|
Post by GO30 on Aug 13, 2023 8:49:34 GMT 12
No current 1st Aid Cert, could there be a bigger grasping at straws there?
'Causing undue risk', that's a very subjective angle, one bound to make some lawyers better off and taxpayers worse.
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Aug 13, 2023 10:10:54 GMT 12
How can any commercially operated vessel in NZ still not require AIS? There is literally no hurdle or excuse to mandating that by tomorrow lunchtime. Nil. Nada.
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Aug 13, 2023 10:16:50 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 13, 2023 10:43:35 GMT 12
Just cause you read it doesn't mean it's true. Tova O'Brien could have wrote that TAIC report...
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 13, 2023 10:48:09 GMT 12
From your link is this extract: "Why it happened The Enchanter should easily have coped with the sea conditions off North Cape at the time of the accident. However, it is about as likely as not the vessel had strayed into shallower water off Murimotu Island, an area that is prone to occasional, naturally occurring, larger waves peaking as they entered the shallowing water." The wording "about as likely as not" - is that another way of saying 50:50? That is not the strongest statement I've seen from an investigator, indicating a lot of uncertainty as to the position of the boat at the time of capsize. From a legal point of view, it is sketchy as fuck. Add in that you then have to prove a known risk of rogue waves in 10 m of water to get a prosecution. I'd say there is a reasonable chance the charges fail and the skipper is found not guilty, accept for the expired first aid certificate.
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Aug 13, 2023 11:25:32 GMT 12
The causing undue risk angle could be a tilt at the worksafe requirements relating to reasonably practicable. Ie. He could have taken an even wider approach from the shallows.
Hard to see where they will get given that they don’t know exactly where he was.
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Aug 13, 2023 11:30:37 GMT 12
But what we do know is that the boat was fine. It may or may not have been too shallow given the low probability of a rogue wave. It has some life rings that need replacing, the life jackets were probably stored in an inappropriate place, the epirb failed to go off as did the life raft. But they had them. The boat was fit for purpose and not in dangerous weather. Remember all the original hysteria.
The next biggest issue was the rescue as already pointed out. It killed people through incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Aug 13, 2023 13:08:51 GMT 12
Dont forget this is not his first dealing with MNZ
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Aug 13, 2023 13:14:45 GMT 12
all points to shallow water where he should of headed deeper www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/significant-safety-issues-major-report-into-enchanter-tragedy-calls-for-shakeup-of-search-and-rescue-maritime-sector"The skipper noticed, in the fading light, the wall of water about to meet with the vessel from the port side... the wave that struck the vessel had sufficient energy to roll it immediately on its side with sufficient force to implode the windows and structure forming the main saloon." While the commission found "no evidence of any mechanical or equipment failure" and suggested sea conditions were "well within the capabilities of the vessel" - it concluded Enchanter's stability and structural resilience were tested to the limit in shallower waters where steep breaking waves are more likely to capsize. "The skipper advised the commission the accident happened NNE of the awash rock near Murimotu Island in about 50 metres of water... the commission has reached a different conclusion… [based on] EIRB (emergency position-indicating radio beacon) data and drift modelling." TAIC chief commissioner Jane Meares and chief investigator Naveen Kozhuppakalam said a key safety issue was the inaccessibility of lifejackets, which were stored in the front cabin.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 13, 2023 13:43:50 GMT 12
TAIC chief commissioner Jane Meares and chief investigator Naveen Kozhuppakalam said a key safety issue was the inaccessibility of lifejackets, which were stored in the front cabin. I dissagree with this. The key issue was the liferaft not deploying, like it should have. This would have got people out of the water and into shelter from the wind, vastly increasing survival time. All the sea survival training state it is near impossible to put an LJ on in the water. So having access to them after the capsize is about as useful as tits on a bull. Having a liferaft tethered to the hull would mean that people could climb in immediately after the capsize while they were still strong. LJ's just make it easier to find bodies. You still have cold, hypothermia, and drowning due to waves dumping on your face while trying to breath. Anyone that has done a sea survival course knows this. Shit, even anyone thats actually been in the water in a LJ knows this.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 13, 2023 13:44:25 GMT 12
Dont forget this is not his first dealing with MNZ Most skippers have dealt with MNZ at some stage. What do you mean by this?
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 13, 2023 13:49:13 GMT 12
The causing undue risk angle could be a tilt at the worksafe requirements relating to reasonably practicable. Ie. He could have taken an even wider approach from the shallows. Hard to see where they will get given that they don’t know exactly where he was. I agree with what you are saying. BUT, MNZ will need to prove risk of rogue waves is a function of depth. Noting he did not run aground, depth doesn't appear relevant. In that it is no the depth that makes waves stand up but the bottom shape, the slope or 'rate of change of depth'. We all navigate in 10 m of water all the time. There is no known risk of rogue waves because the depth is 10m. The boat that got nailed coming into BoI, where the guy died, that got nailed by waves where it came onto soundings. That is usually around 500m depth isn't it? There is a general recognition of an increased risk of waves when boats come onto soundings, i.e. somewhere between 1,000m and 200m. So I think MNZ will struggle to show there is any difference in risk of a rogue wave at 50m or 10 m. If he'd ran aground, then the depth would be entirely relevant. But he didn't run aground...
|
|
|
Post by em on Aug 14, 2023 9:09:48 GMT 12
I know a bit about reef structures and waves cause that’s what I did for kicks for 30 years . That reef around murimotu island is a classic Bombie stucture . Chuck in backwash off those cliffs and you will get some very rapidly standing up waves .
The best comparison I could offer from a boating perspective is imagine a 10m deep bombie 500m off toots gables or Cape Brett in the same conditions as that day .
We have a reef out front here off Taiharuru head about 1.5-2 miles long which runs east-west . There’s a 16m deep pinnacle at the very eastern end right where the north-south bound traffic passes through . The old paper charts say “avoid in rough seas “ none of the chart plotter maps I’ve seen mention it . It gets hella rough there even when it’s not windy and almost breaks in 4m swell . I don’t have paper charts for North Cape but I wonder if there’s any warnings for Murimoto reef area ? If you plotted a track and an “avoid in rough weather “ popped up on your track , 99% of skippers would deviate to avoid i reckon .
|
|
|
Post by dutyfree on Aug 14, 2023 10:06:37 GMT 12
I looked on my electronic charts but no mention. 50m depth from the rocks is approx 0.9 to 1.4 nm. It rises quite steeply from the NE and slower from E to SE.
Can’t recall the swell direction that day. Were they rolled from behind or side? Thought one crew said from the stern quarters?
|
|
|
Post by fish on Aug 14, 2023 10:10:10 GMT 12
This is the spot with the high res fishing contours on, and the regular chart. Noting there basically isn't a 10m depth area. So for MNZ to say he was in 10m, he must have been basically on the rocks. It certainly steepens very quickly from 50m. I thought it was a SW front that was going through, so I am bemused as to the angles and how a rogue wave formed here, effectively in the lee of the mainland. Unless it wasn't a SW front, or that there was a major wind change with the front, which is completely normal. Edit, it was a NW front going over, from the report: What happened 3.6 By the time the Enchanter was approaching North Cape the sea conditions there had moderated with the passing of a cold front over the area from the north. The wind had eased and backed20 towards the north. The sea conditions had eased to an estimated 1.5 to 2.0 metre waves.
|
|