K4309
-
Content Count
620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by K4309
-
-
1 hour ago, Guest said:
It seems K that you are putting the right to be rescued above the moral obligation of a skipper to keep his crew and passengers safe.
Calling us prejudiced against the skipper is like us saying what connection do you have with the skipper?
Its just what one believes is more probable, that your undocumented eddies, wind and chop overrule the current/drift modeling which is corroborated (once activated) by actuals with timestamps.
Repeating it over and over with innuendo doesn't make it any more valid. (Whatever stance)
Solely blaming the skipper is like saying accidents should never happen. It is incredibly overly simplistic.
If accidents aren't allowed to happen, why do we go to such great lengths to prepare boats for Cat 1? Offshore first aid kits and liferafts?
Avoiding fatallities is about preparedness. My position is, post the capsize, preparedness was lacking at multiple levels. This is highlighted with major shortcommings in the rescue, but also a couple of basic facts no-one has gotten into yet.
The liferaft didn't self activate like it was supposed to. The EPIRB didn't self activate like it was supposed to.
This focus on saying the Skipper shouldn't have capsized his boat is missing many, many opportunities for learning and improvement.
As for undocumented eddies, have you never been to a surf beach? been spearfishing around a reef or headland? The 'documented drift' is after the EPIRB was turned on. I can't see how anyone can use that to extrapolate where it was prior to being turned on, noting there is a 90deg sudden change in direction in the documented drift. What caused that? Aliens?
-
2 hours ago, Psyche said:
Dying while awaiting rescue is very common, especially in remote locations. Reading the report the rescue services did an outstanding job in adverse circumstances at a remote location. It sounds like you are simply trying to blame the rescuers, defend the skipper and smear MNZ.
Have you actually read the TAIC report? Just wanting to know if we are on the same page with the facts before we debate opinions.
Delays so long in getting helo A ready they have to ask someone else to do the rescue.
5 hours without operating helos, just because.
Those 4 guys were well within range of rescue. MRCC would have known 10 were onboard after phoning the EPIRB contacts, but only sent one helo...
Noting the second helo was tasked cause the first helo was having a clusterfuck, the third helo was tasked the following day. MRCC only tasked one helo in the first instance to an EPIRB knowing their were 10 people onboard...
-
2 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
They tasked the most appropriate asset available to go look for the Epirb.
They then tasked two more when the gravity of the problem became apparent.
MaritimeNZ were not responsible for the fuel cache.
Fueling is the responsibility the local operator, in this case NEST. The local operator agrees to meet a national standard for rescue aircraft.
MaritimeNZ can't have caches of fuel scattered around NZ waiting for what if. Jet fuel goes off if left to sit and needs careful management.
Before the incident, NEST already knew they had a fuel availability issue at Kaitiaia the report is quite clear that the availability of fuel regularly impacted the air ambulance service.
This is good, and makes me think:
Why is a regional charitable trust responsible for provisioning fuel for what I would deem a nationally important service?
If I understand correctly, 5 different organisations were directly involved in or tasked with the rescue, NHRT, AHRT, Coast Guard, Air Force and MNZ (assuming MRCC are part of MNZ).
The helicopter rescue trusts have sporadic and insecure funding. I understand the bulk of their funding comes from what used to be the DHB's. I assume MNZ fund them somehow, possibly a 'pay per rescue' situation (I don't know, haven't done a deep dive into it). A lot also comes from public fundraising. They are also always hitting up city councils and the like.
Coastguard were also tasked, being CG Hauhora. As per above, CG Hauhora have 27 volunteers (not very many I would have thought to maintain operational readiness, along with training, tractor driving, compliance work and fundraising. Their boat recently needed a compass swung to obtain operational status. As in, just cause they exist doesn't mean they can operate.
Now, we have a situation where 4 men died awaiting rescue. There are known issues with the conduct of the rescue.
Recently (a couple of years ago) there were major issues in fighting a wild fire that destroyed houses and claimed a life. Being Chch Port Hills, the fire before the last one. Part of the issue was an array of responsibilities with Rural Fire districts, urban professional fire fighters, volunteer brigades, police and what not.
As a result of that Port Hills Clusterfuck, Fire and Emergency NZ was established.
Here we have what is effectively a failed rescue, in that 4 men died awaiting rescue (note I'm not counting the 5th death who sounds like he drowned in the capsize). We also have a range of different organisations from Statutory Authority, Charitable Trusts and outright volunteer units. We had coordination and resource issues.
Following the Port Hills fire, there was substantial structural changes made to the management of emergency resources (FENZ).
Would it not be logical to consider the same here?
So far we have only had an investigation. (TAIC)
My position is that this situation warrants an inquiry or another equivalent mechanism to effect change. The TAIC report doesn't have the gravity to do that.
We know collectively we are already paying for a huge array or rescue assets (and to touch on Aardie's apolitcal comment, CG are just getting a major funding boost from the current govt). The rescue helo's are already being paid for, either by the DHB's (or whatever that organisation is called now) via MNZ or via community fundraising.
Has NZ got to the point where disparate charities, trusts and volunteer groups can't cope with the demands, and with insecure funding, and what we really need is a sector restructure equivalent to FENZ?
PS - I'm not saying FENZ is the silver bullet by any means, but the last Port Hills fire was handled a shitload better than the first one, and that was widely put down to more effective management and coordination.
-
35 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:
Hi K.
You have repeatedly stated that there was 17 helicopters....
Your continued statements gave me the impression that you understood 17 different helicopters were or should have been available to be directed to the search.
If that was not your intended sense, please let me know what you were meaning to say.
It will be interesting to see what changes happen in the response preparation of the various agencies. From the boating community's point of view, a change to the current SAR settings and relationships could well improve our chances of a successful rescue when needed.
I wonder if we are prepared to pay for that, as a country.
The context is that 4 guys died waiting for rescue, many hours after it was established they needed rescuing. One helo came, took some and went. The ones that were left all died. I personally find that a harrowing prospect.
I've been banging on about the 17 rescue helos in the North Island to demonstrate there are no shortage of assets. These helos are obviously very expensive to buy, run and maintain, yet we have 17 of them. But somehow these 4 guys were left to die waiting rescue. I haven't reconciled why yet, hence I'm banging on about it.
The MRCC phoned the people on the EPIRB list, so I think it is a fair assumption MRCC knew 10 people were onboard (I need to go back through the TAIC report to clarify the details). Yet there wasn't enough helo capacity to get everyone off, noting there is no shortage of rescue assets nationally.
On Houhora CG, I note they have 27 volunteers and a large RIB. From their FB page, they were non-operational at the end of this summer cause their compass needed swinging.
My next post to CD might outline a way forward.
-
1 minute ago, CarpeDiem said:
Correct I did say.
And then, when you pointed that out, I acknowledged that you said North Island.
Rather than accepting that I it wrong and acknowledging my acknowledgement your response was then to throw me an obnoxious geography lesson.
I trust you now have enough clarification to move on?
My apologies, I took your response as sarcasm, "oh yep, you said..." rather than an acknowledgment of your error.
In that view, I acknowledge my following post with a "geography lesson" was not warranted.
I would say though that I am feeling frustrated that I have been consistently misquoted on key points, or statements attributed to me that I haven't said that materially change the arguement. That includes Aardvark and pysche, hence my push back on it.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
If you want people to participate in the conversation I would suggest that this isn't the way.
I will bow out again. I feel very silly for re-engaging.
You were asserting I said statements I didn't say, twisting the context to mean something different. If you have a problem getting called out on that, that is your issue.
-
Below is the 'Rescue' section of the TAIC report.
In general, it does not come across as particularly well organised of efficient to me. No criticism of volunteers or rescuers involved. There appears to be no shortage of rescue assets in NZ, as I have been banging on about all along, it is the coordination of the assets and scenario planning (lack of fuel) that appears to be the issue, which is Maritime NZ's responsibility. Instead of focusing on this, there is a strong perception they are going after the skipper for PR purposes.
Apoligies, the copy and paste format is terrible.
Link to report here. MO-2022-201 Charter fishing vessel, Enchanter, capsize, North Cape, New Zealand, 20 March 2022 (taic.org.nz)
Search and rescue
2.18 At 2017 the New Zealand Rescue Coordination Centre (the RCC) received an initial beacon alert from the Enchanter’s EPIRB, indicating a distress off North Cape. Using the registration details for the EPIRB the RCC contacted the Enchanter’s shore base and established that the Enchanter was operating near North Cape. At about 2020 the RCC received the first encoded5 transmission from the EPIRB, which included global positioning system (GPS) coordinates.
2.19 At 2030 the RCC directed the Marine Operations Centre to issue mayday relays on VHF Channel 16, requesting all vessels in the vicinity to aid in the response. There were no vessels in the immediate area at that time. 4 An Emergency Position-Indicating Radio Beacon (EPIRB) is designed to transmit its location and verification data to a rescue coordination centre and thus alert search and rescue authorities that an emergency exists. 5 See Appendix 5 for a detailed description of the data obtained from the EPIRB. Final Report MO-2022-201 | Page 6
2.20 At about 2035 the RCC briefed the Coastguard New Zealand (Coastguard) Duty Officer, who was based in Auckland. Coastguard’s northernmost unit, Coastguard Houhora, was then tasked to respond. The RCC also tasked6 the Northland Emergency Services Trust (NEST) 7 helicopter crew based in Whangarei. The NEST crew gave an estimated time to departure of 20–30 minutes. Figure 4: Search and rescue locations
2.21 At 2109 Coastguard advised the RCC that, having conducted a risk assessment, they would not be able to respond at night due to the limitations of their vessel and the severity of the weather forecast. They also believed that there would be no air support in the area until the weather abated. At 2110 NEST advised the RCC there would be a delay while they assembled the appropriate helicopter crew. NEST also requested the RCC to task another helicopter from the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust (ARHT) to assist with the response, which the RCC completed at approximately 2200.
2.22 At 2205 the NEST helicopter departed from Whangarei. NEST maintained a fuel trailer at Kaitaia Hospital. 8 As this was the most northerly point where fuel would be available, both helicopter crews planned to land and refuel from the trailer to maximise their time on scene at North Cape (see Figure 4).
2.23 At 2250 the NEST helicopter arrived at Kaitaia Hospital to refuel and at 2313 departed Kaitaia, heading for the position coordinates transmitted by the Enchanter’s EPIRB. Meanwhile the ARHT helicopter departed from Ardmore Aerodrome in Auckland at 2252. The NEST helicopter arrived on scene at about 2340 and immediately detected 6 Assigned as an asset to be used for the SAR event. 7 Northland Emergency Services Trust and Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust had at the time merged to become one company, Northern Rescue Helicopter Limited (NRHL). However, they were still in the process of aligning the two previous entities operationally. For the purposes of this report, we have retained their original names for clarity of the narrative. 8 About 95 per cent of their work was in relation to air ambulance services. Page 7 | Final Report MO-2022-201 two light sources. The first was a strobe light in the water. However, it was not attached to anything.
2.24 The second light source was from the vessel’s EPIRB attached to the inverted flybridge, to which the skipper, first mate and one passenger were clinging. The helicopter crew conducted a risk assessment and then lowered a rescue swimmer to the water. The three survivors were then winched on board one-by-one, accompanied by the rescue swimmer.
2.25 By now, New Zealand Police (NZ Police) had been briefed and had set up a forward command post at Te Hapua, the closest point to the search area with road access. At 0013 the NEST helicopter departed the scene and flew the three rescued survivors to Te Hapua, where they were transferred to ambulance staff. While in flight the helicopter crew learned from the survivors that: two people were last seen sitting on the inverted hull; three were in the water; one was in the water (but likely deceased); and one was unaccounted for (but was likely trapped in the inverted hull).
2.26 The NEST helicopter returned immediately to the scene to resume the search. They detected another light source that proved to be from the two passengers on the inverted hull. One of the passengers had used the light from a mobile phone to attract their attention. They had earlier tried to make an emergency 111 call but were unsuccessful because of poor mobile coverage in the area. In a similar fashion to the first retrieval the two passengers were retrieved by 0108. The helicopter crew decided to fly these two survivors directly to Kaitaia Hospital as the helicopter was running low on fuel.
2.27 Meanwhile, the ARHT helicopter had stopped at North Shore Aerodrome to pick up a more experienced winch operator, then at Dargaville to top up with fuel, and again at Kaitaia Hospital to top up with fuel from the NEST trailer before heading to the scene. The two helicopters passed each other in flight and exchanged information.
2.28 The NEST helicopter landed at Kaitaia Hospital and transferred the two passengers to medical staff. The helicopter crew then refuelled from the fuel trailer. However, there was not enough fuel remaining to return to the scene, so that helicopter remained at Kaitaia Hospital.
2.29 The ARHT helicopter arrived on scene at 0130 to begin the search for the five missing people. Meanwhile, the RCC had also tasked a Royal New Zealand Airforce P3 Orion aeroplane (P3) to assist in the search. The P3 arrived on scene at about the same time as the ARHT helicopter. The RCC assigned the P3 as on-scene coordinator9 circling at a higher altitude. The helicopter searched at a lower level in the dark for about an hour and 20 minutes before it too ran low on fuel and landed at the Te Hapua forward command post at 0257.
2.30 Meanwhile, a fuel tanker had been sourced at Kerikeri and was sent northwards, arriving at Kaitaia Hospital at 0511. The NEST helicopter was refuelled, but by then the helicopter crew had exceeded the limits of their work/rest operational hours, thus preventing them from rejoining the search effort. The fuel tanker then travelled north to Te Hapua forward command post, arriving there at about 0700. The ARHT helicopter refuelled and departed for the search area again at 0733. For 4 hours and 36 minutes there were no helicopter air assets able to search because no fuel was available. 9 Coordinator of all search and rescue assets at the scene. The RCC still retained responsibility for overall coordination of the search. Final Report MO-2022-201 | Page 8
2.31 Meanwhile, several vessels had responded to the mayday relay calls. Another of the operator’s fishing charter vessels Pacific Invader had departed Mangōnui and arrived at the search area at 0400. A commercial fishing vessel Florence Nightingale, which had been out at the Three Kings Islands at the time of the accident, arrived soon after 0400. Another commercial fishing vessel Katrina arrived at the search area at about 0612. All three vessels were coordinated into a search pattern or directed to items of interest by the P3 circling above.
2.32 At about 0710 (first light) the body of one of the passengers was located and recovered by one of the surface search vessels. When the refuelled ARHT helicopter had returned on scene, it took over as the on-scene coordinator from the P3, which was by then getting low on fuel. The bodies of another two passengers were recovered over the next 40 minutes, leaving two people still missing.
2.33 Meanwhile, preparing for an extended search operation, the RCC had tasked a second rescue helicopter from AHRT. This second helicopter arrived at the forward command post at 0907 and relieved the first helicopter.
2.34 When the mayday relays had been broadcast, the inshore patrol vessel HMNZS Taupo had been operating in the Hauraki Gulf. It diverted to the search area, arriving on scene at 1110. The RCC assigned HMNZS Taupo with the role of on-scene coordinator, tasked with ensuring all marine assets were searching the designated areas assigned by the RCC. However, the HMNZS Taupo misunderstood the meaning of on-scene coordinator and assumed the naval warfare role of on-scene command, effectively taking control of the search away from RCC.
2.35 Over the following hours multiple assets joined the search including Coastguard Houhora, two other commercial helicopters from Kerikeri and another P3.
2.36 At 1319 the body of a fourth passenger was located and recovered, leaving one passenger still missing. By 1527 the RCC had realised that air assets were not following their assigned search patterns. HMNZS Taupo had directed all assets to search another area, based on their own drift-modelling calculations. After some discussion with HMNZS Taupo, the RCC took back control of the search area.
2.37 Meanwhile the RCC had tasked the NZ Police Dive Squad to fly up from Wellington to dive on the hull in anticipation of locating the final missing passenger. The Dive Squad arrived in the area by 1953 and prepared to dive at first light the following morning, 22 March 2022.
2.38 By 2020 all assets on site had been stood down for the evening. HMNZS Taupo had marked the hull by attaching a rope with a white buoy earlier in the afternoon. The P3 recorded the GPS coordinates of the hull before leaving the scene.
2.39 However, the following morning the inverted hull could not be located. A helicopter was tasked with searching for the upturned hull. At 1239 the hull was located and the vessel with the NZ Police Dive Squad on board was directed to that location. The body of the last missing passenger was recovered from the hull at 1654, marking the end of the search and rescue task.
-
4 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:
Oh yep, you said North Island.
Geography lesson time.
Northland is not North Island.
Northland is a region of the North Island.
If we are going to have any meaningful dialogue it would be handy if you guys didn't keep on saying stuff I didn't say.
Psyche, I have said there are 17 rescue helos in the North Island. I haven't made any comment about how many are operationally ready at any one time. Again that is something you are making up. Not me. That gives the perception you have a weak arguement and are having to resort to deflection and confusion.
Just saying.
-
2 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:
Where did you get that there are 17 SAR helicopters in Northland that are set up with wet winching and night vision capabilities. That certainly was not in the report.
I've never said there are 17 SAR helo's in Northland.
Are you guys going to carry on making sh*t up and saying stuff I didn't until I give up and go away?
It is interesting that I've been banging on about only 1 rescue helo for a couple of a days now and you are the first to pull me up on that, congratulations. It does reinforce my perception that most people on here think the skipper is guilty regardless of the facts. This is a good little example that no-one here appears to be across the facts of the charges.
Anyway, there was only ever one helo actively conducting a rescue. The other was finding crew or waiting for fuel.
If you count tasking a helo at 9 am the day after as part of the rescue, I guess you are technically correct in that is a very long straw saying 3 were tasked.
-
14 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
They can co-ordinate all they like, if the operator doesn't have the capacity to respond, no response will happen.
It's the operator who makes all the logistics arrangements. MNZ basically asks if they can do it. If the operator deem they can't, that's it.
It may well be that they have run the scenarios. It could well be that within the funding and operational limits that are ultimately set by budgets, they decided that an Encounter-type event was not a high probability.
In short yes it is a fact that people die in New Zealand because we decide we cannot afford the cost to assure they live. This happens hourly in hospitals across the country. It happens daily on our roads.
Again, you are proposing a centrally coordinated agency with essentially unlimited funding and an open brief. Large scale, multiple small vessel situation? Respond. Large scale single large vessel situation? Respond. Multiple vessel wide scale event? Respond.
Where do you want to stop spending?
Assuming that MNZ could legally co-opt the resources it deemed necessary, what happens to everyone else when those assets are diverted to a large maritime rescue? How many medical or land incident responses should be sacrificed? Should they ALL be assured 100% service?
How's your tax bill?
This isn't an intellectual exercise, or an argument against provision of a comprehensive rescue service. It's a confrontation of real world practicality against a proposal for world leading all encompassing service.
Bear in mind, only a year ago when surf lifesaving teams rescued people from sewerage-contaminated water in Auckland, our civil defence system decided they could not and would not reimburse these volunteers for cleaning or replacement of there contaminated wetsuits...
You are asserting a lot of things I haven't said.
Not even close to haven't said.
All the assets already exist. 17 rescue helos in the north island, only one dispatched. Why?
Question. Given the circumstances and outcomes of the rescue, do you think an inquiry is warranted? Or should we just carry on Business as Usual?
-
16 hours ago, Kick Ass said:
Unfortunately it is full of boats that hardly get used or never leave their moorings......
What, and Westhaven isn't?
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
Uninformed response here, but in all likelihood the difference in response is the result of: the locations; access to crew and appropriate equipment; risk assessment; time of day.
The cost of operating a rescue helicopter service is significant. Crew alone (pilot, medic and winchman) would run around $3k a day if you assume 24 hour cover with provision for training and credentialing.
This from a Stuff article in 2015
"The trust operates rescue helicopters out of Christchurch and Greymouth, costing more than $10 million annually, with $4m of that covered by operational payments and $6m by sponsorship, grants and community donations.
An average one hour trip costs the trust $11,500."
The balance then is cost benefit. Everyone wants goldplated service, no one is keen on paying for it.
We COULD have rescue helicopters located so they can service the entire country to 50km offshore at a 30 minute response time, with overlap between them to provide for larger rescues.
Feel free to calculate the cost.
I'm not following your response as an explanation for the shortcommings of the Enchanter rescue.
If these rescue helos are so expensive to operate, what was the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while they scratched around for fuel?
Are you saying the 4 guys that died waiting for rescue was due to budget constraints?
The point I'm tyring to make is Maritime NZ are responsible for coordinating rescue assets. In this case it was a clusterfuck. Others have already said Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, that falls to Trusts and Charities. It is the coordination that was at fault here. And given almost all our maritime traffic comes via North Cape, I would have expected a govt organisation with Maritime in the name would have been able to plan for or run scenario's of incidence and rescues in that area.
-
6 hours ago, Psyche said:
If you want to complain about NZ's rescue services start a new thread but from what I read and hear on the news most people are extremely grateful to be rescued, but the Enchanter is the issue here. The big question which is before the court is about the competence of the skipper, whether a similarly experienced skipper in the same circumstances would have taken the same risks. Expert evidence points to the Enchanter venturing into shallow water where a very large wave (but not out of the normal range of expected height), rolled them.
People can make inexplicable mistakes;
You are missing the point. I am not complaining about our rescue services, as in the Trusts and Charities that deliver the rescue services.
I'm questioning the organisation of it. There are clearly no shortage of rescue helo's. So why was only one dispatched?
If these things cost such an extraordinary amount per hour, what is the cost of having one parked up for 5 hours while people scratch around finding some gas? In this case it was 4 lives.
But jokes aside, what would it cost to keep avgas depoted anywhere in Tai Tokerau?
You yourself have said that Maritime NZ don't own or operate the rescue assets, they just coordinate them. Can you not see the blatant issue with coordinating them in this example? That inability to coordinate cost 4 lives.
Does that not warrant some sort of enquiry?
I am assuming once the court cases are settled a coroner will look at this. That could be a white wash, or it could be the platform needed to get to the bottom of how much of a clusterfuck the emergency response was.
PS, I didn't realise the Lermentov got hit by a rogue wave, I thought it ran aground? (I've missed your point on that, is it about fatigue and poor decisions?)
-
20 hours ago, Psyche said:
The court determines the outcome of the charges laid by MNZ, surely that is obvious!
That is not what you said though.
What is it when you say one thing and mean something else?
20 hours ago, Psyche said:MNZ coordinates search and rescue, it doesn't provide the vessels, manpower or planes. It is unrealistic to expect a rapid response in remote areas of NZ's vast coastline. This is not the UK with lifeboat stations dotted around the coast and a massive population with the resources to fund hundreds of rescue helicopters. The reality is that when you are out there on the ocean far from civilisation dont expect to be rescued in 5 minutes, if at all. That's why you need systems and procedures to mitigate loss of life by your own efforts.
You are correct in that we cannot blindly expect to get rescued. But I think the families of the victims, and the rest of us, can expect a reasonably competent national maritime organisation and all best endeavors for rescue.
There are 17 rescue helos in the North Island and 33 nationally. We are not short of appropriate rescue assests. Unlike your example of the UK with RNLI Lifeboat stations everywhere, for a country of 5million, we have an abundance of rescue helicopter assets.
So why is it that if you got an EPIRB signal from a charter fishing boat with capacity for 10 people, would you only send 1 rescue asset?
And, given almost 90% of shipping coming into NZ comes via North Cape, why would you not provision for fuel anywhere north of Auckland?
A basic scenario session would have addressed all of this.
By contrast, a private cat ran aground at the Mokes, they had 3 recue helo's, a warship, police launch, container ship and a couple of coastgaurd arms dispatched. That boat had 5 onboard. 3 helos, yet a charter boat with 10 pax got one helo. Why?
Does that not warrant the facts to be established by a court, as per the same argument the facts of the skipper are being established by a court.
-
21 hours ago, Guest said:
* So, K , you think in this situation, S&R are the culpable ones?
What is the standard H&S charge, and what is the skipper currently being charged with?
"actions or inactions resulting in the death..."
There are individuals at Maritime NZ that are employed to do a job. There are some serious questions around whether they were grossly negligent in doing that job.
There are 17 rescue helos in the North Island and 33 in NZ. Yet only one was sent to a mass causality event, and no-one thought it would need fuel. It certainly appears there is a case of gross negligence here.
Why would someone employed by Maritime NZ not be subject to the same H&S regulations as everyone else?
Like I have already said, there is a strong perception MNZ need a scape goat and prosecution solely for PR purposes.
-
14 hours ago, harrytom said:
certainly not looking good for lance
Goodhew’s primary source of weather information was the PredictWind app, for which he held a paid subscription.
At 12.37 pm, just before departure, MetService issued a gale warning, predicting swells reaching up to two metres and the possibility of thunderstorms from Kaipara.
From Cape Brett, they reported 40-knot northeast winds, rough seas and poor visibility.
Despite the MetService forecast, Goodhew departed from the Three Kings with his clients around 1.30pm.
You left out the bit where Predict Wind forecast 20knts and dropping, and that that was far closer to reality than the nonsense Metservice served up.
We all know Metservice can't organise a root in a whore house with their forecasts, which is why everyone with any skin in the game uses Predict Wind.
-
1 hour ago, Psyche said:
Its not up to MNZ, it's up to the court. There was tragic loss of life on a commercial charter, MNZ has no choice but to prosecute. The alternative is to say its all ok carry on nothing to see here. I agree its very bad luck, but if you traverse a high risk area 100 times without incident does that make it a safe practice?
It is MNZ's decision entirely to lay the charges. Saying it is the Court's decision to lay charges is not based in fact.
That is why they have withdrawn 5 charges already, 3 at the start of trial. That was MNZ's decision to lay and then withdraw those charges. Not the Court's.
MNZ got caught with their pants down not having planned for a mass casualty rescue off the Northland coast. That directly resulted in the deaths of 4 of the 5 fatalities. Noting that MNZ haven't charged themselves for 'not taking reasonable actions', there is a strong perception they are pushing these charges with marginal evidence as a face saving / PR exercise.
Strange how no one has asked why only one helo was dispatched to a mass causality event, and why it took five hours to get fuel for that one helo. You could have flown a rescue chopper from Southland in that time, let alone all the winch capable ones in Auckland, Waikato and BoP.
Instead of asking the important questions, we are squabbling over what the forecasts said. Not to mention the lying crown witnesses.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Island Time said:
So that is a $29 fuse that is small enough to sit on the battery terminal lug, doesn't get in the way and protects your boat from electrical clusterfucks?
Think I will get one. I was expecting something like an anchor winch isolator that needed to be mounted separately and would then need specific leads to and from it etc.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, waikiore said:
When are insurance companies going to wake up to the Lithium battery issue, they worry about Ewof and gas lines -but the really dangerous fires lately have been battery started -I witnessed one , the intensity would make short work of boats in close proximity such as a Marina..
Are you talking LiFePo house batteries, or the couple of dozen cell phone, laptop, drills, portable speakers, tooth brushes etc that all take all sorts of random Lithium batteries, have zero BMS and have dodgy as cheap chargers?
When I had a good look into this, there was an article around I think by an AU insurance underwriters or insurance industry association. The risk of LiFePo was conflated (excuse the pun) with the very wide range of other common batteries we take onto the boat, leave on the charger, leave in the sun, drop, sit on or dunk in water.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Black Panther said:
Yep, 4 bed 4 bath and a 12m berth
So what you are saying is, marina berths in Auckland have gotten so expensive you can buy one and get a free house?
-
2
-
-
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
Enchanter Northland
in MarineTalk
Posted
This is a good and constructive post, thank you CD.
My understanding was that it was confirmed 4 were alive when the helo was full with rescued people, but I do acknowledge I need to go back and confirm that.
You points about PLB's are highly relevant.
However, I suspect that if everyone were wearing LJ's they all would have drowned due to being trapped in the initial role over (or at least a high number).
If all were wearing PLB's then the rescue outcomes would have been entirely different. I understand via FB that now punters on the charters do wear PLB's - I don't know if it is all, but from FB photos many of the fisho's are visibly wearing PLB's.
One of the reasons I'm going about this so much is I feel some of the recommendations TAIC report are a nonsense. Storing LJ's in a more accessible cupboard would have made zero difference to outcomes here, but is a recommendation. No recommendation on everone wearing PLB's - which is one of the easiest things to do and would have dramatically improved chance of rescue...