Jump to content

Maritime NZ not investigating the Gypsy incident


Dagwood

Recommended Posts

Spotted this on the Classic Yacht website.

 

http://classicyacht.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1625

 

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I can explain the decision. The boat was totalled and one crew member was knocked into the water only to have to spend time in hospital and is apparently still recovering yet no serious harm arose??

 

Over the years they've investigated a lot of incidents that I'd personally deem to be significantly more minor including near misses where no contact or damage occurred.

 

Strange...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried to post the JPG scan of the article in Professional Skipper but not working too well. Basically Maritime NZ has deferred any investigation to the Auckland Harbourmaster as they don't think it was serious enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more to all this than that article would suggest, knot that I have read it but are guessing from comments made.

 

Sorry but I can't say more at this stage but from comments made here and on the Classics I suspect the Pro Skipper may have gone to print before some things happened very recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an email from a person who wishes to remain anonymous, but should know, a few months back, saying this could all blow up. Guts was MNZ did nothing, so Ak Harbourmaster decided to have a go, now MNZ claiming they can't do anything because the Hrmaster already has. An easy out for them.

 

Scary question is what was the motive behind MNZ not jumping all over it?

 

Where's the popcorn?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that Maritime NZ would have an obligation to investigate and that they would be higher in the pecking order than Harbourmaster am I wrong?

It would also seem a waste to have two investigations on the same subject but then again Len needs to justify increasing dog registration fees....et al somehow.

 

I know that many people are uppity about long drawn out investigations and the drain upon taxpayer resources but as quite rightly pointed out damage and injury occured here.

 

Capt of Antaeus has admitted he did not see them but is that admitting culpability? and if he has fessed up and said my bad and even if his insurance co paid out-does that mean no investigation?

Saw Antaeus on the hard at Pier 21 last week getting a nose job and lets just say it involved a little more than buffing but compared to the matchsticks that represent what is left of Gypsy they got off very lightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds odd but, in reality, what's to investigate?

 

Boat A wasn't keeping proper watch and hit Boat B. End of stroy.

 

........although MNZ should investigate why Harb Mast sat on his/her hands and let a launch wreck itself by runing into the sub-surface rig. Sorry ....but the line "it was moving around in the currents and hard to track and therefore, despite being in the busiest waters of the country, we let nature run its course" doesn't wash with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned earlier - there is more to all this than is public knowledge at the moment and for a good reason.

 

If anything it could get very interesting indeed, on 2 fronts, but knot in the way any of you are expecting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not upto date with what may happen that KM seems to be in on. But the innitial reason why MNZ dropped the proceedings was stated along the lines of, "well everything seemed to work out fine, so we will leave it to the Harbour Masters office". That is paraphrased somewhat. But when I read the actual wording out to another guy at work, we both looked at each other in that :wtf: kind of way and said but...but...but!?! Also if I remember rightly, the max the Harbour master could fine the Skipper of Antaeus is about $250 and I don;t think the Harbour Master was particularly happy with MNZ. So maybe they have thrown it back in MNZ's court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair call Wineglass, but its about having a due legal process and an a legally defined conclusion so that when this descends into a "he said she said" thing as you know it will especially when one party has suffered thousands in damage not to mention physical injury and the other gets superficial damage and possibly a $ 250 dollar fine.

 

This avoids much of the crap that insurance companies and lawyers involved later love to roll around in while billing everyone concerned- there is none of the ambigiuty (sp) that lawyers so love. No investigation- what a wonderful exit strategy that would be for a lawyer.

 

You bring up a valid point regarding the pussyfooting around over a boat sunk in a busy harbour, currents or not. Do any of the harbourmasters assets have side scan sonar? What about the Police launch? and push come to shove the navys not too far away from the point of impact they could just about plot something without leaving the dock I suspect. There will be lawyers all over that I suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[This avoids much of the crap that insurance companies and lawyers involved later love to roll around in while billing everyone concerned- there is none of the ambigiuty (sp) that lawyers so love. No investigation- what a wonderful exit strategy that would be for a lawyer.

 

 

Charlie Brown IS a lawyer

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go here: http://www.skipper.co.nz/current.htm, you can register for free and (after acknowledging the confirmation email) read the whole article on pp46-47 of the March/April issue.

 

How's this for size -

Maritime New Zealand has received incident reports from St

Clair Brown and the Auckland harbourmaster, Andrew Hayton.

Although the incident was widely reported in the media,

Maritime NZ said the reports they had received indicated that no

serious harm had occurred and that they would not investigate,

passing the responsibility for investigating this incident to the

Auckland harbourmaster.

Yep,... "no serious harm" - well that's a relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Certainly begs the question of what would constitute "harm" if having your boat trashed and sunk and nearly losing your wife doesn't qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having lived 15 years in the States I smell something......smells like money.... trying to make something harmless go away...or I could be wrong....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that when you look at MNZs other reports on incidents involving recreational vessels, the seriousness of this incident would seem to be in line with or greater than others that they have seen fit to investigate...

 

http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/Publicati ... al_vessels

 

Included are:

 

-Injury to passenger from firing of flare aboard Free Spirit in the Viaduct Basin, Auckland

-Collision between the recreation vessels Rufus and Bosanova on the Hauraki Gulf

-Loss of person overboard from Aquilo whilst moored in Whangamumu Harbour

-Grounding of Audax in Kenepuru Sound causing serious damage to vessel

-Beaching of an Unnamed Yacht 10 miles north of Napier

-Capsize and rescue of an unnamed dinghy off Hawkes Bay

 

Obviously the titles may not make them sound as serious as they were, but if these justified an investigation then it seems pretty obvious that a collision between two vessels resulting in the sinking of one and serious injury would too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...