US off shore sailing regulations

[Steve Pope]

If he still flies an American / Canadian? flag, not at present, if he flies a NZ ensign then he comes under the same set of rules as the rest of us, experience does count for something though, depending on the inspector.
Another anecdote re inspections, a yacht being inspected was told that they would have to replace all their Galvanised rigging with SS, when queried on this the inspector who had no experience with Galv said that he had lost 4 masts over the years (he was a well known racer) and he didn't trust galvanised wire. Well after an at times heated discussion he allowed them to keep it. That rigging lasted with maintenance another 15 years, the inspector went on to lose at least another couple of masts.
Allan, don't get me wrong, I believe in having as safe a ship based on my experience and cherry picking from the experience of others (this group for one) I just dont want to carry stuff that some bureaucrat, perhaps without first hand experience decrees is necessary, at often inflated prices because you have no choice.

[Tspringer]

Alan, Thanks for the reply (And the great info via PM... much appreciated).

You mention that NZ rescues a number of sailors who venture offshore each year who are unprepared and unskilled / lacking in training. How can that be? NZ has these Cat1 safety regulations in place thus ensuring that such a thing can never happen... right?

I am not against safety. I just understand that it isn't something that can be regulated with any real success. I have never heard of a law being passed against stupidity having any meaningful impact on the stupid.

I do understand the expense associated with stupid people doing stupid things and thus putting themselves in harms way and necessitating a very expensive rescue. I would suggest that perhaps a better strategy than trying to force everyone to comply with expensive and arbitrary regulations would be to hold those who end up requiring rescue due to their own lack of preparation accountable for their actions. That means they pay a very heft fine and/or are forced to do considerable community service. A solution that holds the stupid accountable for their own stupidity is far better than one that punishes everyone for the moronic actions of the few.

I do realize that the above concept relies upon a core belief in individual responsibility for ones poor decisions and that isnt something that is very politically correct these days.

An equally valid concern in my mind relative to this kind of legislation is simply that while it may begin with a very valid concern and with the best possible intentions this kind of thing more often than not leads to classic political corruption. For example: an inspector in a given port who is getting a nice little kickback from a rigger for example would be mighty temped to flunk a large percentage of the boats inspected due to the rigging being unsafe in his opinion. There is no limit to how this sort of thing plays out.... and it always does.



Terry

[Rangiroo]

Terry.....at present the Cat 1 regs ONLY apply to NZ registered vessels....it does NOT apply to any vessel NOT registered in NZ.

I think you'll find that generally Cat 1 regs are mostly common sense regulations for going offshore in the waters around NZ. As someone else said if you had to spend $30k to qualify for Cat 1 then there's a monumental chance in my opinon that your boat was nowhere near safe enough to go offshore. Witness recent SAR search for that old Schooner 2 weeks late coming in from Vanuatu to NZ. NZ spent hundreds of thousands if not more searching for them only to find they were fine but didn't even have the VHF turned on let alone their SSB. They had not set any sort of radio sched and they had paying "crew" on board whose families had no idea where they were. Not a very high level of seamanship displayed by that captain.....and that's exactly the kind of behaviour a Cat 1 inspection might be able to reveal and change....so saving the good taxpayers of NZ a bundle.

[Pelagic]

I really second the point Steve made about the competency of yacht inspectors who quite often are out of touch with the reality of the design and the size of the owner’s pocketbook.

What happens when you drive that thin edge of mandatory standards of equipment on yachts….. is that some cleric with more ego than experience keeps using that authority to create a solid base for his own employment. They come on to a boat with the mindset of finding fault (in order to justify their time) and in Steve’s example, will fabricate unrealistic worries for the yacht owner. Soon they will get into newbuild and mandate the inclusion of silly things as part of a “cover your ass” policy, all the time going through a learning curve at our expense.

Most clerics are just that! Because they haven’t managed their own lives to be free to go sailing. Don’t allow them to take over your ark.

[Pelagic]

Rangaroo...not sure how being certified Cat 1 would insure that the watchkeeper turned the radios on?

Perhaps an "inspector" should always sail with them to make sure. I know ...silly but you can't legislate out the habits of idiots

[Tspringer]

Rangiroo.... Thanks for the clarification. The worrisome part is "at present..." I could see a huge pressure to try and enact such regulations for all visiting yachts in order to try and generate a giant new revenue source for the boating industry. Having such regulations in force for citizens of NZ only is an entirely different ball game. They get to vote and have a say in such regulations being enacted. If enough decide they do not like it, they can get it changed.

I really do understand the problem, I am simply suggesting that like a great deal of legislative "solutions" this may sound great on the surface but it is unlikely to be as effective in the real world as it was on paper when being enacted. Your own example makes that point: A boat can be Cat 1 certified and still have a crew that does stupid things like not turning on the radio. Also, how large and expensive will the bureaucracy tasked with enforcing all of this get? Lets not forget how Govt. usually works.

Here is a little example of typical Govt. operations:

A giant Govt. building with thousands of Govt. employees working inside is always a mess. It is determined that they need a full time janitor to keep the place clean. So they hire one. He does a great job.... all is fine and clean.

Then someone determines that the janitor really cannot be held accountable for his job performance unless his duties are clearly defined. So they hire a career specialist to make sure this is done and constantly updated to keep up with the times and that none of his duties violate his civil rights in any way. This specialist of coarse needs an assistant. All 3 need to have their payroll and benefits properly administered so they hire an HR executive... and he needs an assistant as well. Proper records of the janitors work must be kept so a records administrator is hired. Legal council is required to ensure everyone obeys all employment laws and finally a department chairman, assistant and co-chairman is required in order to manage the ongoing operations of the new Official Janitorial Services Agency.

Time goes by. The budget is determined to be too tight.... cuts are going to have to be made, the tax payers simply cannot afford all this expense.... so of coarse the janitor is let go.




Terry

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Rangaroo...not sure how being certified Cat 1 would insure that the watchkeeper turned the radios on?

Perhaps an "inspector" should always sail with them to make sure. I know ...silly but you can't legislate out the habits of idiots

Beat me to it. That boat might have been fully compliant with the cat 1 regs, but they still had to search for it, because the skipper couldn't be bothered turning on his radios.

Maybe an IQ test should be part of the cat 1 requirements?

[Randyonr3]

I've had some of the "over-protective" issues arise concerning the USCG. Our kids live in the California Delta so whenever we're in the area, we'll stop in for awhile.
About 50 or so miles inland from San Francisco on the Sacramento River lies a little town of Rio Vista, and it happenes to be a training area for the CG. There hasn't been a time that I sailed past that I haven't been boarded. And every time, The young ones have given me crap. Uasally they have an older gentelman with them and it all works out ok but BOY, when they first come aboard, the're out for blood.
The last time through, they were about to write me up for not having signal flags on the boat, which is written that any boat over 12 meters will have a FULL set of signal flags.. The older gentelman with the bunch told them to pass on the citation and they left.. I told them that I wouldnt know how to use them if I had them.
Oddly enough, after I docked the boat, I was telling another gent on what had happened.. We went inside his boat and lo-and-behold, he had a complete set in little holes under his nav station.

[Ex-Calif]

I have read this carefully but I can't find it...

How does NZ define off-shore?

Is this passing from coastal water to international waters? If so how far are the coastal waters? 20 miles?

Is it possible to spend a life of day sailing in NZ and never have this issue come up?

Southern oceans are not cool from everything I've read. Huge coast line, small Coast guard. Aussies and Kiwis are a lot more independent out of necessity.

We Americans are too used to having our government within arms reach of the barco-lounger to bail us out.

[Steve Pope]

NZ's economic zone extends to 200 miles from the Campbell islands in the south to the Chatham islands in the east up to Raoul island in the north and 200 miles of the west coast of NZ so it is pretty huge. A NZ flagged vessel can sail within that zone without getting Cat 1. Now these can be some of the wildest sailing areas in the world. The logic defies me that I can sail there no trouble or a lot further as long as I don't put into someone else's waters as you will only show up when entering another country and have to show clearance from your last port. yet to go to Fiji 9 or 10 days away sailing into an area with less turbulent weather (out of the cyclone season) I have to get cat 1, as they say in the US "go figure".

[David M]

I would be willing to bet that some people would think twice if New Zealand put a contingency on the Category 1 requirement that if you did not meet the requirement that there would be no rescue from New Zealand.

It's only right that if you are going to put someone else's resources and lives at risk that you need to meet some basic safety standards.

It comes down to choice. If you choose to leave without this equipment then you are truly on your own. New Zealand should at least give cruisers that choice with that understanding.

Governments need to start treating its citizens more as adults than children. For adults, there are consequences to your actions.

Also...what on Earth is a "pregnancy kit"? The last time I got a woman pregnant, I needed only one tool that I have been keeping around since I can remember. Is a pregnancy kit the tools necessary for child birth?

Perhaps it needs to be called a child birth kit?

[Pelagic]

[quote=David M;129473]
Also...what on Earth is a "pregnancy kit"? The last time I got a woman pregnant, I needed only one tool that I have been keeping around since I can remember. Is a pregnancy kit the tools necessary for child birth?/quote]


David I’m surprised you were not aware of this requirement, it goes back centuries as documented in works like The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner


"The Bride’s doors are opened wide,
And I am next of kin;
The guests are met, the feast is set:
May'st hear the merry din."

He holds him with his skinny hand,
"There was a ship," quoth he.
"Hold off! unhand me, greybeard loon!"
Eftsoons his hand dropt he.

He holds him with his glittering eye -
The wedding-guest stood still,
And with his Cat 1 Pregnancy Kit :
The Mariner hath his will.

The son came up upon the left,
Out of the sea came he!
And he shone bright, and on the right
Went down into the sea. ….Oooops!... with apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge

[Alan Wheeler]

Firstly, I think this is a great discussion and I applaud you all for keeping cool calm and collective.

You mention that NZ rescues a number of sailors who venture offshore each year who are unprepared and unskilled / lacking in training. How can that be? NZ has these Cat1 safety regulations in place thus ensuring that such a thing can never happen... right?

As already stated by Rangiroo, we have a slight "loophole" in the system one could say. A recent incident discussed here last year was of a Tri going missing on the way up to Tonga. The boat was found some months later, but none of the two crew were ever found. A message was found written on the side of the Hull. Many people tried telling the skipper that the boat was unsafe. If it was NZ registered, it would never have meet the Cat1 regs and would never have been allowed to leave. But the skipper had it under an Australian flag. He meet a Kiwi girl, she was a Solo Mother of two, and they were never seen again.

I really second the point Steve made about the competency of yacht inspectors who quite often are out of touch with the reality of the design and the size of the owner’s pocketbook.

I think one issue we have is lack of consistency with inspectors. But in general, most inspectors are fairly easy going with inspections. I guess you will get the odd one that is not. But the big issues are usually not found in the cruising range of boats. This aspect scared the heck out of me when I read some rules regarding stability etc having to be tested. It seems this is more for racing hulls not the cruisers.

not sure how being certified Cat 1 would insure that the watchkeeper turned the radios on?

Very good point. But I think if a skipper has his vessel at a Cat1 level, he maybe perhaps a better Skipper. To do what that skipper did, is just plain bad skippering. It probably wouldn't, but one could only hope that the effort of achieving Cat1 might make the skipper just that little more "proffesional".

How does NZ define off-shore?

It actually has nothing to do with offshore. It is about clearing customs for leaving Nz to enter another country. You can sail as far as you like. But you must not enter another country.
By the way, our waters extend beyond Campbell Island to Antarctica. We have a small piece of the Antarctic with a few sheds on it called Scott Base. Pete Wedderrel can tell you all about that place.

If you choose to leave without this equipment then you are truly on your own. New Zealand should at least give cruisers that choice with that understanding.

Yeah but ya see, that is what I was trying to say earlier. Ya just can't go leaving someone out there when you have the means of rescuing them. How could you? I mean, we all have speed restrictions on highways, to protect both parties. The same could be said of Cat1. It helps lesson the risk for both parties. Sailor and rescuer.

[stuartcnz]

Interesting discussion!
I am seeing a lot of cultural mis-understanding amongst it though. Amongst New Zealanders there will always be varying points of view over Cat 1. Part of this is that most New Zealanders (unless they have actually been through an inspection) don't actually understand the process. In a lot of ways Cat 1 is akin to Eastern thinking with no absolutes. Where as when you read the rules, everything reads as difinite absolutes with no lee way for variation.

It should be remembered that part of the inspection is evaluating the experience of the skipper and crew for the intended voyage. As far as I am aware there is no prerequisite that they hold any particular certificates of competency, but they must be able to demonstrate in some way that they are competent to do what they intend.

It is a requirement that the yacht has a contingency plan for a jury rig if this becomes necessary. I have not seen any specifics as to how the jury rig must be, just that one has been planned for and can be carried out if necessary. During one of the Whitbread around the world races, Cermaco was dismasted. The crew salvaged the remnant of the mast, using a bread board as a mast step set up a dury rig and sailed something like 1500 miles that way. What kind of contingency plan they had before hand I do not know, but they did have a sail maker onboard who was able to recut existing sails for the new rig. Today if that same crew were going through an inspection they would be able to demonstrate crew skills as a factor for how they would go about a jury rig.

Yes there are specific equipment requirements as well, such as jackstay requirments which actually allow a choice of material but do have breaking strength minimums. Would you be prepared to go offshore without having the ability to fix yourself with a harness to the vessel? if so, then that would indicate an aspect of your seamanship competency. remember that the skipper and crews experience is taken into account as part of the inspection.

I seem to recall the rescue of a French father and daughter of their yacht, off the New Zealand coast awhile back. It was during a storm. So far as I am aware the boat was well found and probably well supplied and fitted out. The father insisted in being taken back out to his yacht and was so accomodated. The weather once again got the better of him and he requested another rescue which was done, probably at risk to those who performed the resue. Later on the boat was collected in what I understood was a basically undamaged condition having been left to fend for itself for several days.

What I am trying to get at here is that in this last instance, if the skipper was a New Zealander it would have likely have been that he would not have been able to pass his Cat 1 inspection based on crew experience,and a more experienced skipper would not have needed to be rescued, and yet there are other yachts who pass the same inspection with less than the prescribed equipment list when they have been able to demonstrate equivalent alternatives and crew experience.

With the French yacht the first rescue was paid for by the New Zealand tax payers, a bill that was probably greater than the cost of the well found boat. I believe there was an effort to get reimbursment for the subsequent rescue and salvage from the owners insurance company.

Cat 1 is a New Zealand system created for the New Zealand circumstance, which is a small population and economy in some of the most treacherous waters in the world.

[Boracay]

As I understand it there are three main objections to the cat 1 inspection.
1. Costs money.
2. It can represent an opinion.
3. The rules are not particularly suitable to cruising yachts.

1. If the Government thinks that it is necessary then let them pay for it.
2. & 3. Make a satisfactory inspection advisory not mandatory.