CarpeDiem

https://www.bunnings.co.nz/solid-energy-25kg-coal_p0518426

That is quite the statement. Imagine if YNZ dropped RAYC in support of the community they represent.

So fundamentally one in the same. Separated by a thin veil of see through fabric. Good to know. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Isn't RAYC just a tennant in the building? There are a number of marine clubs in the building right that all use the area? The Akarana Eatery appears to be a separate entity again. The building is owned by the Akarana Marine Sports Trust. The way I see, and from what's spread all over their website, they are the ones pushing the agenda and the RAYC is caught up in. Are RAYC just in a rock and a hard place? They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they go against the trust then would they find themselves evicted? Is RAYC being forced to reinvent themselves du

17.2? I hope this is a typo? The VSR connects the start battery to the house battery when the voltage at the start battery is above a given threshold. Usually around 13.2v this is sometimes user configurable, sometimes factory set and can vary depending on model. In practice, unless your start battery is substantially depleted, this means your vsr will connect the house to the start as soon as you start the engine. I would be very concerned if you are feeding 17.2v to your house battery. What problem are you having?

You can mount the High Performance flush dish flat. The HP flush dish is 41mm and 35mm at opposing ends - so it has a bit of a natural angle to it. It needs to be mounted at an 8deg incline, for rain water run off - rain fade is a real issue but if you wanted to care less about connectivity during heavy rain then it could be mounted flat. It has a 140deg view of the sky, so more satellites means better coverage all the time - it will work better at both equatorial locations and high latitudes if you have any polar voyages planed It is also IP56 rated so you get an added level

I thought you were installing the flat in-motion dish. I will be very interested in how this holds up in a blow and what connectivity is like when rolling around in a sea state. We did some trials, driving around with both dishes. For new in-motion installations I would recommend the flat in-motion dish over this model. It has 140deg (vs 100deg) view of the sky and a superior GNSS chip for determining which satellite to use. We damaged the tracking motors on the Gen2 dish, it didn't like 100kph on the motorway It isn't designed for in-motion use. Yep. Worldwide, until you

It's a very real photo. The photographer even won an award for this photo. She was fore-reaching in 50+ knots off Sydney heads. This was the day before she got home.

The router has it's own power (12v). I leave the GoFree in what's called "infrastructure mode". Can't recall if that's the same terminology that the Zeus uses. So the zeus has Internet access and can access predictwind and download updates. And any device that connects to the GoFree has Internet access. Laptops, tablets, phones etc.. And my navionics boating app just sees the zeus and can do the updates, get nav data, share wpts and other apps can get nmea data from the zeus. Yes I have a 4G subscription for the router.

I use a 4G router as a gateway. I have 100BaseT between the GoFree and the router. The GoFree then becomes the AP for the boats Internet access.

It's fairly easy to set the Berth value based on the current rental value, the projection of historic trends and the term. Therefore, I think that the correct question, is how does the current rental value get set... ? It seems to just be - what will the market pay...

NEMA was charged to get the law defined. Worksafe needed to understand the definition of the law so they charged NEMA under the act and the judge declared that it didn't apply to them for whatever reason. Now that there is legal precedent and the meaning of the law is defined in that precedent, Worksafe know the boundary of their authority and they will never bring a charge for this particular thing again. The fact they didn't appeal it says Worksafe were happy with the clarity. Can't remember what exactly it was now, but this is is quite normal in our legal system. Unfortuna

Slightly misleading, The charge against the skipper is: exposing individuals to risk of death or serious harm. The charge against the company is: operating a ship without the prescribed qualified personnel.

Your example is contrary to what you propose. The milk has already been sold, and it was past its use by date when it was recalled. Anyone who hadn't consumed it by the time it was recalled should of already thrown it out. By the time the recall came out the damage was already done. Can you see the irony? I already know you wouldn't support million dollar witch hunts where a bunch of investigators go around taking companies to court and fining them cause they failed to get their h&s plan signed off by a consultant. I cannot believe you're pretending you would. Yo

No there isn't. The evidence clearly shows that the public don't want there tax money spent on witch hunts. The public expect that companies follow the law. The public expects that companies have plans and systems in place. In these cases these companies did not consult with GNS and did not provide adaquate warning to their customers of the risks. We don't need to spend millions checking companies are doing the right thing when we're already spending millions dealing with the incidents. What we need is for businesses to start following the exceptionally clear, we'll documented

Some of the helicopter operators had tourists on the island during the incident. Some of those tourists died. There's no public interest in bringing prosecutions without death, injury, illness or disease. The public has absolutely zero appetite in spending millions of dollars on witch hunts. Had Worksafe gone after them 10yrs ago, spending $5M charging them for not having h&s plans in place, there would of been public outrage. Their would of been David and Goliath stories as businesses went under unable to cope with the legal costs. Worksafe are essentially tigers wi

They plead guilty to the charges of taking people there without a suitable h&s plan. The charges all applied to actions/activity BEFORE the incident. Some of the companies that plead guilty didn't even take tourists there on the day. One of the pilots who plead guilty (a) didn't take people there on the day; and (b) was just awarded the the highest possible civilian award for bravery.

It's a COLREGS treaty clause. I can't find any NZ case law. But there's several case law examples from overseas jurisdictions that have held that an anchored boat has been atleast partly liable during collisions, when both boats have been anchored and also where only one boat was anchored. At least one of these cases went back to 1921... and it's a 1970s treaty... NZ courts would look to these cases for definition. It's unlikely it would ever even make it into a NZ court because insurance companies would also look at these cases and work together to apportion liability based on an

I don't see what motivation they have to change. Until critical mass is achieved and the majority of clubs demand change via the process available to them, nothing is going to happen.

I see you have five options: 1. Get your club to pull out of YNZ 2. Get your club to lobby YNZ to change the way they operate 3. Find another club that meets your needs and isn't a member of YNZ 4. Accept that the 80cents you pay per week to Yachting NZ isn't worth the effort 5. Drink a six pack less of beer per year to cover your YNZ fees and bank the health benefits

Yachting New Zealand is an incorporated society, just like the Weiti Boating Club. They can call themselves whatever they want, but they have exactly the same legal standing as any other incorporated society in NZ. The issue is that they own the rights to something that you want to use, their handicapping system, the World Sailing RRS, the Sailing Regulations. These are the assets that they control and you can't use these unless you play by there rules. You don't have to use their handicapping system, you don't have to use their racing rules, you don't have to use there standards.

I don't disagree with any of that. But yachting NZ is just another club, a club that your club choses to be a member of. Just like an individual choses to be a member of your club those members don't get to set the rules. If you join a club, you play by that clubs rules. If your club joins the YNZ club then you play by YNZ's rules. I am a member a squadron, I don't use the facilities, I don't want to go to the restaurant, I don't want anything to do with Americas Cup, I don't want to use the pool table or the library, I don't want to go to the liquor store, I don't want to go to t

Lol. If your club doesn't need the benefit of YNZ membership then stop providing it. It really isn't complicated. I find it interesting that you want another club to change to benefit your club. Or worse you want to engineer a way to get around that other clubs rules. Just change your club, if that's what the majority of members want, problem solved.

It's really a Cartel. Firstly, World Sailing only allow one national authority per country, so you couldn't set up a competing national authority using the RRS even if you wanted too. Secondly, The NZ Government authorise in legislation Yachting New Zealand as the only authority to manage races. So even if you wanted to create your own set of racing rules and depart from World Sailing's cartelistic monopoly, you couldn't. There are a lot of clubs that aren't YNZ affiliated. I always make a mental note when I see entries in a race claiming membership from a club that isn'

Of course. The point is, it isn't a new law - it has been around for a very long time, at least 100 years based on a simple iLaw search - so wtf are YNZ trying to prove?