hopeless

[erice 732]

A boat bought on Saturday had to be rescued on Sunday when it ran out of fuel in the Hauraki Gulf, the Coastguard says.

 

And it took more than two hours to find the 7-metre boat because the three men on board did not know their location and had no GPS or VHF radio.

 

The men had a cellphone and called the coastguard about 5.30pm to say they had run out of fuel somewhere in the Hauraki Gulf.

 

They were rescued about 8pm at Te Kouma Harbour, Coromandel and towed back to Kawakawa Bay, southeast of Auckland.

 

A coastguard spokeswoman said four rescue boats searched in a general area 

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/67708249/rescued-boat-had-no-fuel-no-navigation-equipment

[ScottiE 174]

a single goup of idiots, a systemic problem does not make. 

[Clipper 343]

"These folk had purchased the boat the day beforehand."

Adding to the difficulty was the language barrier, she said.

"The lack of English was certainly a difficult dimension to the job," she said.

[Rats 28]

Darwinian theory at work, they were interrupted in their attempt to thin the herd!

[grantmc 59]

At least the outcome was that all 3 people were rescued and unharmed. Could have been much worse.

 

Oh wow, just as I was writing this post  an email arrived from Google UK. It states that I am one of 12 very lucky people and we have all won 950,000 pounds sterling plus a Nexus tablet and a Google tee shirt. There's a bank cheque drawn in my favour just waiting for me.

 

I emailed off all information that they need. 10 minutes later the phone rang and it was someone called Mr White. Man those Google guys are on the ball. He said that they have now verified my details and all that is required to get my winnings is payment of the release fee of 750 pounds sterling (because of the fact I'm not a UK resident). So I've just sent that off and am waiting in anticipation! So exciting. Oh bugger. Mr White just phoned me back to say he's very very sorry but it turns out that there's also a UK Lottery Commission fee for non-resident Commonwealth Citizens of 1,650 pounds so I've sent that off too.

 

But Mr White is really helpful. Obviously I thought I'd have to travel to the UK to get my prize but he told me that a trip can be avoided. All he actually needs is me to courier over to him my passport plus a pair or two of my wife's unwashed panties in a sealed plastic bag. And he said that once they arrive he'll get everything sorted within a few days.

 

This is certainly my lucky day. So excited!

 

I just sent a text to my boss to say stick your pathetic job where the sun does not shine, because I am soon sailing off to the Islands. She sent back an unprintable reply. She's a cow.

 

So any suggestions for a new mono hull cruising sail boat? I am thinking around 30 feet, centre cockpit, and obviously pretty much ready for cat.1. 

[zk-cessnaguy 1]

Was talking about this at work. I don't think that further regulation is the answer. Targeted education is the key, and perhaps the easiest way is to identify who has runabouts and other small craft is via the trailer's registration details? That way you can direct a marine safety campaign at those who seemingly are at most risk.

 

Back that up with financial liability for rescue if you are out on the water being a muppet without appropriate comms, nav and safety gear. Getting a bill for the  searching  carried out by a couple of coastguard vessels, a helicopter... oh and HMNZS Otago... surely would start to get the message home.

[grantmc 59]

Back that up with financial liability for rescue ...

Whilst I agree that education is the key, I absolutely disagree with charging people for a rescue. One obvious reason is that people wont call for help when they know it is going to cost money, so more people die. Rescues are always the result of something going wrong and/or a bad decision and so following that argument they should all be charged. Following that argument too, charges would apply too to air and land rescues.

[Island Time 1,233]

I actually quite like the idea of charging for rescue in the event of the rescued being totally unprepared. Like insufficient fuel (without say, loss of a tote tank, a split fuel tank etc).

For those who are repeat offenders, or totally clueless....

[Dagwood 57]

I think the core of the problem is that there is a large number of people (some very pleasant and intelligent) who simply don't know what they don't know. Some are conservative and lucky enough to get away with it - others have no idea of the risks they are taking and subjecting people they care about to.

 

To them boating looks like a lot of fun and you don't need a licence or to sit a test so it must be straight forward. This is a hard perception to crack.

 

I'm not keen on seeing the red tape of a license scheme for all sorts of reasons including the apparent fact that overseas experience says it doesn't resolve the issue. However a few high profile prosecutions under existing laws might help and be a good low cost place to start.

 

Take too many fish and the MPI bloke dressed to look like the Gestapo will kindly organise a tow truck and take your boat and car away to protect a few more fish from you. What do we do when people come back to a boat ramp and a quick inspection would reveal they are terribly under equipped and back safely thanks to no more than a bit of luck and are a statistic waiting to happen? We're not even looking.  

 

Bob Jones' article (posted elsewhere here) talks about the glee he takes from not wearing his life jacket in his Laser and how feels the law requiring him to do so is a symptom of a nappy (one step on from nanny) state. He understands the risk and wants to take it. Fair enough I guess but what about those left behind or having to mop up the mess? As a volunteer in the SAR area, I'm happy to help people where and when I can. I'm not so enamoured with the idea of searching for and recovering bodies and participating in the grief left behind especially when it was all so avoidable.

[Terry B 71]

Well said Dagwood.

[Fish 0]

I don't see what the problem is.

No one died. They didn't hurt anyone else.

What those three guys do on their weekend isn't anyone else's business.

[banaari 27]

It become other people's business when they called for help.

 

But if the Coastguard towed them back, and they weren't already members... we can safely assume they've been levied a signficant financial disincentive from doing it again.

[Dambo 44]

I don't see what the problem is.

No one died. They didn't hurt anyone else.

What those three guys do on their weekend isn't anyone else's business.

They didn't hurt anyone else... However they did inconvenience 3 or 4 CC/SAR boats and their crew?  I'm sure the tow crew were happy to tow them back in alive and well but would have preferred that they could have had their dinner on time.  

 

I'm actually being serious about the dinner thing.

 

This was a huge amount of stress and work on behalf of the rescuers.  These three clowns made their weekend thoughtlessness a whole bunch of other peoples' business.

[cep32 4]

The topic of charging people for the cost of search and rescue comes up regularly with regard to trampers. My worry is that if you charge them then they are less likely to push the button on an EPIRB etc and instead try to get themselves out of trouble. That is a good thing in a lot of cases but the reality is that if they are going to be late out and someone else call SAR or the police, instead of a few thousand dollars and an hour of helicopter time you are talking about 50+ SAR volunteers and more than one helicopter so the costs get way higher.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for accountability but we also need to be pragmatic and look at the costs associated with all of the possible outcomes.

[Fish 0]

I don't dissagree that they were as thick as pig shite, my statement was in reference to the sudden talk of the need for licensing and charging for rescues. One event does not give rise to a need for a whole new beuracratic monster, regards licensing.

 

And, to state a fact (as stated above) if they weren't Coast Guard members, which they almost definatly weren't, they would have been charged an hourly charge to get towed home. My understanding is that charge is the 'running cost' of the particular rescue boat, at charter rates, and for the typical North Shore rescue sized boat, is something like $280 / hr... Which would be a significant sum fromTe Kouma.

 

Out of interest, when does SAR responsibility pass from Police to CG? CG are an NGO, while police hold responsibility for fairly much all SAR in NZ.

 

It's funny how many people are with Bob Jones when it comes to self determination for yourself, I.e the right to choose wether or not to wear a life jacket, but as soon as it's someone else, especially someone with English as a second language, there is a clamour for licencing and charging for rescues.

[grant 40]

 

Out of interest, when does SAR responsibility pass from Police to CG? CG are an NGO, while police hold responsibility for fairly much all SAR in NZ.

 

 

in short it doesn't either Police or Rescue Co-ordination Centre are responsible for all marine SAR, in most places CG are the means by which that is carried out.  I suspect a lot of CG jobs are more of a breakdown/tow scenario rather than an official SAR response.

[ScottiE 174]

Nicely put Fish. I always have a chuckle about the 'cost' of a rescue. I suspect there would be no more than a few major rescues that actually increase the operating costs of an organisation (CG navy etc). I'm guessing that all their crew would need to log a minimum number of hours 'training' and an actual rescue/tow probably counts 1:1 or better. Training will still require use of a vessel which will still burn fuel. This is in no way me wanting to sound critical of CG - they're awesome and I always try and donate more than just my sub. I'm also happy that they're carrying out the sort of services they do - ambulance at the bottom of the cliff as well as educator at the top. The hopeless fools will hopefully think twice before going out again, have hopefully signed up to both CG and at least a day skippers course and so all is well - hopefully!

 

Happy to be told I'm also an idiot and proven wrong - flame away!

[Island Time 1,233]

I'm happy to hear that the Coast Guard can now charge (even if non members) for services. When did that come about? Years ago I had a little to do with the Wgtn Coast Guard, and they had no power to charge - they could only "ask" for a donation....

[Pumbaa 9]

I've got lots of sympathy for anyone who voluntarily goes out to help people but Dambo, if they object to being inconvenienced at dinner time they shouldn't be there. These guys had a problem because they didn't have a great amount or any experience they probably had no idea of the fuel consumption or maybe they did and one of them forgot the spare fuel. These things are rarely accurately reported.

 

I was in Oz when Tony Bullimore's boat was upside down in the Southern Ocean the fuss over that was embarrassing, since when did we become so resentful of adventure?

 

I am waiting for the day when I have to wear my lifejacket in bed or in the morning when sitting in the cockpit eating my bacon and egg sandwich.

[PaulR 3]

I always thought a drowning person was always willing to pay well above the retail cost, even 10, 20 or 100 times or more for a  lifejacket / life buoy that was still just out of arms reach so . . . .

 

Just stay there whilst we process tour EFTPOS and then we will save you!!

 

Yes a real rescue is the practical bonus for all the training the armed & emergency services do and we are so lucky to have such competent and well trained people in NZ.

 

I am annoyed when people have insufficient or inadequate equipment. Then there should be an "education charge" and they have to buy the gear at say 10 or 20 times the RRP, the excess being a donation to the rescuers.

 

It is a different situation when one has all the equipment, is trained, reasonably experienced and are prepared.

For myself, I think back just a few years when I was on the helm of a Farr 12.2 and I hit my second whale.

We went from peace and serenity in a beautiful sunny sailing condition on a flat sea just west of Sail Rock to a 45 degree bow down angle in a nano second to be in a potential disaster, with water coming in around the keel and cracked floors.

 

I was worried about the whale circling around and having a second go at us "a la Moby Dick".

 

Thankful for prompt response from Coastguard with 30 minute VHF monitoring and offer to stand by us from Whangarei CG. However we stemmed the water inflow and proceeded to Kawau Is and were all OK.

 

Still it only took a nano second for disaster to arrive. 

 

So different circumstances can happen, but registration and paperwork will NOT solve the issue and I have been against this for years.

 

However I would support the Insurance industry if there were reductions for proven competency or education achievement.

 

One large luxury 65ft yacht we built, the owner was given 1.5% insurance (Lloyds UK) premium reduction if his radar meet certain requirements. Over 3 years, this more than paid for the radar, installation and training for all his teenage & adult family. Definitely a win-win-win situation.  

 

Do we need high boat ramp fees with reductions if you have: e.g. Lifejackets foe ALL; Day Skipper Cert, VHF, VHF Operators Cert, Flares, adequate anchor, chain & warp, full fuel tanks, reserve fuel etc.

 

Would this help to reduce the number of small (runabout type) incidents that CG have to deal with??

 

It may do but then the cost of inspection, energy of inspectors looking at so many to target the few "newbies"  would eventually mean we would drift back to the "why bother" with inspections and eventually come back to our status quo.

 

The insurance premium reductions is an annual event and repeating mechanism is already well established.

YNZ category inspections cat 3 & above are very good indeed and there is NO REASON why anybody should fail as all the requirements are printed and/or on the web sites. It should be a "Ticking off" exercise.

Additionally some classes of keelers (S34s) and most sailing/racing dinghies have active existing inspection systems.

 

However for the runabouts, perhaps the WoF and licensing system that already has an insurance element of cost included (ACC) needs expanding. The boat is on the trailer for the WoF so easy to inspect.

 

Most yachts have YNZ LARGE sail numbers as identification. I would suggest all MOTOR Boats have their CALL SIGNS in large letters as a practical identification system that is already unique or DISPLAY their call signs by nautical flags (as per the navy ships) when moving especially through congested harbours.\

 

Geez I feel good now after a rant!! Enjoy