CarpeDiem

My understanding is that power you generate for yourself and do not supply to anyone else is not subject to the ESA. Assuming you are not buying the 12vDC supply from a 3rd party it would not be covered.

You can carry out any of the permitted activities in Table A at any of the locations shaded green on the map. To carry out an activity in Table A you must first meet the applicable standards in Table B. For example, if you have micro-fouling such as a layer of slime AND 1. if you will clean with non abrasive materials; and 2. you will stop if you find that you have something more than slime (eg fanworm); and 3. your antifouling is not past it's use by date; and 4. the cleaning method doesn't compromise the antifoul coating; THEN you can clean your boat

There are other instruments that could used to prosecute you for this scenario, namely the wilful negligence section of the crimes act, but it wouldn't be Worksafe investigating. It would be the police.

As always with these kinds of questions it's about the quality and detail in the question, . Garbage In = Garbage Out. So I am going to assume that because you said 'I'm paying...' that you mean your natural self and not a company/club/trust/partnership. I will also assume you're not registered as an employer for the purposes of carrying out a business or an undertaking. Therefore no you are not required to keep them safe. However lets assume that your natural-self is a sole-trader is registered as an employer and has an employee. You decide to get your employee to work on your boa

No. Assuming you are not receiving financial gain from your friend, ie, he is not paying you to use your boat. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act someone has to be receiving a financial gain for it to be a Workplace and it has to be at a place of "business". Club Haul-out facilities (and for that matter club ski fields) generally fall foul of this because the have employees or contractors working at the facility for financial reward, this makes it a workplace. They also carry on a business because they charge people to use the facility. This doesn't automatically make ever

Only if the accident is related to a WorkPlace. Worksafe has no jurisdiction on a private boat UNLESS a person involved in the incident on that boat was their for personal financial gain. Eg, a professional fisherman that you were paying to come out and teach you how to fish on your boat.

Makes kind of pointless both those floating docks that some flash race boats are using and also those drive-in bags that wrap your hull. I am guessing the marina infrastructure will be covered under commercial/military vessel law rules and not these recreational rules. Kind of a double standard.

So is that the change to the rules then? Did we used to allow boats with more than light-fouling in Auckland?

I am struggling to see how these rules have changed? These "new" rules don't seem to make it any harder to clean in the water than it was in the 2020 rules. How has the definition of "light-fouling" been changed/updated? Anyone got last years version?

Sorry I have now reread that, I was thinking "life lines" when you said "side stays" not your mast shrouds. They may not be 'rediculously oversized' at 60% loss. Multihulls rigs can generate enormous shock forces. But as you say they are probably not 60% loss because they are covered. Now that I understand you're talking about your mast I would be ascertaining the age of the rigging and engaging a rigging professional.

Even at 60% loss they are rediculously oversized. You could hang four fully laden Toyota Land Cruisers off them and still not break the line. I suspect your deck fittings would rip off well before you got the fourth land cruiser hooked up. For a 100kg human to break the line would require a fall so significant that, (assuming your harness was strong enough), it would rip you apart before you broke a 12000kg line.

20mm?! Noting that Dyneema is a brand name, is it actually Dyneema made by DSM? DSM released a study a few years back (I can't find a link). Their findings were 60% strength loss after 10yrs of uv exposure. New 20mm dyneema would have a breaking strain of around 30,000kg.

No you do not. You can travel to the Chathams, Kermadecs, Three Kings, Auckland Is, Campbell etc without a departure clearance. For some of those locations you need permission from DoC to be within 12Nm - but you do not need a departure clearance. You also don't need departure clearance for the Ross Ice Shelf, but you do need to meet a whole lot of more stringent requirements that are harder than Cat 1

The (M) rule applies to exposed windows only, while the (K) rule applies to all windows. Guessing that those back windows probably are not considered 'exposed'.

Smartest comment on this thread all day - unfortunately I have contributed to a lot of the hot air In an attempt to steer the thread in the correct direction and back to the issue at hand. ================== I don't believe that foreign yacht registration should be the first port of call for people wanting to "circumvent" this rule. NZ yacht inspectors have discretion available to them when it comes to determining if a boat is sea worthy and meets the requirements for departing NZ. They are required to use this discretion fairly and equally, this is set down in the Marit

Two places, (1) this happened to a colleague of mine who was a dual Cook Is and NZ Citizen about 25 years ago. He bought his boat in NZ and personally registered it in the Cook Islands. To leave NZ he had to get the boat registered here, they would not let him leave. (2) at the time he and I reviewed the legislation which is here and hasn't changed since 1992. Ref Section 6(2) which states: A ship is required to be registered in either Part A or Part B of the Register if— (a)the ship is a pleasure vessel or does not exceed 24 metres register length; and

It's the opening area's within, not the size of the glass. Some boats have a single piece of glass covering multiple internal openings.

Yes. You can, absolutely agree. You can also register a boat that's already in NZ offshore. There is nothing preventing either of these scenarios. What you can't do, is subsequently leave the country for an overseas port if the boat is New Zealand-owned. To leave you must either (a) transfer the ownership of the boat to a foreign entity, eg a Cook Islands Company; or (b) register the boat in NZ. A boat is deemed to be NZ owned if it is majority owned by a NZ citizens.

Lol. Getting off topic - you generally can't claim GST back on personal goods in NZ when you export them - so no. But you can have not paid that GST in the first place, eg, literally everything you buy gst-free at the airport. You can purchase a brand-new boat in NZ gst-free so long as it is exported under it's own power. You can also import your boat here spend $50,000 refitting it, export it and not pay gst on that refit. (assuming it isn't already a gst nz paid boat).

It's the same thing. When a boat arrives in NZ it's imported. When a boat leaves NZ it is exported.

I would be intrigued to hear of any NZ Citizen who departed NZ using their NZ Passport on a foreign flagged ship that they also 100% personally owned. Definitely no issue importing it. You don't need to change or even have your boat registered in NZ once it's imported. The issue you should seek clarification on is a subsequent future export. This is where an old colleague came unstuck...

You can't (legally) avoid NZ registration if you're a NZ Citizen that owns the boat. You have to sell your boat to an foreign company which is allowed to register in the Cooks or the country of your choosing. This of course comes with the associated management, legal, insurance, tax overheads and foreign director fees that one would expect when owning a foreign entity. So do the maths before taking the plunge. If you're an NZ resident and not a citizen then you can register with another country, if your country of citizenship allows it. If you're a dual citizen then be careful,

Only if it takes you 12 days from when you depart Minerva. To avoid NZ MiQ you need to meet some very specific conditions.

I am curious about the window size. I would be interested to see the actual measurements of a sister ship. The report stated the window was nearly twice the size of what's allowed before requiring a storm cover. It didn't look even close to 4sqft...but I know photos can be deceiving. I think that once cruising resumes, a few people are going to be quite shocked to discover that the storm covers and the box of screws they had for emergency use must now be fitted at the time of inspection and then again when departing... gonna be a few unhappy boats with some extra screw holes

neither had I till last week when I went down the - "my windows are too big" rabbit warren