K4309
-
Content Count
620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by K4309
-
-
13 hours ago, Winter said:
Sadly looks like Garmin have ruined the Navionics webapp
Someone please tell me that i'm missing something. There used to be a great site on https://webapp.navionics.com/ where I can just quickly measure potential routes etc
It's still available, I tried my regular Navionics link and it redirected me, here:
I am a regular user of the Navionics web map. My subscription expired but since I'm doing a refit and not sailing (or going fishing since it's winter) I didn't bother renewing it. I tend to use it when fishing for the sonar contour maps, and use it on my phone when in the yacht when pocking around rocky or lumpy bits. Far more detail than a standard chart plotter, if you need it.
Obviously use the web map for passage planning and what not.
What I cant understand is Garmin have started sending me emails saying I must update my email so I can continue receiving their emails. I just can't get my head around that, they have my email, cause they just emailed me on it. Then why would a multinational corporation threaten they wont send me sh*t if I don't do something? normally I have to do something to STOP these muppets sending me sh*t.
So what is actually going on? I thought Garmin owned Navionics anyway? Are they just bringing it all under one brand?
-
1 hour ago, Guest said:
Ok, so bare minimum. Road spikes so if the leopard seal comes back he will baulk at my open transom.
The most I've seen used is a bit of plastic net to keep the ducks off. Mind you, that is up a river where there are lots of ducks that like hoping on to open transoms.
Owha, that leopard seal, I haven't heard her being reported around Auckland for several years. Has she wondered off? got a mate? or am I just living under a rock. Has anyone else heard of or seen that leopard seal recently?
Agree with khayyam and the river dwellers, locking the boat just makes more damage when they break in. All I've ever heard stolen is fishing gear and booze. Oh, and a whole boat once, that was a bit of a major. They were trying to get home to Barrier and put petrol in it, it was a diesel launch, engine ran away, blew up and sunk. The guy rescuing them got suspicious when one of the guys was trying to swim away from the sinking boat with a very nice socket set...
If you manage to work it out, I would be interested in how to set up a cheap cellular / Internet of Things link to monitor boat stuff though, like batteries and bilge pump. The ducks nuts would be a two way system to turn my fridge on remotely, then everything will be nice and cold before I even get to the boat (for the Westhavenites, being on a mooring means I don't have shore power and don't leave the fridge on 24/7 if I'm not on the boat).
-
13 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
Unfortch, suicide is not deemed accidental under the act, but I get your drift
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?
-
45 minutes ago, K4309 said:
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.
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...
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, aardvarkash10 said:
If you need an anchor, AI has you covered
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.
-
2 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
It is a little known thing about ACC. IMO, they should talk more about it.
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.
It just goes to show that we do get some things right in NZ. We can bitch and moan about all sorts of things, but some things are friggin spot on amazeballs.
-
5
-
-
12 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
I can't understand how you're drawing the conclusion that rogue waves don't break as the water gets shallower or the boat wasn't where the evidence showed it was, or for that matter how you've concluded that the wave wasn't breaking at the time of impact, when clearly the case file suggests otherwise?
The judge concluded that it was unreasonable to expect the skipper to predict a rogue wave. That's substantially different from your assertions.
Therefore the presumption from MNZ that he should not have been in such shallow water because he wasn't prepared/ready for a Rogue wave became irrelevant as he had no requirement to predict or plan for a Rogue wave.
What will be interesting will be too see if MNZ appeal the case.
This case has set legal precedent, that as mariners/skippers we do not need to prepare, plan or consider rogue waves when cutting corners into shallower waters.
What's clear from this thread, is that based on experience several individuals disagree with that ruling.
You obviously agree with the ruling and I can respect that. But you should have a bit of respect for the people who have experience and disagree.
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 it wasn't that type of wave. It wasn't a shallow water wave standing up. Other ways to describe those are surf, or perhaps the best description, that is often marked on charts and has accompanying warnings, is 'overfalls'.
A rogue wave is entirely different to overfalls, and the general type of waves you can expect with strong currents and swell around headlands.
The so called experienced people on here appear to be conflating the two. They are entirely different. One type is predictable and often marked on charts*, the other type is by definition entirely unpredictable. After 10 pages of thread, we've only had one person on here say they have actually experienced a rogue wave.
* Areas with overalls are usually marked on charts and have a warning for prudent skippers. One such area is the Pandora Bank, which has this warning copied from Navionics
Mariners are advised to pass at least 2nm to seaward of the 100m depth contour when navigating in the vicinity of the Pandora Bank in adverse weather conditions.
There is no such warning Marimotu Island.
Finally, there is some hypocrisy in you telling me to have a bit of respect, that goes both ways and I've been on the receiving end of that throughout this thread.
-
12 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
The case notes strongly suggests otherwise...
The evidence from several survivors was that a 10m high wave came in, was clearly visible in the distance, it built even higher, crested and broke, rolling and smashing the boat to pieces.
I am pretty sure that Rogue waves, crest and break, just like any other wave, when the distance to the sea bed becomes less than the height of the wave.
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.
-
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 unexpectedly from directions other than prevailing wind and waves.
Most reports of extreme storm waves say they look like "walls of water." They are often steep-sided with unusually deep troughs.
Since these waves are uncommon, measurements and analysis of this phenomenon is extremely rare. Exactly how and when rogue waves form is still under investigation, but there are several known causes:
Constructive interference. Extreme waves often form because swells, while traveling across the ocean, do so at different speeds and directions. As these swells pass through one another, their crests, troughs, and lengths sometimes coincide and reinforce each other. This process can form unusually large, towering waves that quickly disappear. If the swells are travelling in the same direction, these mountainous waves may last for several minutes before subsiding.
Focusing of wave energy. When waves formed by a storm develop in a water current against the normal wave direction, an interaction can take place which results in a shortening of the wave frequency. This can cause the waves to dynamically join together, forming very big 'rogue' waves. The currents where these are sometimes seen are the Gulf Stream and Agulhas current. Extreme waves developed in this fashion tend to be longer lived.
-
24 minutes ago, harrytom said:
Yes I believed Lance to be in the wrong and still do,looking at where he was and conditions,shallows wasnt the place to be.
Are you basing that on the facts, or what Maritime NZ told you?
-
6 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:
More often than you might think.
That's the justice system at work. The evidence falls where it falls, the judge or jury assess on what they hear and see in the courtroom.
This was a trial requiring " beyond reasonable doubt". That's a very high bar for a prosecution to hurdle, and rightly so. The judge had doubts, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion.
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 headland within less than 3nm?
-
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’m not satisfied the prosecution has proven its case in respect to the single charge. I therefore find him not guilty and the charge is dismissed,” Judge Rzepecky said. -
7 minutes ago, waikiore said:
Ridiculous result , from a lame prosecution . It wasnt a rogue wave and yes they often peak up along that shore in those conditions hence If Goodhew knew where he was, it was easy to predict.
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...
-
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.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
From the article the altered report still bearing the original signature was withdrawn and replaced with the same altered report but with a different persons signature (Paul West's).
So it did not make it into the courts evidence at the hearing.
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 prejudice and or bias, and has gotten plenty of prosecutions thrown out of court in the past (referring to criminal court here, but equally applies to our justice system and prosecutions under the H&S Act.
The basic principal of natural justice being that the prosecution cannot pick and choose evidence, all evidence must be made available. This being separate to how the prosecute the case at trial of course.
-
2 hours ago, Island Time said:
If that is fact, they should be prosecuted - that is fraud!
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 to suit their narrative is really alarming.
There are other examples of Worksafe prosecution that fit this modus operandi as well. Not relevant to this thread so I wont go off into detail, but the best example is the Arthur's Pass tourist bus crash. They went after the mechanic that serviced the bus in a most alarming way, to the extent Worksafe pressured ALL of his clients to stop using him. They only withdrew the charges when their inspector died(after about 4 years I think), but when the mechanic raised the prospect of damages Worksafe threatened him with further charges if he dared bring a case against them. That in itself is illegal, using threats of more charges to get out of paying damages.
Noting this all had zero to do with the actual crash. It was an imported Chinese bus and sounded like no-one assessed the breaks as being suitable for NZ conditions... Driver said the brakes failed but no one verified the driver got it into the right gear before dropping down the Otira incline.
Anyway, these little facts coming out is why I am so suspicious and skeptical of MNZ's motives in bringing charges on the Enchanter tragedy, and the accuracy of their evidence. Noting their key witness has already been proven to have been lying at trial. And of the 6 charges MNZ brought, only one actually made it to trial.
-
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 industry expert to investigate the 4 helo companies involved with White Island. He found that the helo companies, specifically Volcanic Air Safaris Ltd had done nothing wrong. To the contrary, he considered their systems and practices to be exemplary, and recommended they be used as an exemplar in the industry.
He produced a 56 page report.
Management substantially altered his report, chopping it down to 20 something pages - then sent it back to him and instructed him to sign it.
He refused.
Management then put his electronic signature on it and issued it under his name anyway.
The investigator was so upset by this he eventually resigned. But that is not the half of it.
He ended up issuing an affidavit on behalf of the helicopter companies. The Worksafe investigator went to court supporting the companies he was investigating - because Worksafe's decision to prosecute was morally bankrupt.
In the end, the helo companies were forced to plead guilty, because they simply could not afford to defend the charges against the unlimited budget of Worksafe. Those companies then folded.
Noting that the charges were reduced from $1.5m to $500,000 based on Worksafe's own investigators affidavit.
These are the same helo companies that were honoured with bravery awards for actually rescuing people at White Island, while officials forced our actual rescue services to stand down.
WorkSafe’s Whakaari investigator said chopper companies shouldn’t be charged | Stuff
-
4
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Zozza said:
I heard some twat on the Radio yesterday morning (RNZ) being interviewed, saying that licensing boat owners for competency on the water is an absolute must. He completely missed the point that this idiot in Pahia was looking down scrolling his phone going at twenty f**king knots, trying to figure out how to fix something. Just like driving, if you are looking at your phone then you are not fully paying attention, and going at twenty knots with your head down engrossed in your bloody phone is a recipe for disaster. But hey, if the idiot was licensed then that would have solved everything.
Yet I suspect a $132,000 fine might make some people think about putting it in neutral before scrolling through the MFD to find a fault alarm.
At the end of the day, it was that one indecision to not throttle back that led to the ferry skipper being paralyised.
Note I understood he was flicking through screens on the MFD rather than his phone, but the analogy of drivers on their phone is exactly the same.
-
4
-
-
I'm no expert on elbows, but when I put my new engine in the supplier had a wide range of alternative elbows to assist with retrofitting the engine into the existing installation. None of them were anywhere near those prices. I would have though $200 to $400 max (2019 dollars).
If I recall correctly they were all alloy elbows. Fairly sure the elbow on my engine is alloy too. I don't really know what the value is in stainless over iron over alloy. Given most of my engine is alloy now I can't see the issue with an alloy elbow, it wont corrode like iron, and is a fraction of the price of stainless - which corrodes anyway in the lack of oxygen.
My engine is a Beta and the supplier was the Engine Room (don't get confused with the fine dinning engine room when googling). It might be worth a phone call. I know at the time they had a 'volvo' cross over elbow and a half dozen other options from super high, straight, slightly offset etc. I can't comment on the hole spacing, but that may be able to be easily fixed.
-
3 hours ago, Psyche said:
online is always plus shipping, sometimes people forget that.
Not always. It is becoming increasingly common to have free shipping. The kicker is you often have to click through to the last page to find out, and I suspect many people will just complete the transaction once they get that far.
And free shipping is normally on items worth more than $50 or a hundy though, not two bolts. Although last time I went in to Fosters to by 2 screws (they were incredibly attractive, fancy screws, silicon bronze etc), the lady did say they have had people order 2 bolts and get them couriered / delivered, via their website. Courier was more than the bolts (but judging by the price of my very attractive screws it is a tight run thing).
And while I know Burnsco has been sold to the Aussies, the staff there are definitely still locals, get paid in NZ dollars and pay PAYE and GST etc that go to fund out teachers and police. Don't get me wrong, I don't go out of my way to pay more locally, but given the option, or only a modest price difference, I will buy local.
-
2 hours ago, Black Panther said:
Olympic sailing doesn't feature on crew very often but a friend tells me there is some upheaval happening there as well. We are about to send the weakest team in decades, unlikely to get one medal and there goes all the funding. Meanwhile the sport has shriveled at the grassroots level and not looking likely to recover anytime soon.
Good time not to be an official at YNZ.
I'm not across our current medal prospects, but three points to note:
1) A selector had a son via-ing for selection in a hotless contested class. YNZ didn't see a problem with that. It was only resolved when the son broke his leg 2 days before the nominations were going to be confirmed, putting the other crew into nomination.
2) for the first time ever in NZ, the arbitration panel forced YNZ to include athletes they excluded. 2 of them.
3) our best and most experienced crew didn't meet YNZ's own selection criteria.
It certainly has the look and smell of a shambles.
Edit, PS, it appears the sport is booming at grass roots level, just not in classes supported by YNZ. Wing-foiling is going nuts. Wind-foiling is an Olympic glass and is growing well. Kite foiling is really big recreationally in NZ, but YNZ went out of their way to shaft our two wingfoil nominations, being the two that the arbitration panel forced YNZ to nominate. The irony being YNZ are trying to shaft the fastest growing sector.
Considering a fully spec'd 49'er costs about as much as Black Panther, I'm not surprised there are grass roots issues. The gear is very, very expensive. Let alone the cost of campaigning it. Paradoxically, the foiling gear is cheaper than the traditional gear, and loads more exciting.
-
3 hours ago, Zozza said:
I knew about the Nth v Sth when it comes to compasses but totally forgot about it.
Mostly, I have had positive experiences when buying marine gear offshore. I get the "support local" ideology, but I think in 2024 that's gone out the window years ago-- I feel no such inclination to support Burnsco, Smart Marine, or Marine Deals which are all huge players in the NZ that monopolise the marine market. I am not saying you are not right though K4, because they are still NZ companies - I may indeed be part of the problem with my attitude.
Marine Deals is right up there with any parallel importer, no customer advise or making sure you are getting the right product etc. If you are shopping at marine deals, you may as well go straight to Temu.
I do shop at Burnsco, mainly cause they are the only option for many things, and do find the staff really good and helpful, but I don't describe Burnsco as an owner operator type. Probably the best examples of that are fishing shops. There are two owner operator fishing shops near me, or I could get the same stuff off Marine Deals cheaper. Get to have some banter and a little local intel on where the fish are holding while supporting the owner operators.
A comment on Burnsco, I have found them exceptional for returning sh*t. Staff and the store manager as helpful as he could possibly be, including bending rules. Many examples, but the latest one, got a solar powered vent for the heads, had to cut a hole in my deck, reshape, build a plinth, paint etc to accommodate fancy solar vent. 18 months on and the face panel had faded and the thing basically wasn't working.
Raised this next time I was in store, (receipt long gone) they told me when I bought it as I'd forgotten, was outside warranty but I explained it was an outdoor product and wasn't durable as per the CCG, no problem swapping / replacing it, AND, if I wanted a better / different item, they could swap my faulty one like for like, then immediately credit me the new one they swapped, so I was free to choose any other spec / product, rather than forcing me to put up with something that clearly wasn't fit for purpose.
I've never had that from an online retailer. If there is only a modest price difference, I will buy local for that support. Early June I bought a new blender jug online. Free & fast delivery they said. Hasn't even been dispatched yet (end of June). If I bought local, I would have been making smoothies for a month now. Very irritated.
-
2
-
2
-
-
Sometimes you can waste money paying too little for something. I've found that out buying cheap stuff that is junk / doesn't do the job.
And sometimes the local retailers offer a value proposition with knowledge and advice, not just on price point. Not always. But I do like supporting local owner operators when I get a chance.
-
1
-
North Technology Group buys Doyles and Quantum
in MarineTalk
Posted
If North's pricing got any higher, you'd need permission from Air Traffic Control just to get a quote.
Hoping the other two brands don't go the same way.