CarpeDiem
-
Content Count
1,243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
40
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by CarpeDiem
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
On 26/04/2023 at 11:41 AM, waikiore said:
To really get rid of it you need to flush your marina with fresh water
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
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, motorb said:
The future is going to be even more interesting as AI starts to answer users search questions by trawling the internet and repeating bad info, scraped from sites written by AI bots all repeating search terms to generate site traffic....
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 standards.
Me: No it definitely is not mitsubishi...
I apologize for the error in my previous response. After conducting further research, I have found that the Volvo Penta D1-30 engine is not based on the Mitsubishi S3L2 engine block. The D1-30 is actually based on the Volvo Car Corporation's D3 engine platform, which is a four-cylinder diesel engine. The D1-30 is a marinized version of this engine and has been modified by Volvo Penta to meet the specific requirements and demands of marine applications.
Me: no it is not that either
I apologize for the confusion. Upon further research, I have found that the Volvo Penta D1-30 engine is actually based on the same engine block as the Volvo Car Corporation's D2-55 engine, which is a four-cylinder diesel engine. The D1-30 is a marinized version of the D2-55 engine and has been adapted by Volvo Penta for marine use with modifications to the fuel system, cooling system, and other components to meet the demands of the marine environment.
Me: nope, it is something like perkins? please check your facts...
I apologize for the incorrect information in my previous responses. The Volvo Penta D1-30 engine is actually based on the Perkins 403D-15 engine block. The D1-30 is a marinized version of the Perkins engine and has been modified by Volvo Penta to meet the specific requirements of marine applications. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.
Me: that gave me enough info to find out that it is the 403d-11 - not the 15. You always just make stuff up...
I apologize for any further confusion I may have caused. You are correct that the Volvo Penta D1-30 engine is based on the Perkins 403D-11 engine block, not the 403D-15 as I previously mentioned. The Perkins 403D-11 is a 3-cylinder diesel engine that has been marinized and modified by Volvo Penta for marine use. I apologize for any inconvenience caused and appreciate you bringing this to my attention.-
4
-
1
-
-
-
7 hours ago, Psyche said:
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.
-
1 hour ago, harrytom said:
Gather from the article ,somewhere between GT Barrier and Kawau as they talk about entering north channel?
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.
-
13 hours ago, DrWatson said:
For a warship to enter the territory of another nation in peace it does require a bit more clearance and notification than sailing a merchant ship in. The respective NZ authorities would have been well aware of the presence of the FR vessel in our waters. As is usual, the purpose of the visit or transit is often classified. Not notifying and requesting permission from the host country and gaining clearance can be interpreted as an invasion. For example, Switzerland has accidentally invaded Lichtenstein on a number of occasions. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein–Switzerland_relations)
some of these incidents are technically invasions.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 signatories added codicils expressing their state's policies that imposed extra limitations on the entry of warships into their territorial waters and EEZs, (up to 200Nm out), but these do not hold any official status and are not the law of the sea, this is where the territorial sea limit starts.
When Peter Smith sailed Koa through the Northwest Passage during Covid Canada deemed him to be in Internal waters, Canada argued that he did not have the right to innocent passage via the Northwest Passage because Canada had closed their internal waters. Various interpretations of the UNCLOS were either against him or with him. The majority of articles about his passage, declared, that because he wasn't a warship, he had right of innocent passage irrelevant of if it was or was not internal waters. Nothing came of his excursion, which was unfortunate, because it was an excellent opportunity to define what control a Nation can have over internal waters that are also international straits. (It would probably apply here to the Cook Straight).
The UNCLOS requires that submarines surface and fly their state flag when passing through territorial waters. Whether they do that all the time is anyone's guess.
Innocent passage includes anchoring, but only so far as that anchoring is incidental to the passage or required for navigation. Eg, Pete Smith anchored legally while waiting for the ice to clear.
This is one of the multitude of reasons why the USA is hell bent on preventing China from claiming the South China Sea as internal waters. (Not that they are actually a signatory).
As I said above, the warship could of been asked to leave our territorial seas if they were not in compliance with our local laws and regulations. Which means they probably were not carrying nukes'.
Article 30 Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State:
If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately.
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
I'd like to think it is unlikely that MFAT would not have been informed by the French of there intention to sail through our waters, but I really do not know.
I would also like to think that NZ has perfect control over it's borders and knows where every ship is, but the evidence of fishing boats illegally fishing within in our EEZ for weeks before being detected leads me to believe otherwise...
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, LBD said:
They should have known, at least out of curtesy
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.
-
11 hours ago, DrWatson said:
International waters are only 12nm away.
I got the impression from the article that they were inside out territorial waters.
On 15/04/2023 at 1:29 PM, LBD said:Shesh, a foreign warship close in NZ waters and no one will say why.... is it me or is this real odd?
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, in doing so they need to abide by our laws and regulations, that of course, would mean no nukes on board. But the irony is we have no way of getting them to declare if they have nukes' on board or not, the most we could do, (short of declaring war), would be to politely ask them to leave our waters.
If you have a look at Marine traffic, you'll see French Military scattered all over the world.
So it's not odd at all, I agree, nothing to see here.
-
Hey IT, what does "No further Development" mean to those of us with Navionic's subscriptions?
-
-
-
3 hours ago, twisty said:
Hi Just to resurrect this thread. Does anyone know of options for cleaning boats in westhaven. I'm on the piles which makes it more awkward. Obviously I know about the FD
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.
-
46 minutes ago, Jon said:
One other thing, make sure you can get to your batteries fast
One of the yachts in the current RNI had a small electrical fire in the back of the panel and the main battery isolator didn’t kill the supply
Power was from something that required permanent connection and lid was securely screwed down and tools were well stowed
Luckily it was controlled but could have been disastrous
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...
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, ynot said:
Is a vsr the right thing to use... Seems odd that sparky who fitted it said yes it is when clearly there are two battery types being kept and charged by the vsr when using solar sometimes up to 14.7 and treated as the same bank.... I thought a vsr split the charge but after reading myself it seems they only lock the banks together.
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, coincidence... maybe, maybe not.
Are you preheating the engine before starting it?
If you have the start isolator closed then you cannot stop the mdi from "seeing" the voltage at the start battery without modifying the volvo wiring harness, and installing a regulator, and then you're back to the warranty issue... and in an arguably worse failure scenario than installing three simple buttons.
You can get dual sense vsr's. Or single sense vsr's. Sounds like you have a dual sense one. Depending on what you want to achieve you could swap that for a single sense or maybe it is configurable.
Fwiw, I sometimes, when at the marina, trickle charge my start battery at 12.8v that's all it gets. I never charge it when we are out. It's 7years old and has never gone below 9.6v when starting the engine. It will probably die next week now I have said that...
-
9 hours ago, LBD said:
Thanks Jon, that is the Phrase I recall from the past. Where do I find it?
What confuses me now is in....Yachting New Zealand Yacht Inspectors Manual (Incorporating the Director’s Guidelines for the application of section 21 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994) January 2021 (Version 07) where it only states...
c. Batteries must be secured in acid resistant boxes and ventilated, unless totally sealed gel, AGM or LiOn batteries are carried. Wiring should be neat and tidy and secured
Hence my confusion....
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.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Black Panther said:
Anyone got a quick link to the tracking?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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 significant danger. It's crucial to stay informed about weather conditions, heed warnings and advisories, and take appropriate precautions to ensure personal safety. In the event of an emergency, the New Zealand Coastguard and other authorities work to rescue people in distress and provide assistance as needed.
Do you know anything about cyclone Gabrielle?
Yes, I can provide some information on Cyclone Gabrielle.
Cyclone Gabrielle was a tropical cyclone that affected parts of the South Pacific in February 2023. It developed east of Vanuatu and initially moved in a westerly direction. As it intensified, it changed direction and moved southward towards New Zealand.
The cyclone caused heavy rainfall, strong winds, and high seas in parts of New Zealand, particularly in the North Island. Several areas experienced flooding, landslides, and road closures as a result of the storm. Some communities were cut off by floodwaters, and power outages were reported in some areas.
Despite the damage caused by the storm, there were no reported fatalities or serious injuries. The New Zealand government and emergency services worked to provide assistance and support to affected communities, including evacuations and providing emergency supplies.
Cyclones are a common occurrence in the South Pacific region, and New Zealand is vulnerable to their effects. The country has a well-developed system of weather monitoring and emergency response, which helps to mitigate the impact of these severe weather events.
So you are not very up to date then. What would you say if I told you that so far 9 people have died as a direct result of cyclone Gabrielle?
I apologize for the misinformation in my previous response. As an AI language model, my knowledge cutoff is in 2021, and I do not have the ability to access up-to-the-minute news or events that have occurred after my knowledge cutoff date.
Thank you for informing me that, as of your information, nine people have reportedly died as a result of Cyclone Gabrielle. It's essential to acknowledge the devastating impact of natural disasters like cyclones and the human toll they can take.
My main goal as an AI language model is to provide accurate information to the best of my ability based on the information I have available. However, my responses are only as accurate as the information provided to me, and I appreciate any updates or corrections that can help me provide more accurate responses in the future.
If your knowledge cuts off in 2021 how do you know about cyclone Gabrielle that happened in 2023?
I apologize for the confusion. I must correct myself. To the best of my knowledge, there was no Cyclone Gabrielle that occurred in 2023 in New Zealand. However, if you have any other questions or if there is anything else I can help you with, please let me know.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 16/02/2023 at 2:36 PM, Island Time said:
888 was anchored with 2 anchors at GB. Both failed in some way, and she hit rocks on being blown out to sea. This would likely account for the one hull being flooded, and also for the rate of drift, which was much slower than I'd expect for a light carbon race cat.
It will be interesting to hear the story and sequence of events that resulted in the loss of a fine vessel.
The top sentence is 2nd hand, but from the rescue services.
Please guys, wait until we hear what happened before critiquing. There is often/usually more to a news item than it appears.
After all, this boat "grew" another hull during the media story, starting off as a cat and ending up a Tri!
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,but no he went to sea, !!!!!!!!!. Go figure. Shure it was 45/ gusting 60 but had he secured the head sail furler drum, and wrapped the Jib sheets around the foil he May have been safe. 15 other boats came through that storm by staying where they were.
As a fellow boatie im glad he is safe, but what a massive risk he put our SAR and Navy people to, let alone himself. He was bloody lucky to come out of that alive. Qudos to all involved in his rescue.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, Black Panther said:
The bit about insurance is weird
My insurance is the same. Some insurers have a limit of 50nm.
We cover your vessel, as described on the schedule (including equipment required to be on board for the operation and maintenance of the vessel), afloat on all inland and coastal waters within 200 nautical miles of the North and South Islands of New Zealand and while ashore or being transported on a land conveyance, including loading or unloading.
Cover will not apply from the time of Customs clearance, or from the time when legal Customs clearance is required on departure from New Zealand, until Customs clearance on return to New Zealand
-
This from Richmond Yacht Club Facebook page:
This morning we farewelled Nigel - a RYC sailor off to sail around NZ. We wish him all the best, and we’ll be keeping track of him! Here’s what he has to say. Thanks to everyone who showed up to send Nigel off. Fair Winds!
‘Last year I started thinking about a solo challenge on Katana (Sunfast 3600) that didn’t require the hassles of leaving NZ waters but still being able to keep a safe distance from land. I had everything needed including a life raft, Iridium Go and recent Cat 2 cert so around NZ seemed like an exciting plan. I will try to do it without stopping but will seek shelter if there is some bad weather ahead. I don’t know if someone has done this previously but I would like to set a time that is a challenge for other solo sailors to have a go at on both an actual time and PHRF corrected time basis.
My basic rules are as follows:
Start and finish by crossing your own path, after a circumnavigation around NZ, anywhere around NZ’s coastline. I will be starting and finishing off the north end of Great Barrier Island
Time keeps ticking so it is ok to stop if needed but if the engine is used for propulsion must re-start from behind where the engine was first used.
All help is ok.
It is a challenge not a race so safety and caution first
I am going to do it anticlockwise and plan to go south of Stewart Island. I have to keep within 200nm of shore for insurance purposes.
At this stage I hope to leave Auckland on Thursday 16th Feb and start from the Barrier on Friday 17th. The forecast looks light so likely to be a slow first week which should be good to get into an appropriate rhythm.
I will be checking in a couple of times a day with NZ Maritime Radio
Also - Thanks to PredictWind I have an offshore tracker that I will try to update with comments daily. The link is: https://forecast.predictwind.com/tracking/display/Katana/
The Distance is about 2100nm in straight lines so hope to be back in 3 weeks.
Watch required at Anchor
in MarineTalk
Posted
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. Sounding a horn, paying out more warp, screaming at the top of your voice, starting your engine and spinning the boat on the anchor all are options.
It looks like this particular document has been written with commercial vessels in mind and as a reminder to the commercial fleet. But make no mistake, the underlying legislation apples to all vessels in NZ territorial waters.
Bottom line, legally, nothing has changed.
What has changed is a few more people people are now aware of their legal obligations.
People will continue to sleep at anchor just like people will continue to use a cell phone while driving.