CarpeDiem

Where does the sentence 'Previously this was a requirment when underway...' come from? It's not in the press-release. Are these your words or did Director Kirstie Hewlett actually say these words? I would be highly surprised if there has ever been an official position statement from MNZ that recreational vessels only needed to keep a watch while underway. Because the legislation doesn't say that and it would be highly unlikely for MNZ to provide any advice to the contrary. This sounds to me like an 'old wives tale' similar to the one which says the police will only write you

Reading between the lines, I feel that if provided with the research, you'd at the very least, declare that their conclusions were all wrong and we should just let it rip... Many papers have been published, this is why and how an entire industry has sprung up to contain the little fuckers. Government departments don't change their brand of toilet paper without a business case that's backed with evidence based research.

This is nothing new it's always been the case. It's a legal requirement. It applies to every vessel of every size of every use. From a Kayak to a tinny, to a private yacht to a commercial fishing vessel to a oil tanker. NZ Insurance companies have and will continue to randomly refuse payouts where boats at anchor have collided. Either with an non-anchored boat, with another anchored boat or with the land. And the watchkeeper was neglectful. International laws to which NZ is a signatory clearly require anchored vessels to take all reasonable steps to avoid collision. Sou

I have taken mine and a spare cannister in my packed baggage and carry on baggage multiple times on Air NZ, Qantas, Fijian Airways, Emirates and Lan Chile It has the same cannister that they have under every seat on the plane. I once found a search form in the bag, saying my bag was searched, they had not unzipped the vest to get to the actual cannister, so must of been happy when they realized it was a life jacket.

Apparently the Auckland floods killed much of it off... I heard, that after jumping through hoops to get the necessary approvals to extract some living fan-worm to display at the boat show, the divers could not find any in Westhaven or the Viaduct. Maybe a vicious rumor started by a non-compliant boatie

Yep - exactly this - I just had a argument with an AI which I asked to help remind me what my underlying engine model was for something unrelated... If I had not known with some degree of certainty that it wasn't a Mitsubishi, I would of gone down an annoying rabbit hole... Me: what engine is the volvo penta d1-30 engine based on? The Volvo Penta D1-30 engine is based on the Mitsubishi S3L2 engine block. However, Volvo Penta has made modifications to the engine such as the fuel injection system, cooling system, and other components to meet their specific requirements and standa

It’s official: Tutukaka has eliminated fanworm

Back then the territorial sea limit was only 3Nm, which is why they were able to broadcast from the Coville Channel. Fun fact, the mast from that ship is proudly displayed on the wharf at Rotoroa Island.

Oh now you made me go and look up the definition of internal seas. What a absolute rabbit hole... but none the less, very interesting! Our internal waterways are mapped out by LINZ and I love how LINZ make everything freely available and downloadable, you just have to know what to search for. These blue dots are our territorial sea base line. So the landward side of this line is Internal water as defined by UNCLOS. Up to 12Nm beyond that line is our territorial sea and after that is the EEZ. So anything beyond that line is a free for all for innocent passage.

The right of innocent passage through a coastal state's territorial seas without any prior notification or consent applies to all types of ships, including warships. This is codified in the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea. New Zealand's own legislation, which enforces UNCLOS, and signs UNCLOS into law for New Zealand is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Act 1996 Per UNCLOS, Warships may not enter "internal" waters. Internal waters are defined as waters which fall inside the maritime baseline. It is worth mentioning that several UNCLOS signat

The only place that might have known - out of courtesy - would of been MFAT - MFAT are responsible for visiting military ships, not the navy, and they weren't visiting. The Navy would only have found out if MFAT deemed it necessary to tell them. I doubt even MFAT would of known, it's a well established principle that the worlds militaries don't share what they are doing with other nations unless it directly involves them. Loose lips sink ships. If you are concerned, you could submit an OIA to MFAT and ask them if they had been advised.

I got the impression from the article that they were inside out territorial waters. Whether they were close to or inside our territorial waters is kind of moot. They are perfectly entitled, just like any other foreign flagged ship, to transit through our territorial waters. It just doesn't happen here very often because we're not much of a transit to anywhere, but if a French warship wants to nip through the inside of Barrier for a bit of island sight seeing on the way to New Cal after a training exercise in the South Pacific, they are perfectly entitled to do such. Of course, i

Hey IT, what does "No further Development" mean to those of us with Navionic's subscriptions?

What BMS are you installing with those cells to provide audible and visual alarms?

As far as I know the standard isn't a requirement. A/ there's no legislation mandating it; and B/ insurance companies don't require compliance Someone please correct me if I am wrong?

I spoke to my guy. You would need to provide transport for the dive team (3pax) including tanks etc and work in with their schedule and be ready when they rock up at the end of the dinghy pier. The dinghy would need to be safe and meet there H&S rules... He said, it would probably end up being about the same price as the floating dock when all said and done... Let me know if you want details.

I can't recommend enough having a "battery off" and a "battery isolator" switch on each bank. Voltmeters, gas detectors and automatic bilge pumps, etc, are often wired in directly with their own fuse which may not in all cases prevent the device from catching on fire. I did buy a battery isolator switch with an alternator field disconnect, incase I need to isolate the batteries and keep the engine going. But I have not gotten around to hacking the new Volvo alternator just yet...

Mine is off the engine. I have never had it fail (touch wood). I have also set up three buttons for the day it does. Glow, Start, Excite. I am not worried in the slightest about the threat of a void warranty. You're right about the vsr. It's not possible to optimally charge two different types of batteries with one charging source there will always be a compromise. I don't use a vsr for that reason.

My $0.01 worth, Bollocks to the engine warranty being void. If that was the case then that would mean that the old school screwdriver trick would void your warranty... My next $0.01, I recommend taking the box off the engine and mounting it somewhere not attached to a 80degC vibrating heater Probably not the solution but it can’t hurt. I have also heard the over voltage theory but never seen anything formal from VolvoPenta. The other theory I have heard is the starter motor load dumping into the box. I know of three people whose black box died after excessive cranking, coincidenc

It's in S 20.04 of the current regs. It is a cat1-5 requirement not just Cat 1. Ours are below the cabin sole, but the 'box', which is really a dedicated compartment is part of the furniture and is completely sealed with no egress or ingress possible from below the sole. Only a hole in the hull at the location of the battery compartment would cause the compartment to flood.

http://yb.tl/ssanz2023#

My heart goes out to the Playbuoy team! It's incredibly disheartening for them to face such a major setback after investing months of planning and effort towards reaching the starting line. To have the rug pulled out from under them must be a crushing blow to their aspirations.

Neither do any of the other stories when bought together... Last seen without a rig floating out to sea Broke it's mooring Had two anchors out Left the bay on purpose at 7am Floated out at 2am It's a mish-mash of information and no two stories align...

Given all the different stories it's hard know what actually happened. I decided to ask ChatGPT. What do you know about the sailor that was rescued during cyclone Gabrielle in New Zealand? I'm sorry, but I don't have information on a specific sailor being rescued during Cyclone Gabrielle in New Zealand. However, I can tell you that cyclones are a common occurrence in the South Pacific region, and New Zealand has experienced several cyclones in the past. In general, sailors and other people who are on the water during a cyclone or other severe weather event can face significan

Getting back to the thread... From Facebook... Was anchored off our stb side when at 10.30 pm his head sail became unfurled. He lifted anchor and drifted down wind trying to furl up the head sail. 7.00 am was on rocks with head sail destroyed. only way he could have got there was to beach the vessel. Floated off with help from some one off the land after the head sail was got under control. Went around towards Fitzroy. Came back 2 hrs later and anchored behind us. Stayed about 1 hr. Last we saw of him. There were moorings or pontoons he could have picked up,or gone to Fitzroy wharf