CarpeDiem
-
Content Count
1,219 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
38
Content Type
Profiles
Media Demo
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by CarpeDiem
-
-
21 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Your committee must think you are terrible sailors, putting your head underwater while on those big yachts. Its not good for boat speed putting your head underwater, you know...
Hmmm lets see...
- E. coli levels in the Waitematā are at record highs
- all 23 monitoring stations, from Herald Is, down to St Helliers are reporting "very high risk"
- watercare has urged that people refrain from recreational activity on the water
- the water around the overflow outlets is black, it's absolutely wreaking of sh*t and are in the worst condition I have ever seen them - I am surprised that we have not had an algae bloom yet
People can and do fall overboard, gear can and does end up in the water...
If you have never dragged your sail or your sheets through the water, if you have never taken a face full of water over the bow when setting up for a sail change then you aren't trying hard enough.
Committee's have a responsibility to their club members to weigh the available information, assess the risk and make decisions.
I am no water scientist, but given the information, the visible untreated untreated sewerage exiting the overflow pipes and the advice publicly available, I think the decision to cancel is the right one.
-
2
-
2
-
1 hour ago, Psyche said:
Any updates on the repairs, Rahui?
They just started welding sections of the bypass pipe today. They need to put in something like 30 x 12m sections and they work 24x7 to get it done, but given they have to bury it under st georges road it won't happen quickly.
Then it will be at least 10-14days till the water is safe.
Rahui is still in place.
-
-
21 minutes ago, Timberwolfy said:
I mean, seriously, the national governing body of the sport you claim to need this space for is telling you you're doing it wrong... If that doesn't make you think, nothing will.
That is quite the statement.
Imagine if YNZ dropped RAYC in support of the community they represent.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Ed said:
From the RAYC annual report...
" RAYC has a close association with the Akarana Marine Sports Charitable Trust ("AMSCT"), a controlled entity of RAYC by virtue that RAYC appoints 4 of the 7 trustees of AMSCT. "
and
"The Akarana Marine Sports Charitable Trust ('AMSCT') is a related party as the General Committee members of the Club are also Trustees of AMSCT and the Club appoints the majority of the AMSCT Trustees"
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.
-
1
-
-
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 due to a demand placed on them by the trust that sets all the rules they have to follow?
Is the trust is run by people with commercial interests that will benefit from the proposed changes? Or is the club running the trust?
I can't see any commonality between the rayc club flag officiers and the sports trust trustees. They seem to be completely different people. There's some rayc life members listed who are or were trustees...
Is the RAYC just guilty by association?
-
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 of protection that you do not get with the IP54 rated standard dish.
The downside is it uses double the power of the standard dish.
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Island Time said:
Stupid pic is sideways...
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.
19 hours ago, Island Time said:My understanding currently is that you just subscribe to priority data $2 GB.
Yep. Worldwide, until you end up in some territorial waters where the local govt hasn't granted an in-motion license...
Incidentally there's a couple of sectors in the middle of the Hauraki Gulf which SpaceX have, in their infinite wisdom, decided are international waters. In theory you'll need to subscribe to priority in those locations too. Will be interested to hear if that's actually the case.
-
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.
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Priscilla II said:
History repeating itself with Panuku/ Council preference for cash rental return over BEU income.
Whilst lobbying Council to purchase Westhaven many moons ago it was apparent from the get go they simply couldn’t do the maths even when we laid it out in plain English.
My question to those that support BEU’s is who sets the berth value.
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...
-
18 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Bear in mind that Worksafe charged NEMA of all people. Exactly why isn't clear.
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.
Unfortunately it sometimes bankrupts private individuals or organizations that get caught up in getting the law defined. But it's a necessary evil.
-
1 hour ago, K4309 said:
Or worse, the old guy who's ferry got nailed will get prosecuted for having an expired first aid certificate.
It is all they have on the Enchanter Skipper, with 5 dead.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
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.
You've just been bitching about the new standards for drilling holes cause of the overhead and complexity it creates. Yet in the next breath you expect us to believe that you think it would be acceptable for some regulator to bring a prosecution for not complying with that standard when there was no incident or risk to an employee?
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, K4309 said:
I disagree. On the contrary, there is substantial public interest in taking H&S prosecutions before their are deaths and injuries. If it is your partner, parent or child that doesn't come home, you are very interested in the regulators actions.
This is the difference between a regulator and a prosecutor.
If our H&S system is going to be effective, it needs to be proactive, not reactive. This is the basis of every good H&S plan in the country. Yet the regulator doesn't follow the same principles.
More so, it would not have cost $5m to prosecute the WI operators that didn't have H&S plans. It is as straight forward as prosecuting someone when there is a death.
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 law and stop cutting corners so that the incidents stop.
I don't want my tax money spent making sure a company has the appropriate safety measures in place. I want the company directors to be spending their own money, paying the same outfit that Worksafe would pay, to ensure that they are compliant.
That's the outcome I would like to see.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Worksafe only brought the prosecution because 22 people died, and Worksafe got caught out not doing their job.
The fact that those operators were only involved in the rescue on the day has nothing to do with it.
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 without teeth, until an incident occurs.
It's a conundrum that won't be answered on this forum.
-
12 minutes ago, K4309 said:
Erm, not following you there.
22 people died. Nothing pro-active about that. Or have I misunderstood what your are on about?
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.
-
7 hours ago, DrWatson said:
I read both the maritime Nz “guideline” and the actual rules. This really seems to be a storm in teacup.
The rule includes the words “appropriate for the circumstances “ and appears not at all to undermine the captain’s authority to determine what’s an appropriate circumstance.
Does anyone here have any degree of actual legal experience? Has an actual lawyer at YNZ looked over this?
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 expected legal outcome.
One case was interesting, a passing boat collided with an anchored boat when the anchored boat got caught in a tide shift in an estaury and swung 180deg quite quickly. The passing boat couldn't get out of the way. This reminded me of a story @Black Panther told a couple of years ago where he was up North and he'd planned to start the engine as the tide changed but he wasn't fast enough. The tide had already swung him around 180deg, luckily no other boats got in his way
I certainly would expect my insurance company to hold me less liable if my boat collided with another boat in an anchorage and that vessel was unattended, or the occupants were asleep. Why should I wear the brunt of the cost of damages to my boat if I was present and trying to reduce damage and the other owners were off walking around the island?
I think any reasonable person would expect more protection against financial loss in those circumstances. For that protection to occur there needs to be a legal framework like this to fall back on.
It's not going to be actively enforced. But if something happens, your insurance company, or the courts if it goes that far, will be looking to see which vessel should be held more liable to apportion blame.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, waikiore said:
Absolutely right and this has been raised at the Mighty Milf cruising club of the last five years and YNZ promises each year to come back with a more equitable solution to suit the launchies and "social" members. Still waiting.............
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.
-
1 minute ago, K4309 said:
Sorry, I didn't read past this bit.
I don't want to use anything YNZ has. Not the RRS. Not the Handicapping system. I want to be a member and use the assets of the Weiti BC, the Club rooms, moorings, hand stand and haulout. Currently YNZ have jacked the system so that for me, as a cruiser with a young family, I have to subsidise their 5 ringed circus. Currently it is not possible to be a member of a 'boating' club and not pay a large levy to YNZ.
If they were doing any advocacy for common or garden variety boaties, then so be it, but they aren't. What is worse is they just pay lipservice to it. The original post in this thread is a great example. Doing a press release on a rule that hasn't changed in decades.
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
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, K4309 said:
I don't think that is the best analogy CD. YNZ is not a club. It is a National Body, or otherwise referred to as a National Authority, esp with respect to category ratings and a national handicaping system. Originally it was a Federation of Yacht Clubs, put together to represent those clubs on a national scale. It is simply not doing that now. At best, it is an extension of High Performance Sport NZ.
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.
Organizations just create this stuff and then they go on to create a position for themselves in society. Created by the people for the people and eventually rule the people.
There are many many examples of this in New Zealand and all around the world.
NZOIA is another great example - NZ Outdoor Instructors Association - a group pf people, with no government mandate, saw a need, got together and decided to create a minimum standard for outdoor instruction, a whole industry sprung up, courses, training, certifications etc etc... they have been so successful that our Health & Safety legislation now references them as REQUIRED training. Can another organization start up and become just as successful - well yes - but it will be really really hard and very very expensive.
Can you start your own entity, with your own handicapping system and your own racing rules and your own regulations? Well obviously you can, because that's how YNZ started out - but it will be VERY VERY hard and expensive to catch up to YNZ. Not to mention you need to get the Govt onboard with your new venture if you want to race at over 5knts.
1 hour ago, K4309 said:Something needs to change. Many people have said it. Nothing has happened yet. Keen to hear your ideas.
The same way change gets facilitated in your own club. Voting members have all the power.
Start with the YNZ constitution https://www.yachtingnz.org.nz/sites/default/files/2021-12/YNZ Constitution 2021.pdfv S22.1 might be of interest to you
-
20 minutes ago, Ex Machina said:
Ponder this angle . Imagine you join a “boating “ club not a “yacht” club but you have a cruising yacht . Imagine said club was affiliated with say Offshore power boating NZ . It would be a bit of a piss off if $30 bucks of your sub went towards a powerboating outfit to do whatever with it , you roll with it anyway because it’s the only boating club in your area with decent facilities .
that’s what our launch owners and cruising boat owners , social , crew members plus juniors face with YNZ whether they like it or not .
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 the events that they put on. I just want to race.
Should Squadron provide me with a discounted membership cause all I want to do is race? Of course not.
Imagine a member joining your club and refusing to pay their full subscription because they won't benefit from the club showers.
I do think that YNZ's monopoly over the RRS is anti-competitive, that's a different issue, and until some club takes World Sailing to court for monopolistic, anti-competitive, cartelistic behavior it isn't going to change. Any club should be able to sign up to world sailing to run events under the RRS and pay the appropriate licenses. You might find that those licenses are more expensive than YNZ - wouldn't that be amusing
-
2 hours ago, K4309 said:
There should be a straight forward way around an entire club's membership paying cash to YNZ, when only a select few want to race.
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.
-
5 hours ago, K4309 said:
Yup, the sole reason for YNZ's existence is a copyright issue.
The single thing that keeps YNZ levying our yacht clubs, and us, so much, is that they control the copyright of the racing rules of sailing, via world sailing.
When the Weiti BC moved to withdraw from YNZ, and all the paid staff came and gate crashed out SGM (accept, of course his holiness) the only thing they could come up with that the Weiti BC would miss out on was the RRS. Nothing else. Nil. Zip. Nadda.
Imagine what the launch owners and Ma & Pa cruisers thought of that?
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't affiliated - it actually happens a lot. One day, the day will come when one of these boats wrongs me and I am compelled to protest them for not being an affiliated member.
Parnell Poo Pipe
in MarineTalk
Posted
Rangitoto channel vicinity has got to be better than Ōrākei ...
Hopefully in 16 days this environment disaster will be over. Watercare will hopefully will get the bypass pipe finished within the next 6 days and then 10 days of tidal flow should fix it...
Fingers crossed.