Unbridled Stupidity and the Viking Longship

[Capt Phil]

Yep! But I have emigrated to Zephyr Cove! Cheers, Phil

[valhalla360]

This reminds me of asking a buddy who is a cop if you will get pulled over for speeding and he tells you, you they won't unless you are going 10mph over but if you ask for it in writing, he will laugh at you and his statement offers zero protection in the event of another cop pulling you over for doing 5mph over.


Without getting into the technical details of measurement, the boat appears to require a pilot. If you expect special dispensation, get it in writing from the proper authority.

[CSY Man]

Immediate Release
Norwegian Viking Ship Draken Harald Hårfagre
Cornwall, Ontario (July 12, 2016) — The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority (GLPA) is a Canadian Federal Crown Corporation responsible for administering the Pilotage Act in the Great Lakes regions. There has been a misunderstanding related to the pilotage requirements for the vessel Draken Harald Hårfagre in which the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority in Canada has been wrongly targeted regarding the above ship’s pilotage requirements. In Canada (the Great Lakes Region), foreign flag ships such as the visiting Norwegian ship, are subject to pilotage only when they exceed 35 meters in length. In this case, the vessel’s length is less than 35 meters, and therefore is not subject to pilotage in Canadian waters. Notwithstanding this, the vessel did order a pilot from the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority to transit the first leg of the voyage that was entirely in Canadian waters. It did so even if it did not require a pilot.
On the next stage of its voyage, it travelled in International waters where U.S. Coast Guard regulations are in place. Pilotage in those International waters are required west of Cornwall, Ontario for the entire Great Lakes region except the Welland Canal when a vessel is operating in commercial trade.
In the Welland Canal, the Norwegian ship again ordered the service of a pilot, even if it was not required. In both cases where the pilots were ordered, the ship was travelling in Canadian waters. Invoices for both sectors totaled $17,000.00.
Pilotage requirements for the U.S. Coast Guard are different than Canadian requirements in International waters, and as such, the Norwegian ship is required under American laws to avail themselves of a licenced pilot in all International and American waters of the Great Lakes. Canada has no reciprocity agreement with the U.S. when it comes to pilotage exemptions on foreign flag vessels, therefore the American laws are in place and as such, the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority is not responsible for this matter.
We understand a great deal of people following the vessel’s travels in the last few months are upset regarding this issue. We remain available to answer all pilotage-related questions regarding this vessel or answering any other questions you might have regarding pilotage in Canada and the Great Lakes.
For more information:
Robert Lemire
Chief Executive Officer
Great Lakes Pilotage Authority
613-933-2991, ext. 205

[darylat8750]

The link for the petition gets to their web site but comes up dead and I can't find the Viking boat on the site. Does that mean they have enough signatures?

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by darylat8750

The link for the petition gets to their web site but comes up dead and I can't find the Viking boat on the site. Does that mean they have enough signatures?

D,
There appears to be a problem with the link this morning. I'll check it out further. Also, Thanks to CSY for the excellent information provided above by the GLPA. Let's all hope this is resolved quickly. Best, R

[rognvald]

Yesterday, July 17, 2016 at 1200 hours, was the last day of the petition seeking to allow Draken Harald Hafargre, historic Viking Longship, to continue its journey through the Great Lakes without the need/expense of a Great Lakes Coast Pilot. As of this morning, the petition to Commandant Rear Admiral June Ryan is 11,200 votes short. However, from my site, it appears the petition has closed(???). So, for those on our Forum who were so kind to sign the original petition, there is a addendum to the original(sent via e-mail) which would allow you to vote who would be the best person/group to present the case and the petition to the USCG: The Draken Expedition, Sons of Norway(A US Group) or J. Turbes, originator of the petition.
It appears our enlightened US government who touts itself as the shining star of the world, in all matters large and small, has developed a deaf ear to the pleas for this unique educational experience. And, it is important to note, that the nations of Greenland, Iceland and Canada did not require or in the case of Canada-- waived the requirement of a Coast Pilot to allow this journey to continue. It is quite amazing to me that this may signal the end of Harald's journey, but perhaps I said it best in the title of this discussion--unbridled stupidity. Sincerely, Captain Rognvald--clearly a Viking in distress.

[rognvald]

The USCG has refused to waive the requirement for a coast pilot for the Draken Harald Hafargre. The will have to pay in excess of $400K to continue their journey throughout the Great Lakes. However, the Sons of Norway have created a funding effort which, to date, will allow the longship to dock in Chicago on July 27-31th, 2016. Further stops have, as of yet, not been scheduled. Here's the link to the Sons of Norway.
https://www.sofn.com/
Thanks again to our enlightened neighbors to the North for their help in the Great Lakes.

[valhalla360]

So to summarize:
- Guy comes up with enough money to buy/build 130'+ boat.
- Guy fails to contact the authorities in charge to confirm the rules and ask for an exemption prior to arriving.
- Authorities require vessel that just shows up to follow the rules that have been in place for decades.
- Guy is upset that he is expected to follow the rules.


It's sad if this is the end of the voyage for those who would enjoy seeing this unique vessel but the problem is the guy who showed up and expected special treatment because he has a unique boat.


I salute the CG for applying the rules evenly and fairly.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So to summarize:
- Guy comes up with enough money to buy/build 130'+ boat.
- Guy fails to contact the authorities in charge to confirm the rules and ask for an exemption prior to arriving.
- Authorities require vessel that just shows up to follow the rules that have been in place for decades.
- Guy is upset that he is expected to follow the rules.


It's sad if this is the end of the voyage for those who would enjoy seeing this unique vessel but the problem is the guy who showed up and expected special treatment because he has a unique boat.


I salute the CG for applying the rules evenly and fairly.

Remember thou what's the reason behind the pilotage requirement, and knowing that what kind of environmental hazard you think a big wooden row boat might be? j
So just IMO I salute the USCG protecting the great lakes from the big risk of a gallon of cooking oil and a portapotty

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Remember thou what's the reason behind the pilotage requirement, and knowing that what kind of environmental hazard you think a big wooden row boat might be? j
So just IMO I salute the USCG protecting the great lakes from the big risk of a gallon of cooking oil and a portapotty

The main purpose of pilotage is ships captains operating in unfamiliar waters may not be aware of navigational issues in those waters. Today on the on the Great Lakes, I would think your average freighter captain is far more familiar with local waters than this guy but they are still expected to take on pilots in many cases.

If you want to argue the pilot system is out dated (and it probably is with modern navigation systems), that's a different question but no excuse to change the rules because he failed to request an exemption ahead of time.

I support the CG in that they didn't throw the rules out because this guy failed to plan ahead and realistically, the CG officer in charge has been put in an unfair position. If he allows this guy to break the law and there is an accident, he's going to have to explain why he didn't hold him to the well established rules and having a neat boat isn't going to fly.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The main purpose of pilotage is ships captains operating in unfamiliar waters may not be aware of navigational issues in those waters. Today on the on the Great Lakes, I would think your average freighter captain is far more familiar with local waters than this guy but they are still expected to take on pilots in many cases.

If you want to argue the pilot system is out dated (and it probably is with modern navigation systems), that's a different question but no excuse to change the rules because he failed to request an exemption ahead of time.

I support the CG in that they didn't throw the rules out because this guy failed to plan ahead and realistically, the CG officer in charge has been put in an unfair position. If he allows this guy to break the law and there is an accident, he's going to have to explain why he didn't hold him to the well established rules and having a neat boat isn't going to fly.

Dunno for sure but I believe it's not a law instead a rule set by an official authority. Don't see either how a boat capable to be beached at full speed and if needed towable with man power on dry land could be ship wrecked just becouse of lacking a pilot..
Not saying CG rules are outdated, it's the vessel which is not what these rules were written for..

BR Teddy

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

So to summarize:
- Guy comes up with enough money to buy/build 130'+ boat.
- Guy fails to contact the authorities in charge to confirm the rules and ask for an exemption prior to arriving.
- Authorities require vessel that just shows up to follow the rules that have been in place for decades.
- Guy is upset that he is expected to follow the rules.


It's sad if this is the end of the voyage for those who would enjoy seeing this unique vessel but the problem is the guy who showed up and expected special treatment because he has a unique boat.


I salute the CG for applying the rules evenly and fairly.

I have two statements in regards to the above response:
1.) It is obvious that you did not read any of the links provided or Mike
O'Reilly's post 17 which repeated the fact that the Captain of
Draken Harald had assurances from the Great Lakes Pilots Association
that there would be no problems with a pilot requirement before they
left Norway for the Great Lakes.
2.) The creators of our US legal system in their infinite wisdom understood
that all laws are malleable and subject to interpretation and change
which is why we have a judiciary to interpret the laws as they
were written and to apply common sense to their nuances and intent
based on the evidence presented in every case. A strict
interpretation of the law ,as you propose, has never been a
trademark of the US legal system but rather representative of
monarchies and dictatorships. However, in this case, it was not only
the law which was distorted ,since the longship was not a commercial
vessel carrying cargo, but also the stranglehold of the unions which
will always be inflexible when there is a monetary gain in the form
of a required union employee at the tune of $400. per hour. And, there
was no attempt by the USCG to alter or waive this
absurd requirement to allow the Draken Harald to continue its journey.
But then again, how fortunate to have injected an additional $400K
into our ailing economy at the expense of a goodwill ambassador from
Noway engaged in a historic, educational opportunity for Americans.
There is an old saying that aptly applies in this situation to some:
"You just can't see the forest through the trees." Good luck and
safe sailing.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by rognvald

I have two statements in regards to the above response:
1.) ...the Captain of Draken Harald had assurances from the Great Lakes Pilots Association that there would be no problems with a pilot requirement before they left Norway for the Great Lakes.

Unfortunately, the Great Lakes Pilots Association is a Canadian organization, not an American one. So I'm sure the information that was given by them was relevant and correct for Canadian waters. American, maybe not so much.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by rognvald

2.) The creators of our US legal system in their infinite wisdom understood
that all laws are malleable and subject to interpretation and change
which is why we have a judiciary to interpret the laws as they
were written and to apply common sense to their nuances and intent
based on the evidence presented in every case.

Sorry but I have to disagree with the statement that "all laws are malleable and subject to interpretation". Not saying this isn't true in this situation but it is absolutely not true for all laws. There have been many laws and resulting problems in the US where the judiciary had no leeway in applying the law, often to the detriment of logic, the spirit of the law and impact on citizens and society.

One classic example were mandatory sentencing laws for drug crimes. There were numerous cases of small time users that might have previous arrests for small quantities that after reaching the mandatory minimum or in some states a three strikes law were sentenced to 20-30 years or in one case I recall, life. In these cases many judges publicly stated the sentence was totally unreasonable, did not fit the crime nor the criminal but they were forced by the law to impose the long sentences. No malleability or interpretation was allowed.

I have not followed every post in the thread so pardon me if I missed this, but I have seen comments that the decision to register as a commercial vessel was a significant factor in the requirement for a pilot in US waters. Is that correct? If so, why did they decide to register as commercial?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by fstbttms

Unfortunately, the Great Lakes Pilots Association is a Canadian organization, not an American one. So I'm sure the information that was given by them was relevant and correct for Canadian waters. American, maybe not so much.

That is not the real issue, instead the CG's lack of common sense is..