Vulcan 7. To get the Nexus wind, speed and depth data to the Vulcan 7 I installed a Garmin GND10 which is a gateway/converter between the Nexus bus and N2K and vice versa. The GND10 needs to be programmed for data direction e.g I have the GPS data from the Vulcan feeding the Nexus bus.
I was also looking at what to do when my transducers fail. The Silva/Nexus/Garmin 43mm thru hulls are a bit of an orphan but I don't really want to replace the thru hull fittings. Garmin still do 43mm transducers with a N2k converter box on it.
My second NX2 multi is close to getting its last rites and will eventually be replaced by B&G Triton2.
I am already running a gWind mhu and once I have replaced the speed log and depth transducers with the Garmin N2k versions I will be able to kick the Nexus server down the road.
I've been looking at that GND10, it is that unit that makes the gWind integrate with the Nexus system. It comes with the wired gWind. Noting that the riggers warned me off putting another wireless unit on, and the retailer wont even sell them, saying they (the Garmin gWind) are complete sh*t, so if I proceed it will have to be a wired unit.
Interestingly I've not had any issues with my Nexus Multi displays. Blowing the FETs on the AP course controller (the computer thingee tucked away in a locker) was due to malfunctions of the autopilot ram. On one occasion it decoupled from the tiller arm and went hard over, causing the FET to blow (the rudder angle unit was giving a different position to the ram). It was something similar the first time I blew a FET as well. Richard Macalaster at Kiwi Yachting was as helpful as he could be, and actually put me onto the original manufacturer of the unit in Aust. I spoke very nicely to him and he found an old 'test' unit that he commissioned and sent me.
It is a bit of an issue having an orphaned system, that is for sure.
-
9 minutes ago, harrytom said:
Seeing how Far North Boy isnt around anymore,if a airline pilot crashed and killed his passengers he would be grounded,so why can a charter skipper who endangered life/lost life be able to continue operating/skippering?
Would it be because the skipper didn't do anything wrong and Maritime NZ are just looking for a public hanging for PR purposes?
Has anyone on here ever heard of this rule you can't go within 3 miles of land?
-
1
-
-
OK, serious question this time.
I have a Nexus NX2 system, and my masthead wind transducer has shat itself (end of life, between 10-15 years old).
The wired Garmin gWind is a straight swap for it. The rest of the system is still working fine (noting I've blown FETs in the AP controller twice, and installed an aftermarket circuit board fuse) If one other things shits itself on my nexus gear (long out of production) I may be compelled to do a full replacement, and probably with B&G gear.
My current nexus system has a solid state compass. It is a while since I purchased it, but it is at least 3 axis and a big step up over a flux-gate compass. It's purpose is to compensate for pitch, yaw and roll to get more stable data on everything else (heading, wind etc).
My question is, what is the actual benefit of all this stuff you guys are talking about? As in, what is the benefit of an Orca Core2? I'm after the practical difference here, not the difference between 10Hz and 50Hz processing.
Are you trying to get an autopilot that can drive faster than you can in all sea states? Or do you feel your current auto-pilot has limitations that materially affect using it on certain wind angles and sea conditions?
Or do you feel you current wind readings are inaccurate due to pitch and roll of the masthead unit? - on that, hasn't the time proven solution been to just increase the dampening time? (good for stable wind reading, maybe not so good for highly response Vendee Globe standard autopilot)
-
18 minutes ago, Black Panther said:
I wonder what that is all about
Consumerism.
Stuff you never knew you wanted, but now simply cannot do without.
Oh, and you and exciting ways of spending boat dollars.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Dodge Taxi said:
I've tried the top down furling system when sailing alone but never felt really confident with it. I think the gennaker would have to be cut very flat. When they work the are great but when it goes wrong at night its hard to untangle. Also when the gennaker is furled and the bagged the torque line tends to wind up in tight loops which adds complications when re-hoisting. I note that most of single handed fleet has now gone back to standard bag launching or socks.I am risk averse to furlers having a clusterfeck and what not. Furlers are great, but if they go wrong it is incredibly complicated to sort out.. To the point we took our headsail furler off so I can run hank on headsails. Short handed it is great. Nothing can go wrong. Just blow the halyard and get it on deck when you feel like it. Also means I have the right size sail for the conditions, rather than trying to get one head sail to work in out of range conditions.
For the gennaker I am a real big fan of just blowing the tack. You need a 'blowing clip', like a witchard or talysika (spelling). Same as a spiking clip on big boats, but with a pull-chord piece of string to blow it. They aren't cheap, but a fraction of the price of a sock or top down furler. Once the tack is blown, the sail goes back behind the main and is sheltered. You then letter-box drop in between the foot of the main and the boom. This snuff's and controls the sail nicely. Let the halyard down as you need so you don't drag it in the piss. Easy to do solo, if not a bit slow. In my system you do need to walk up to the bow to blow the tack, but you can get 'martin-breaker systems' where you have a loop tied thought the clip to the stem. Ease the tack line from the cockpit and it blows the clip. My halyards are at the must so walking to the bow is no issue. Noting if you use a sock you have to work on the foredeck anyway.
This is about the most fail safe way of getting a gennaker / kite down. And probably the cheapest to set up. You have to re-pack it fully though which is an issue if solo. The top down furlers are great if you want to put a sail up or down a lot in the same race. My method doesn't achieve that - unless you have more than one sail (which, to be honest is probably cheaper than a top down furler set up anyway, you just need to comply with the handicap limits on sail quantities)
-
1 hour ago, Island Time said:
So wind speed depends on angle. 12 knots (true) at 60 deg apparent is fully powered up. Down deep, say 150 app, can hold it to about 18-20 - but don't round up!! Cant remember the cloth weight - ask Booboo - he made it! In about 18 knots true, and 150 app angle, boat speed is about 10 knots, so radical wind speed over deck if you loose it and round up!
I would say that is 1.5oz cloth.
I've got one that does similar performance which is 1.5 oz cloth. Don't think I've got the balls to take it to 60deg true in 12 knots (and it's not cut that flat, my one) but it can certainly beam reach, tight reach and deep reach very well in the same windspeeds. We've even used it like a chicken-chute deep-off in 25 gusting 30 ish (didn't last long though, my boat is not designed to plane, and to do so is 'bad luck' for the gear).
Mine looks very similar (accept mine is black), narrow shoulders, relatively high tack, luff length not a lot greater than the forestay so you can point fairly high, code zero style, but still a good step down from a zero. Not going for huge sail area, but very versatile and easy to handle solo or 2 up. Designed to run off the stem so there is no f**king around with prods (which also helps the handicap rating). I can tack it to a pole and bring it back, but in the racing context if needing to do this you may as well go for a classic symmetric kite and be done with it. Poling it back is easy for short handed crew though and gives far greater versatility, say for cruising. It being a downwind sail but not some giant monster of a symmetrical to control and get down again.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Island Time said:
Well, here is the response;
Good afternoon Matt,
Thank you for contacting the Board regarding LPG installations on Boats.
If a gasfitter is required to issue a Gas Safety Certificate for any existing installation, this usually starts with a visual inspection of the installation followed by a gas pressure test.
You are correct in stating that the standard includes the statement that compliance with AS/NZS5601.2:2013 it does not apply retrospectively, it does not take the responsibility of the
Certifying Gasfitter to require the installation to :-
- Be Gas Tight
- Compliant with the codes at the time of installation.
- Any unsafe gas installation or appliance be isolated, and the consumer notified.
Should any work be carried out to the gas system as the result of either an inspection or testing of the installation, then the installation of the
boat or vessel and parts of the system do need to comply.
For example, a gasfitter has tested an installation and found a small leak on a gas hose connected to the rear of the hob, and discovers a
cracked or perished hose, then he is obliged to replace that section of gas hose and any other hose as its age has shown deterioration over that period of time.
Unfortunately, vessel owners are reluctant to have any form of gas safety inspection carried out on a regular basis, and when finally, they do, a lot more work than is anticipated is required to bring the installation to an acceptable standard.
Any Gasfitting work on a vessel is deemed as high-risk as defined by the Gas (Safety and Measurement) Regulations 2010 and must be entered on the WorkSafe – Energy Safety database, identifying the vessel by name or registration number.
To do this a Gas Certificate of Compliance and Gas Safety Certificate must be issued and state that the installation complies with AS/NZS 5601.2 sections 3 to 9. This includes the gas soundness testing of an installation.
I look forward to the time where all vessels will require a Gas WOF as is required for the electrical installations on vessels connected to shore power.
Ngā mihi | Kind regards
Pete Worsnop
Technical Advisor
Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board
Ph 0800 743 262 | DDI 04 495 2617 | peter@pgdb.co.nz | www.pgdb.co.nzSo the Board has completely missed the point (well, one of them at least) that the gas fitters do not know or understand the standard and are either approving substandard installations, or requiring significantly over the top installations.
Classic governance board response, "nothing to see here, no problems at all, move along"
But thanks for going to the effort IT.
-
18 minutes ago, khayyam said:
Oh and apparently the mokohinaus too
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/61843-Detection-of-Exotic-caulerpa-Mokohinau-Islands-map
Does kinda seem like it must be everywhere if it's at the mokes.
I'll bet you a good bottle of whiskey it was at the Mokes first, it's come down on the East Auckland current from offshore, and it has spread from the Mokes to all points South. Noting it was found at the Barrier and the Mercs first, and first findings tend to be where there is higher foot-traffic, so to speak, as in people to actually find it.
Noting it is naturally occurring in large parts of the Pacific and Australia. All you need is one of those La Nina years to set up the ocean currents and water temp, and hay presto - magic - killer algae.
Nothing to do with yachts importing it.
-
2
-
-
Giving this some thought, and now that we know caulerpa is at Rakino / Woody Bay, which is one of my go to / fav anchorages, would I anchor on caulerpa if I knew it was there - no.
Not in the foreseable future, if I could avoid it.
Normally in Woody Bay I can see the bottom, and it is clear sand. I've dove on it last year (had fishing line around the prop) and there was no caulerpa in the anchorage. I went spear fishing along the reef on the south side, very good current and productive fishing, did not see anything like caulerpa then.
Whilst saying I'd avoid it if I can, it is apparent there is going to be a point in the not too distant future where it is going to be very hard to avoid anchoring on it. In which case I shall be taking the utmost care to check my anchor and chain (which I do already, as I have one of those low-tech boats where I need to work the anchor winch at the bow, watching the anchor and chain come up, as opposed to a remote cockpit jobby.
Who is going to buy our yachts and at what price?
in MarineTalk
Posted
So what you are saying is, marina berths in Auckland have gotten so expensive you can buy one and get a free house?