K4309

June 10

Is that 3 black balls flying from their mast?

Why do they call it a balls-up?

June 4

3 hours ago, waikiore said:

Not a passenger carrying vessel.

I didn't realise the H&S at work Act, nor the Maritime Transport Act only applied to passenger carrying vessels.

Serious question, does Maritime NZ not have jurisdiction over commercial vessels that don't carry passengers?

Life was put in grave danger by the actions of the skipper...

June 4

Interesting story here on penalities for grossly unsafe operation of a boat.

250hrs community service.

Admittedly no-one died in this example, but that was by good luck than good management. The skipper clinging desperately to a sunk boat with waves crashing over him, in the dark, in a remote corner of NZ.

The skipper was facing a $5,000 fine, but that was set aside as he has no income, is on a benefit, has $9,000 in outstanding fines, owes IRD $23,000 and has a loan of $9,000 on top of all of that.

The skipper ran the boat aground on Fairwell Spit having fallen asleep. Moreso, he sailed without the minimum number of crew, which was two. And for some random reason, was in the complete wrong area. The boat being based out of Greymouth and apparently limited to an area between Jacksons Bay and Karamea. The owner cannot understand why the boat went to Nelson and thus needed to transit Fairwell Spit at all.

So anyway, a complete clown breaks a number of rules, completely ignores good seamanship, and gets 250 hrs community service.

I guess IF Goodhew gets convicted, he actually has assets and money so will face a far greater penalty than this womble.

Retired man's life savings sunk with fishing boat after grounding on Farewell Spit | RNZ News

June 1

3 hours ago, Island Time said:

I've the approx loads and formulas somewhere. But I'm on my 2nd Whiskey and can't be arsed looking for them 😆. Iirc the max holding power of my rocna 20 is around 2000-2500 kg. The anchor gear is specd to suit this. My para anchor is a Coppins storm fighter, 5m diameter, with a centre pressure relief system held closed by really heavy bungee.

In the storm we were in, I don't believe the loads on the primary rode -under bow roller - (on a bridle to a primary winch as well) I don't believe that the loads were any bigger than being anchored.

If anyone is interested and near Gulf Harbour, I'd be happy to go out in 40-50 kn and deploy the chute. Anyone want to film it?

More to the point, what whiskey are you drinking?

I've always been a fan of the Isla's, never fully appreciated Speyside's.

May 31

8 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Yeah, but it's Friday and I'm 2/3 into a bottle of shiraz

Well if you are bored and trying to find tedious equations to work through, I'm sure I could find some insurance policies for your to assess?

I reckon from a technical point of view, you probably aren't far off on the wind force calculation, but the biggest factor would be determining the slippage of the drogue. You'd need that to determine the force on the rope. The windage calc can approximate the force on one end of the rope, but you need to assess the force on the other end. Infact, the slippage / force on the drogue is probably what will define the max force on the rope.

If it freely slips through the water, there will be zero force on the rope. If it is stuck solid then you could use the windage calcs to determine force, but we know it's not stuck solid, indicating the windage force isn't the one you want to put the effort into assessing.

May 31

There are so many variables to consider for an 'accurate' answer. Noting the difference between 'accurate' is subjective, as in being about right, or being correct to 10 decimal places.

There are all the obvsious technical elements like dynamic load, sea state and water force on the hull in addition to wind force, drag from hull appendages at a certain drift speed etc.

But the bits I would be most interest in are the type of rope, as in stretchy or completely in-elastic, the ability for the drogue to 'bite' the water, and as you alluded to, the ability for the drogue to not rip to bits.

The short story I would think is to come up with a reasonable solution I would recommend relying on imperical data rather than theoretical data. As in, what works in practice (what have others used, etc)

Do you want the rope to be stronger than the drogue? Then get a big rope. Do you want the rope to protect the drogue, then get a stretchy rope.

The drogue you describe sounds very much like a fishing drogue, designed to keep a fizz boat bow or stern to the waves, and to let it drift slowly in light to moderate conditions. I'd expect it would get dragged fairly quickly through the water by a quality Spencer in 40knts, best effect may be to hold the bow (or stern) into the wind, but it would largely be ineffective. From an engineering analytical point, then the drag from hull appendages may have a greater proportion of influence than the drogue, and this will skew all of your analysis.

You could just go with some 14mm nylon anchor rode which is what? 6t breaking load (I'm guessing, haven't checked) and be done with it, assuming you have spare anchor rode, and wanting to use anchor rode as it is stretchy.

May 31

23 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

How am I doing engineers?

Your formulas are lacking units.

As an engineer, this makes my eyes hurt.

May 28

Because it turns out Maritime NZ's key witness was lying, and was out fishing all day when they said the weather was too bad to go out:

Maritime NZ prosecutor Sam McMullan said he had "narrowed the particulars he was relying on for a guilty verdict".

He said if, for a guilty verdict he must prove Lance Goodhew could've foreseen at 1:30pm when he left on the journey home that a giant 10-metre wave was likely later that night, then on that basis alone its case is "weak."

Judge retires in Enchanter trial, asked to weigh up 'utterly extraordinary and unpredictable event' | Newshub

May 28

40 minutes ago, Psyche said:

Judges do not like their rulings to be appealed successfully and clear cut isn't a legal definition. The law can be extremely detailed in complex cases and every word or phrase needs careful consideration. This is not a criminal case but he is facing huge fines if found guilty. The Judge has to make a judgement on whether he is guilty of the charges and if so set a fine which if high enough could ruin him. He needs to send a deterrent message but also weigh up the harm to Goodhew, this is not a traffic fine.

"Goodhew is charged by Maritime New Zealand with breaching his duties as a worker on the vessel and in doing so, allegedly exposing individuals to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $150,000 fine.

His business, L and M Goodew Ltd, has been charged with a breach of the Maritime Transport Act in operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel by not having a current medical certificate at the time of the incident, which comes with a maximum penalty of a $100,000 fine.

The business is also charged with exposing individuals to the risk of death or serious injury carrying a maximum penalty of $1.5 million"

All but one of those charges were dropped before the trial. Including the one with the $1.5million maximum penalty.

It would be handy to keep up with what charges he is actually facing...

May 28

7 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

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.

Fair enough.

It just goes to show that it is absolutely not clear cut.

I'd assume if the guy was stoned off his chops or drunk as a skunk they'd be able to form an opinion in 5mins or less.

To the lay person (which I am, zero legal training or knowledge) needing 2 months to form an opinion (having already had the best legal minds in the country set it out word by word over 3 weeks) would indicate there is 'reasonable doubt' about any (possible) conviction.

May 28

10 hours ago, Cameron said:

Amazing the comments from people who have no idea...

The cabin top has deliberately not been installed as the boat is currently undergoing testing and sea trials and not having the cabin top makes it far easier to access parts for adjustment.

Oh really?

Sensitive much thinking you can change the weather? The comment about not having a cabin top is a direct quote from the guy himself. Not having a cabin top also reduces windage, drag and weight, which makes all the efficiency numbers look better than they are.

Horne says the final fit-out will include a cabin top, a Learjet-like finish in its interior and be a smooth ride, thanks to the hydrofoiling technology designed by the team at Vessev.

May 28

10 hours ago, harrytom said:

11.45am 22nd July the judge will deliver the verdict.

Be interesting which way it goes.

2 months to form an opinion. Wow.

After 3 weeks of trial.

May 28

2 minutes ago, khayyam said:

Just a gimmick without a roof. Will be interesting to see how the tech plays out though.

It was a story of soo many contrasts.

The latest leading edge technology, but without fundamental basics, like a roof. Then boasting it will have Lear Jet standard interiors, and that you would be able to talk on a phone, or give a presentation. I'm still trying to work out why you'd want to give a presentation on a ferry, but maybe that is me being ignorant.

Or that the 300 people Fullers electric ferries are in build and delivery planned, but they haven't sorted out the charging infrastructure.

Or that the latest tech electric ferries will be charged off massive diesel shore based generators.

Perhaps if the story wasn't by a sensationalist mainstream media (i.e. perhaps if it was by an industry magazine or some such dull as batshit publication) it would simply say "A proof of concept has been launched, and the next key milestone is obtaining Maritime NZ approval, something that has not been acheived anywhere globally for an electric, foiling ferry".

PS, I am wondering though, if they can't afford to train crew for many of Auckland's established ferry routes, how can they afford to fund $27.5 million of shoreside super-chargers? That money is a hell of a lot of conventional ferry trips that would bolster our collapsing public transport network without getting all fancy on it.

May 28

Unlike the big electric ferries on the way next year (which will require $27.5m worth of multi-megawatt chargers) no new infrastructure is needed.

While superchargers on piers are still a work-in-progress - and might not appear at CBD ferry terminal until mid to late next year - the hybrid’s diesel generators mean they’ll be able to operate for months, while Fullers waits for superchargers.

May 28

Capacity of 10 people.

Future upgrades include a cabin top.......

May 24

9 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Like a tanker off the Aussie coast?

I believe that tanker was outside the environment.

May 21

47 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Interesting how the technology of the search part of SAR has moved on with PLBs, EPIRB not to mention far better comms and forecasting.

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?

May 20

3 hours ago, Lindsay said:

My little 3.5 Mercury drove me insane. Was very reliable for 8 or 9 years but then conked out every time I used it for the next 2 or 3 years. Mechanic reckoned it was to do with some change to the composition of petrol (?) and that repairs to small outboards was their biggest money spinner. I ditched it and splashed out on an ePropulsion Spirit electric. Best thing I’ve ever bought.

(Apart from the diesel heater)

(And the boat)

The govt of the day thought they could change the weather by putting biofuel in the petrol. The last one just been very nearly forced the industry to put 10% biofuel in but backtracked last minute cause it would increase petrol prices too much, coinciding with record high prices due to Russia invading their neighbour.

Anyway, biofuel is ethanol effectively, and attracts moisture like a bastard. Petrol with biofuel in it has a very short shelf life for temperamental things like outboards, chainsaws, weed eaters and what not. Consequently, we all need to be very fussy with the age of petrol used for such things. The car can handle it fine, but you can't leave a fuel can in your shed or boat for the winter and expect your small engines to work fine next spring. Ditch the fuel can into the car and always run your outboards etc on fresh fuel.

If you have petrol in your outboard and it's older than about 3 months, drain it out and get rid of it. Put fresh stuff in. Some people are also religious about shutting off the fuel tap while the outboard is running. This drains the float chamber so it doesn't gum up. It can also make it a bastard to start the outboard next time cause the float chamber is empty (depends how fast it fills up when you open the fuel valve next time). Personally I just stop the motor, leaving fuel in the carb, but strip it down once in a while (once or twice a year) and ensure I use fresh fuel.

The other thing you can do is add Fuel Set, which helps significantly with issues around waxes forming, fuel going stale and diesel bug if used in diesel.

Fuel Set Fuel System Conditioner 200ml - B200FS - Liquid Engineering | Repco New Zealand

May 19

53 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

You must have missed the bit where the EPIRB track lined up with the drift modeling - proving that the Easterly turn wasn't Aliens but was actually the expected/modelled tidal drift.

I think you have a better chance of convincing people that it was Aliens which moved the EPIRB, the Flybridge and all the debris from 1mile north east of the EPIRB activation point into the Northern tidal stream at the 10m contour.

Cause you'll never convince anyone who knows anything about the tide, that a 1Nm wide eddy was moving at 6knots in a WSW direction.

I still assert that even the report says "as likely as not", meaning 50:50, and for a prosecution you need to be beyond reasonable doubt. Note I've not been saying the capsize occurred where the skipper said, but I've been saying you can't rely on the location being where the modelling said. It could have been fairly much anywhere. But anyway, lets move on.

What does it mean for the case if the capsize occurred where the modelling suggests it did? - as opposed to anywhere else other than where the skipper thought he was, which could be anywhere.

They were heading in to anchor, in how deep water 5m? (I haven't actually checked), is it not unreasonable to transit 10m of water when heading into an anchorage?

Is 10 m some sort of problem? He didn't run aground, and wasn't caught in surf. There is an assertion there is a higher risk of rogue waves when close to landforms like that. But the defense is the wave was rogue. Definition being entirely unpredictable, freak occurrence etc. How can any reasonable skipper predict an unpredictable, freak occurrence?

Then there is the question of reasonable, as in what would any other reasonable skipper do? The media made a big deal about the Florence Nightingale and her own (Nate Davy?) laying into this skipper and saying he shouldn't have left the 3 kings, it was way to rough, etc etc, turns out his boat was fishing the whole time. So there is evidence to suggest the next best example of a reasonable skipper thought the conditions were fine.

We know there is high uncertainty as to the timing of the capsize, as there is uncertainty around the location. Given all witnesses had a near death experience, I think issues with recollection and accuracy of details can be expected. The skipper made a very big point at the start if his evidential interview he was very emotional and was denied a support person. That was made very clear. Was he even in a fit mental state to give an evidential interview?

He may not have been where he thought he was at the time of interview. He is clear he had a route and stated he was following it. Would a reasonable skipper know where they were, this skipper thought he did.

All witnesses report a rogue wave. Very large, "too high to see the top of" "substantially taller than the boat" etc.

We've had no evidence to say the skipper was stoned.

Wasn't drunk.

Apparently wasn't otherwise distracted, on Only Fans or facetiming a Ukrainian Single. He was on the bridge, driving, wasn't he?

There is no smoking gun of gross negligence (and if it is shown he was drunk, stoned or doing lines of coke, I'll be the first to change my tune).

So linking back to the current topic of the thread around the position of capsize, it was a rogue wave which was unpredictable and a freak occurrence, does it matter where he was? Given the 10knts and 2m swell, would any other skipper have been heading for the same anchorage along the same route?

May 19

2 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

@K4309 I have begun to draw the conclusion that you have not actually read the report.

You'll be pleased to know it wasn't Aliens.

The report further clarifies how the commission determined the location of the capsize:

I am no expert, but from my simple calculations - for the flybridge to have drifted from the location the skipper claims the capsize occurred to the point where the EPIRB was activated and attached to the Fly Bridge, would of required a phantom WSW eddy of ~6-8 knots that was able to counter the Northerly tidal stream. It's therefore unsurprising, (at least it is to me), why no expert witness has come forward to discuss the possibility of an eddy.

"About as likely as not"

As in 50:50.

Yes, I have read the report. Most of it when it first came out and parts of it in the last few days.

May 19

51 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

Is this an expert opinion? Or one of those everyone-has-one opinions?

If the former, then I strongly suggest you get in touch with the defense team, as they have produced no expert witness to discredit the tide modelling, and no other people that have local knowledge of the area have come forward to discuss phantom eddies.

I also don't know how it was done, but that doesn't mean it wasn't and it certainly doesn't mean that I am qualified to discredit the people/teams/companies that did.

How do you define an expert?

I can be an expert in anything if you want to pay me enough. That's how it works isn't it?

I do have reasonable knowledge of modelling and I know that sh*t out of a computer / model is only as good as the sh*t in.

I have enough knowledge of surf beaches to know rips / strong outgoing currents can be just meters away from incoming waves / strong incoming forces.

Whilst sailing I have seen tide lines with measurable currents going in random directions, normally 90 deg to the current I was in. Whilst spearfishing / snorkelling around reefs and headlands I have seen currents going all over the place in relation to the tidal set.

Up our river we know there is a strong back eddy that gets going a wee while (an hour or two) before the change of the tide.

So I don't believe anyone can model with any accuracy the tides and currents that close to those rocks with any accuracy. You may be able to use something like a (forget the name, tide modelling outfit based in the UK that now supports predict wind - Tide Tech?), but I'm fairly sure the highest resolution those go to is 1km. You need something with maybe 10m resolution to be accurate for what they are trying to extrapolate from. Maybe they have, I haven't seen that detail reported from the trial. Would be interested if anyone knows how to get more detail from the trial than what is in MSM?

What we do know is:

1) it was some time before the EPIRB was activated post rogue wave, I understand about 40 min, but even the facts around how long are uncertain

2) there are strong tides and currents there, cause debris went everywhere and the rescue helo's couldn't find survivors or the boat itself the next day

3) the EPIRB track, of which we are certain, had a random 90 deg change in direction, supporting my assertion that the tides and currents are changeable and difficult to predict.

Now, the main issue is reliance. Prosecution are relying on this as the sole evidence to say he wasn't where he said / thought he was. That is fine, but what is the legal test for conviction*? Reasonable doubt? I posit that there is clearly reasonable doubt on the EPIRB track prior to activation.

*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.

May 19

55 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

I disagree with your opinion

My opinion is that seasoned fisherpeople, going on the trip of a lifetime to the Three Kings, would be smart enough to know not to inflate their LJ's until they are outside.

I was assuming the fully spec'ed auto inflating with 250n of bouyance, auto-deploying sprayhood, light and double crutch straps, as per the ones I have on my boat. It didn't occur to me that the fisho's would be using the old manual variety.

But yes, there is a wide range of opinions on LJ's, especially around risk of entrapment in upside down boats. If I were in the sea, I'd want my fully pimped LJ on, if I was inside an upside down boat with it on, well, perhaps I'd be reaching for the inbuilt strap cutter ;-)

May 19

I pulled mine apart when I feel like a pleasant easy job in the shed, dismantle the carb and soak various bits in CRC carb cleaner, then put it back together how it came apart.

Starts second pull cold start and first pull every time, 2hp Yamaha.

Doing that addresses things like a sticky float, grease / wax build up in the bowl and sh*t in the jets and what not.

If you think you flooded it, it might just be that, but an easy strip down and clean of the carb is probably the first diagnostic step in identifying any other issues that you have mentioned.

May 19

1 hour ago, harrytom said:

No as you defending the skipper all the way through. And I will say skipper was neglect on all accounts,remember dead men tell no lies. At first skipper hung to dry by no first aid cert but seems more to the case now.

I will wait for the court verdict before any more discussion. Transmission over.

C'mon, what else is there to the case? I'm keen to know.

Do you mean the other fishing vessel that was called as a key witness that said it was too rough to leave the anchorage, but was found under cross examination to have been fishing all day? In contravention of their own SoP's if the wind was as high as they said, that one?

Or the Predict Wind forecast that said 20knts easing, or the observed 10 to 12knts at the time of capsize?

What more is there to the case?

May 19

1 minute ago, harrytom said:

Why do you constanly say 4 died when it was 5?

Now who hasnt read the report?

Now now, who didn't read what I wrote?

If you had read what I wrote, you would see I was referring to the 4 guys that died waiting to be rescued. One was believed / confirmed dead caught in the hull at the time of the role over.

Any chance you want to discuss this constructively, or are you just keen on taking potshots now?

Profiles

Media Demo

Forums

Gallery

Calendar

Store

Posts posted by K4309