|
Post by Fogg on Apr 17, 2023 19:41:16 GMT 12
The report on “Who’s to blame and should be prosecuted (if appropriate)” should indeed take a short amount of time.
But the report on “What can be learned and what should change - including any recommended new rules & reg” that might take longer especially if it requires wider consultation.
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Apr 17, 2023 20:05:56 GMT 12
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Dad's Army types have already got the Rego / Licensing/ Fees /Fines already to go. New Guvmit Dept and set up like gun licensing (which only affects law abiding types). Consultation means letting the punters have their say and then ignoring them. This unfortunate crash was heaven sent for the bureaucrats and nothing they will do would have changed anything. And don't forget the enforcement agency...a mega million opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 17, 2023 21:18:57 GMT 12
The only recommendations coming out of this one will be "send him to spec-savers".
There is no shortage of existing rules in place to prevent this sort of cock-up. Basically, follow the colregs.
That it would take a govt department 18 months to produce a report on this is evidence of everything that is wrong with out great country.
And while we are at it. How come the victim is always named straight away, but the perpetrator remains anonymous? Seems counter to 'natural justice'.
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Apr 18, 2023 3:18:01 GMT 12
He’s probably paid for an injunction for name suppression.
And probably also a super-injunction over the top of that (which means media can’t even report on the existence of the underlying name-suppressing injunction).
That’s my guess.
|
|
|
Post by em on Apr 18, 2023 8:12:40 GMT 12
As much as I think he should be named the suppression provides some privacy/security to his family who have done nothing wrong . One article states his daughter was onboard at the time . If they are BOI locals , suppression won’t mean jack ….the bush telegraph in northland is way more efficient than broadband , but the message does get distorted . Mate of mine has a saying , “you can fart at one end of town and by the time the news reaches the other end you’ve supposedly shit your pants “
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Apr 18, 2023 13:20:40 GMT 12
Fault also lies on the ferry,stand on vessel must try to avoid collision,Maybe turned to stb and it might of been gunnel to gunnel contact.
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Apr 18, 2023 13:41:08 GMT 12
That's only if he saw it coming ! Waitere plodding along @ 7 - 8 knots. Fizzer approaching @ 40 + knots . Vision from beam on in Waitere wheelhouse ( I've been in that wheelhouse plenty of times) somewhat limited especially when you are looking ahead crossing the main channel. Like a P / S onus is 100% on Port boat.
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Apr 18, 2023 14:17:39 GMT 12
Given the nature of this incident has turned out more serious than when first posted, I’m wondering if the thread title should be changed to something more appropriate?
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 18, 2023 16:18:47 GMT 12
Fault also lies on the ferry,stand on vessel must try to avoid collision,Maybe turned to stb and it might of been gunnel to gunnel contact. I'd argue about that. Obligation of the starboard vessel is to stand on. When the starboard vessel starts doing 'crazy ivans' it more often than not results in a collision. That, and the blue ferry would have had very limited ability to avoid the collision, given the likely speed of the launch. She isn't going to turn on a dim, and even cutting engines would have negligible effect on forward way I would have thought.
|
|
|
Post by harrytom on Apr 18, 2023 17:56:08 GMT 12
Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action.
Perhaps ferry wasnt keeping proper lookout too?? Not that thee outcome would be any different
|
|
|
Post by em on Apr 18, 2023 18:41:56 GMT 12
Rule 17 deals with the action of the stand-on vessel, including the provision that the stand-on vessel may "take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone as soon as it becomes apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action. Perhaps ferry wasnt keeping proper lookout too?? Not that thee outcome would be any different It’s like expecting a walker to get out the way of a motorbike , a slow ferry cannot physically give way to something fanging downharbour . You would need a mind reading chart plotter telling you ….this nipple in this fizzboat is going to hit you in 3 minutes if you leave the wharf now .
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Apr 18, 2023 18:52:22 GMT 12
You would need a mind reading chart plotter telling you ….this nipple in this fizzboat is going to hit you in 3 minutes if you leave the wharf now . That’s what AIS / ARPA / MARPA alarms do. I doubt the ferry had any of those (although possibly AIS) and I’m not saying it would have helped in this particular situation. But they can give you collision warnings if setup accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by em on Apr 18, 2023 19:01:33 GMT 12
You would need a mind reading chart plotter telling you ….this nipple in this fizzboat is going to hit you in 3 minutes if you leave the wharf now . That’s what AIS / ARPA / MARPA alarms do. I doubt the ferry had any of those (although possibly AIS) and I’m not saying it would have helped in this particular situation. But they can give you collision warnings if setup accordingly. Yes in a sense when there are straight intersecting courses .
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 18, 2023 21:26:43 GMT 12
Assuming the launch had AIS and it was turned on. Having just had a new VHF installed, perhaps he was fucking around with his new AIS? Perhaps he was trying to test the collision avoidance alarms and it didn't work? Would this give him a defense to the accident? He was using all electronic aids to navigation to keep a lookout ;-)
If you have AIS, you have to use it. If you have radar, you have to use it. If you have eyes, you have to use them too. But, what does the rule say? "All available means to keep a lookout". This is how solo sailors can nap, you can use AIS and radar, as they keep a lookout.
Anyway, who says the ferry didn't take evasive action? He may well have. It is clear that the ferry is / was a sitting duck when comparing its speed and maneuverability to the speed of the launch.
And, as I've said earlier, the only time I hit another boat, was cause the fucker was on starboard and did not stand on. The starboard vessel has to have a compelling reason to break the stand-on rule in the first instance. And just because a collision occurred does not mean it was a compelling reason. It is possible for the starboard / stand on vessel to cause the collision.
|
|
|
Post by fish on Apr 18, 2023 21:28:04 GMT 12
PS, I'm not convinced the thread name is any better than the last one.
|
|