Steve Pope
-
Content Count
2,062 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by Steve Pope
-
-
8 hours ago, Frank said:
I hear ya, and TBT was before my time but I must admit wikipedia paints it as pretty evil Sh*t once it leaches into the envirramint, it does a real number on the innocent critters. On the other hand if I recall correctly they allowed its continued use on large ships for many years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributyltin
Yes TBT worked well. the problem wasn't from the boats that were regularly used but the ones that sat in the marina almost all year round and the increasing amounts of the active properties building up on the sea floor underneath. That is where the initial tests were done in France. The well used boats also shed their antifoul properties but over a very much larger area so there was basically no definable traces in the ocean / seas
-
22 hours ago, Steve said:
Paint is Less than questionable. It just doesn’t bloody work any more. Spoke to Jim Lott yesterday and he’s saying a pint of Ivomec sheep drench with the paint. No he hasn’t tried it. Yes, there’s lots of these sorts of urban myths doing the rounds. Apparently there are a couple of products approved in Europe which are working. But not here yet. I’m pretty sure the European standards would be good enough for us so not sure what the holdup is.
It works well!! 100 mil per 4L, from less than 6 months prior to 2 + years, the odd wipe occasionally if the boat isn't used very often.
-
28 minutes ago, waikiore said:
Yes the Chairman of the company that owns Perini Navi has said overnight that she was unsinkable , whilst his company shares are sinking..
They said that about the Titanic!
-
1 hour ago, LBD said:
All this talk about the keel being up being the cause... maybe we leave that speculation for those who understand the GZ moment for this particular vessel. Many shallow draft vessels have the ballast in a small keel or even have the ballast completely inboard such as the Boreals or Koopmans and are designed to still have a great positive righting moment.
Some even recomend sailing down wind with sails up and centerboard or keel all or partly raised.
I would say keel up for this vessel in this situation is perfectly normal.
I sail down wind with the main keel up and the aft keel down, at least part way down. Both my boards are alloy and are not part of the ballast which is in the stub keel. Stability isn't a problem, but a water spout or tornado like the one at Westhaven that threw the catamaran over the wharf and almost put a super yachts mast in the water a year or 3 ago would certainly lay me flat at least, no big holes to let the water in though!
-
2
-
-
Steel elbow, schedule 40 or even 80 will out last most every thing, 80 is really overkill, will do as well as anything else, modern cast iron is often not tempered (aged) Monel would be ok but probably priced north of SS
-
Had the skipper had an automatic inflating life jacket on he most likely wouldn't be in court as he would be dead, trapped underwater by the inflated jacket. Great things if you are above deck, can be deadly if you are below.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, K4309 said:
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.
K, I follow your line of questions, they are very relevant. and your concern re the helo f---up. The helo crew were doing their very best against the odds, with head office not really even in the picture. None of the f---up was the fault of the helo crew.. the lack of fuel should never have happened and hopefully (fingers crossed) won't happen again, but it took this event to tell head office what they should have already known or at least considered.Their are many instances where head office just isn't there, (though they think they are) but in "their" heads "they know" best!. (cyclone Gabrielle the most recent one) they had all gone home! No planning for the unexpected, boring job, yes, but when the sh*t hits the fan nobody home! That is what they are employed to do, understand and be ready for. their is a serious lack of respect for local knowledge, Wellington knowing best has cost lives. Don't even think of chch and the quake, almost 70 years after the Napier quake. Nobody working in EQC was still alive when it happened and apart from small local events, there was a clean sheet, nothing to see here.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 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;
If you are heading towards a sheltered bay in water calm enough for your charterers to fish off the back and cooking happening in the galley, as apparently you have done many times before without any issues, how can you not end up in shallowing water? Why would you even consider a "Rogue wave" coming out of nowhere. As I've earlier said 100 metres and or 60 seconds difference we most likely wouldn't be discussing it here, as it wouldn't have happened.
-
3
-
-
I guess no more than driving to work along SH1 and getting cleaned up by another vehicle, does that mean you shouldn't go to work?? Does that make it a safe practice?? Life is full of risks, some we take knowingly based on the odds of not having it go wrong. The other is being in a situation where the unexpected happens (as happened to Encounter) with fatal consequences, would Goodhew have been there if he thought they were in danger, His business, his reputation, putting his charterers at risk, I doubt it. It was up to MNZ whether to put it before the court, to say they had no choice is a cop out. it is the public and Goodhew who will pay for the court case, not the individuals who made the decision to prosecute.
The moment you go to sea you are entering a high risk area, and most of us manage to survive, every thing MNZ does in these cases is reactive, it doesn't bring the dead back to life.
-
1
-
-
I would suggest that stopping in the shelter of Murimotu Island at North Cape was something that Goodhew did every time he returned from the three kings islands, Probably numbered in the tens if not in the hundreds of times. Given the wind direction on the day it would have been as secure as anywhere to clean / tidy up before finishing the charter. A 30 second difference in time or a 100metres of distance could well have had a totally different outcome. Hind sight is just that. In my opinion it was just very bad luck, and now having to deal with MNZ's desire to prosecute no matter what and to try to make the facts fit the result they want.
-
1
-
-
You could use the track for a sailcover with lazy jacks loops on it, I have a loose footed mainsail and used the unused bolt rope tube in that fashion. Although I guess an H28 wouldn't need lazy jacks.
-
Trying to beat nature! good luck with that!
-
Isn't that similar to white Island, they had (have?) a 1 to 5 level of risk, at the time it was set at 2 I would feel certain that any of the folk taking people out there did not for a moment consider there was a serious risk and of course the "tourists" would have considered themselves safe because if it wasn't then the people taking them wouldn't have. Life is full of unintended consequences, OH bugger It never occured to me that a live Volcano could possibly blow. In reality it was just a little belch, unfortunately the human body (in fact most bodies) can't cope with excessive heat and excessive sulphur fumes and lack of Oxygen. Tragic, immensly so. Will something similar happen sometime? Of course it will! Worksafe as with most rule / law systems only reacts retroactively. There was a time when there were safety inspectors actively checking sites and workshops to try to keep them as safe (for workers) as possible, not any more, years ago they were almost entirely eliminated. Think of the White island helicopter firm, (and others) not being prosecuted for anything on the day but being retroactively prosecuted for not having a paper trail associated re any risks associated with flying to white island etc. etc. facing up to $500,000 fines, per charge, follow the money. And of course said pilot was one of the Hero's in the rescues that took place on that day.
-
1
-
-
A roller coaster, Man made and man maintained, or not, as per the current one falling to bits in the US is a totally different accident waiting to happen compared to = A Volcano ( please feel free to put in here who or what controls it) on a Steaming, Smoking Island Sulphurously fuming most of the time. If Worksafe was actually doing the job it is apparently supposed / expected to do, NO ONE would have been allowed to land there, end of story. OH, and Ruapehu (Volcano) People ski there every year and climb it in the clearer months. As we all know it has blown many times, killed and injured people near and far over the years. 24th of December Tangiwai disaster 1953 main line train wiped out, for example. Of course Worksafe didn't exist in 1953 but wouldn't you think with all that data re damage and deaths caused by Ruapehu that by their professed standards it would be shut to protect those who might think that it is a safe place. Or wouldn't it make more sense that we all take responsibility for our selves and our actions. No doubt about it Living is dangerous!!
A relevant line from a poem I like, A man who is not afraid of the sea will soon be drowned, as he will go out when he shouldn't. A man who is afraid of the sea will only be drowned now and again. my apologies to the author.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:
On that basis we would not have any safety standards for anything.
Its not about people who make informed choices - its about those making uninformed choices. The tourists on White Island had a right, surely, to expect that the tour was safe. Adventure activity providers have, for many years now, understood that their job was to provide an experience that held the FEELING of danger without the actual danger. Bungee is an excellent example - in your mind you are plunging to certain death, but also in your mind the provider has done the engineering, training, product testing, maintenance etc that ensures you end up in a bar later watching a video of your screaming panicing self.
A roller coaster is a great example. Most people will have no idea what is required to maintain these devices so they operate safely - they take it as an article of faith that the operator does and cares enough to take appropriate steps. No-one, after the fact, would say "well you were an idiot for putting yourself at risk - of course there was a chance the car would derail and plunge 30 metres..."
Employees do not, in most cases, have a great deal of freedom to accept or decline risk - often they do not have the skills to even recognise it. The employer does, or should have. They are, by definition, professionals in their field and so should apply professional judgement. Further, they are required by law to be competent in identifying hazards and managing risks appropriately. Its part of what they earn income from.
Arguaby, GNS did not, the owners of White Island did not, the tour operators did not, and others did not.
In respect of White Island, Worksafe is a regulator of workplace safety practises, not a licensor and approver of those practises. They have no place (in most cases) to approve, disapprove or recommend any specific safety actions to any entity - that is the business of that entity.
New Zealand has what is widely recognised as a largely permissive business environment. If there is no real reason not to do something, you can do it. With that permissiveness comes responsiblity.Worksafe isn't "lording it" after the fact. They are holding entities accountable for failings in their operations that could, or did, lead to harm to others including people who paid for, and so had a right to expect, a safe tourism experience.
A roller coaster, man made and man maintained, or nor as per a current one in the US. A Volcano ( please put in here who or what controls it) Some steaming, smoking, island that gives off large amounts of sulphurous fumes most of the time. If Worksafe was doing their job NO ONE would be aloud to land there. OH, Ruapehu, ski field, has blown many times and injured people. What is Worksafes position??? They don't save lives, they only react after the fact, with the unasailable use of hind sight and retroactive punishment. ACC does a good job, but has over many years become basically a pseudo insurance Co. Using its own inhouse doctors who only use ACC interpretation of what is acceptable. It started off and was sold to the public as a no fault system, wonderful, except that it hasn't been that for many many years.
-
13 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:
This is a somewhat cynical comment.
NZ has an unenviable record of damaging and killing people who were in positions where they were owed a duty of care. Our rate of death from workplace accidents is high when compared to our OECD partners.
We throw people off bridges tied to bits of rubber band, we hurtle them down and up river gorges at high speed in unstable craft both powered and unpowered, we take people out to unpredictble active volcanic islands, we clear trees on unstable and steep hillsides using cheap labour and hazardous equipment, etc.
In the case of White Island, the prosecutions to date have been for failure to meet a legally required standard of care. They have not been for he inuries and deaths that ocured, but for a failure ot have appropriate risk assessment and/or risk mitigation in place. This included a failure to undertake any hazard ID and risk analysis. These failures potentially put employees or paying guests at risk.
New Zealand businesses are fortunate that our ACC system protects them against claims from victims for costs or loss suffered after an accident. The price for that is that businesses need to show they are prepared before any accident occurs so they can demonstrate that they took all practicable actions to mitigate the risk.
Yes, definitely cynical, you cannot stop people doing stupid (to us) things, what could possibly go wrong visiting a live volcano site. People queue up to climb Mount Everest, some will die, (just not me) they think. OH, the Titanic etc. etc. People are risk takers, (look at me! look at me!) always have been always will be. Someone offers you a really good deal, probably too good to be true, but you go for it anyway We (those people) have to take personable responsibility for ourselves and the choices we / they make.
-
3
-
-
39 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Watch what you wish for. We could have that here. But you would have to fund it. And me. And every other boatie on here.
Perfect excuse for a new buearcacy. Fundamentally, we don't have any issues in NZ that aren't already addressed by existing rules and regulations. What this thread is about, the Paihia ferry crash, there are already clear and abundant rules to avoid incidents like that.
Just remember, murder is illegal, but we still have murders. Just because you make more rules and regulations doesn't mean people will suddenly stop doing dumb sh*t.
Laws and rules don't stop people breaking them, but they do allow bureaucratic jobsworths at the bottom of the cliff to lord it, after the event. Think White Island, Where it is apparently simpler and maybe cheaper to plead guilty to whatever the charge is than to fight to clear their name. The Encounter in Northland, the only thing he, (the skipper) appears to have been found guilty of is an out of date medical certificate.
-
2
-
-
On 28/06/2023 at 11:12 AM, Enlightenment said:
YUP, Thanks for all the advice, the trailer sailer seems the best fit for adventure projects as it is easy to tow between harbors and certainly more core effective without all the red tape that comes with a keelboat. 20ft Pelin Caribou 15hp Hidea Yamaha clone outboard with long shaft high thrust prop Aircat 335 inflatable with Suzuki 8hp and I just purchased a 1.8m PVC tender with oars.
I suggest that you consider getting tube covers for the PVC tender if you wish it to last., PVC fails very quickly in NZ summers unlike Hypalon which can cope a lot better without a cover. I had one with PVC tubes and within 2 years it was stuffed, replaced with Hypalon and it is still OK and unaffected by UV after 12 years.
-
Be aware of anchoring restrictions, out at the Barrier and The Merc's re Caulpera (seaweed) infestation. What Aardvarkash sugests is a good loop. Depending on the time of the year allow for possible weather stops. your longest exposed run would be Barrier to kawau. On average I allow 6 hours + - .
-
7 hours ago, harrytom said:
Forgot to mention, did ask where it might of come from .2 theories. Passenger ships as stated in a couple of news reports and possibly with warming oceans travelled via warm currents, no mention of aquariums though. Possibly been here longer than they think.
Asian clams in Waikato river, no idea but deliberately released, they are only fumigating suspected containers where contents are unknown or from countries with known diseases, cannot detect everything.
There biggest concern is the Brown stink bug, not here yet but travels on anything, everything can be a host, unlike say Army worm which is established here, most likely travelled on plant material/soil. Being there host.
Concentration is based on pest etc that can effect our exports.
I think you will find the "brown" stink bug is already established.
-
20 hours ago, K4309 said:
Why do you assume Barrier or Rawhiti are the epicentre?
Lyttleton harbour was the first place that Med fan worm was discovered. Didn't hit the headlines until it reached Marsden Cove many years later.
-
1
-
-
Davidson M20? several Hartley designs ++++ etc.
-
It has been leaking slowly for many years, I believe it is a matter of when, not if or maybe. It should be a national govt. matter not an NRC one. Look at the Rena cleanup costs and Treble or Quadruple it and you might be closer to the money involved if / when it breaks up.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, K4309 said:
Hang on, wont the oil from the Niagra kill the caulerpa, and our caulerpa problem will be solved?
I work for the govt, and this is clearly infallible logic
small problem of Altitude (if that is a useable term) one lives on the bottom, the other wants too float.
Bay of Islands Mammal Sanctuary rules
in MarineTalk
Posted
Lack of food, they've eaten all the sting rays so have gone elsewhere? Have they had trackers on any of the missing Dolphins, if they had they would know where they are or where they died.