New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[RaymondR]

Dear boat alexandra, this has been a very interesting thread with probably as much support for your free roving ways as yays for the nanny state.

Australians and New Zealanders have a long tradition of friendly rivalry and as an Australian I am certain the when it comes to meddlesome bureaucrats we can put them to shame by completely and entirely out obnoxifying them. We are much better organized in that whilst they only have a single national jurisdictional system we are vertically integrated with both state and federal obnoxious bureaucrats (The up side is that as someone from the USA with a similar system you will be familiar with a binary system of harassment and will probably be appreciative of the much more interesting life two sets of troublesome folks can provide)

Our team in the State of Queensland have an excellent reputation for colorful interpretations of their law and our federal authorities can be relied upon to keep a close eye on the sort of feral you are reputed to be by a number of the posters in this thread.

For my part I thank you for all the enjoyment you have provided, 21 pages in three weeks or so appears to be an excellent record, and hope that once you finally manage to get free of the Kiwis you have a good crossing of the Tasman.

Good luck in all your endeavors.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by bluemoose

I'm assuming a rational human capable of making their own risk calculation based on their knowledge of their boat and skills. If the idiot throwing matches has been told that it will explode and continues, then he's a Darwin Award candidate... let him see if he wins.

Rational people do all kinds of nutty things, sometimes life threatening. While waiting to leave Hanalei Bay on Kuaui we talked to some perfectly rational people who had sailed a converted surf life boat from San Francisco. They were waiting to return, and said they spent 30 minutes a day pumping to keep their 22' boat with rotting canvas decking afloat at anchor. While they were rational, they were also just clueless, stupid hippies with no more sense than God gave a radish. Now, suppose I had the regulatory authority to prevent them from sailing off into the blue, but chose not to. Would I be morally responsible for their deaths if something bad happened? Whether I would be or not, I know I would feel I was. In this case, perhaps the official just doesn't want this person to drown, while if he lacked authority to prevent him from harm he likely would have done what I did - shake my head after trying to convince them that the return to weather was different than the downwind milk run they barely survived as is and wave bye bye.

[Chrisc]

No Ties is exactly right, and its time to get away from all this nonsense about signing waivers etc. You can have your signature added to the Declaration of Independence if you want but this does not release rescue organizations from search and rescue operations any more than it released me from rendering assistance to anyone in distress when I was a professional seafarer.
On a personal note what should I think about the OP's right to put to sea in a supposedly decrepit vessel, considering my No.2 son is a serving member of the Northland Volunteer Coastguard?
He ends up being the one who puts his money where his mouth is.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Chrisc

No Ties is exactly right, and its time to get away from all this nonsense about signing waivers etc. You can have your signature added to the Declaration of Independence if you want but this does not release rescue organizations from search and rescue operations any more than it released me from rendering assistance to anyone in distress when I was a professional seafarer.
On a personal note what should I think about the OP's right to put to sea in a supposedly decrepit vessel, considering my No.2 son is a serving member of the Northland Volunteer Coastguard?
He ends up being the one who puts his money where his mouth is.

Quite right. The rescue of idiots still puts non-idiots at risk, therefore the non-idiots should have some say in the idiots behavior.

[puketawa]

Originally Posted by bluemoose

Private: If everyone signs a waiver, let them go. It is between them and Poseidon at that point...

What about those who's obligation it is to go after those who don't get get to where they intend to. The rescuers who risk their lives, and put their families through worry rescuing those who don't feel that they need to have a properly setup and maintained vessel?


I am all for the Darwinian theory, but not when those who are not candidates have to risk their lives to rescue those whom are candidates.

[puketawa]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Not sure I'd use a marine engineer to judge a boat that has no motor.

Most marine engineers I have dealt with are far more capable than most of far more than just being a wrench monkey. This particular engineer is also a very well regarded surveyor, one MNZ often use in accident investigation cases. I consider it not my right to name him, however.

That being said, there is another BOI engineering firm which cant even tell you that a water pump">raw water pump is shot or a belt has failed ( literally, broken ). I would place very little weight on their comments.

Welcome Puketawa,

Thanks. Long time that I have been lurking, however this thread has me somewhat more motivated to post than normal.

I've also seen the boat up close, was parked next to me for 2 days. My view is that OP had a very good handle on electricals and is a good student of the weather. The boat would be very difficult to sink, and provided his supplies were adequate he should be allowed to go when the weather window is favourable. All the talk about a difficult Tasman crossing is irrelevant if you're heading N or NW and picking your weather patterns.

Being a good student of the weather is a very good thing. Electricals - well, the only electrics which keep the boat floating would be the bilge pumps... If you were intending this to refer to the electronics, yes, having a sound knowledge of how they work is certainly of most assistance in all conditions, but, mechanical failure of a rig ( the particular concern here appears to be the SST bolts in the chainplates ) no amount of electrical, or electronic knowledge will be of assistance other than being able to radio for assistance - including mounting up an emergency SSB antenna or using a satellite phone, or pressing the button on an epirb.

The simple fact is, we have not been given the full story by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect that there is far more going on, specially considering that it appears that either the detainer, or MNZ, have had someone involved.

And, to put my personal feeling into perspective, I wish the guy would bugger off with all haste. One reason, hacking into someones personal network via wifi is theft, at best. It also has significant implications regarding privacy and also misuse of an unknowing victims internet connection. I don't care if most people would not notice. In my eyes, the OP is a thief, which is by far the worst crime referred to in this thread. Anyone who condones this behaviour must have questionable morals.

[Steve Pope]

Currently the NZ SAR is searching for 7 people and a 70" oa, yacht that left NZ with a clearance and all the safety gear that most folk would carry when setting sail for the blue yonder. They ticked all the right boxes, yet they are now missing.
Sailors go to sea, **** can and does happen, and has been happening since Adam was a cowboy, Makes no difference whether you are a certified Captain or a Darwinian candidate.

Climb Mt Everest and come back, you are a hero, fall off and die, you are an idiot, there's no pleasing some people.

[DumnMad]

Alexandra is a funny joker, he's got some good batteries, an electric outboard motor and plenty of solar. In full sun and zero wind he can go at up to 3knots solar power only.
His boat is pretty waterproof. I keep saying its not about the boat its about the operator.
If any rescuers lives are put at risk it will be because some official forces him to set a timetable. We have a boat here in Nelson who due to lack of wind took 4months instead of 3months to get here. They were angry that a search was mounted merely because NZ officialdom insisted on an ETA.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by Albro359

And one day we will all have to have yellow lines marked on our decks to delineate no-go areas !!

Yes, and don't forget a large sign in at least 3 languages across the boom, saying "mind your head". Another at the entrance to the saloon in as many languages saying "mind the stairs". I know that there will soon be a law in some countries that this will have to be in braille too.

[David_Old_Jersey]

And some idiot will suggest having signs onboard about how to use the Khazi...........

[Sailmonkey]

Originally Posted by NoTies

There is a hell of a lot more to being a marine engineer than working on engines. I'm a semi retired marine engineer and deal in vessel surveys (safety compliance, insurance etc.) hull and structural work, etc. Not very often I have an engine in pieces.

I'll second that. Studying engines was a grand total of two classes, the other three and a half years were all taken up by mechanics of materials, thermodynamics, and other such silly things.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Delfin

(...) If the opinion is well founded that a person is likely to come to harm by pursuing an action, and another person has the ability to prevent the harm, isn't there a moral obligation to do so? (...)

IMHO, and with all due respect to Delfin:

There is not.

And what you said I consider a multiple fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies.

"opinion" - one should avoid making judgements based on opinions,
"well founded" - this is an opinion,
"likely to come to harm" - how and who calculates this 'likelihood'?
"ability to prevent the harm" - using force,
"moral obligation" - OP's morals may differ from yours, what makes you think you have the right to tell your moral are better and should be imposed on anybody else's?

The guy is assumed to have his right to leave (until proven otherwise) and if a NZ official says otherwise, they should produce the law and explain what has to be done to meet the law.

And the 'moral obligation' kicks in when a sailor gets into trouble and us taxpayers and sailors are in the position (geographical or economical) to rescue them.

People should be free to sail. It would be great if we could all have a fully insured Oysters with two liferafts, EPIRB and a paid, professional captain and crew. But until then, one should be free to sail.

Love,
b.

[jeanathon]

Originally Posted by Delfin

While they were rational, they were also just clueless, stupid hippies with no more sense than God gave a radish. Now, suppose I had the regulatory authority to prevent them from sailing off into the blue, but chose not to. Would I be morally responsible for their deaths if something bad happened? Whether I would be or not, I know I would feel I was.

The problem with this kind of thought process (and all nanny state thinking is) you have to believe yourself to be superior to other people. Very simply you know what is best for your fellow humans.
I used to be that arrogant as well, but fortunately was proven wrong by an idiot or two and lost the arrogance.

[scoobert]

i would love to see a photo of this drift log and garden laden boat

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

The problem with this kind of thought process (and all nanny state thinking is) you have to believe yourself to be superior to other people. Very simply you know what is best for your fellow humans.
I used to be that arrogant as well, but fortunately was proven wrong by an idiot or two and lost the arrogance.

Not too sure it is "nanny state thinking" to want to prevent a specific person with a specific boat that appears unlikely to survive a Tasman sea winter crossing from harming themselves and putting rescuers in danger too boot. Nanny state thinking would be arguing that if your boat doesn't cost at $500k you should stay in port, or single handing should be barred, or any one of a number of generalized do-good generated interferences with freedom.

Banning 32 ounce soft drinks is nannyism. Preventing a fool from falling into 500 gallons of coke and drowning is just behaving like a decent human being.

And congratulations on having such pride in not being arrogant anymore in the expression of your opinions. We can all only hope to someday achieve your humility.

Originally Posted by barnakiel

IMHO, and with all due respect to Delfin:

There is not.

With equal respect I am not making a logical argument, but a moral one. While you can argue that one person's morality is no better than another's, that presumes that there are no objective morals to appeal to. You can make that argument, but it is self contradictory. Setting aside the existence of objective morality, most humans agree that allowing someone to stick their fingers into a light socket while standing in a bucket of salt water is reprehensible if you are in a position to prevent it. Once a bunch of people give legal authority to someone else to enforce laws then that someone else is under a moral responsibility to do so within the spirit of the law. In this case, the reason for the regulation is to prevent people from getting into trouble and costing the taxpayers of NZ a lot of money while putting rescuers at risk. If the OP disagrees with the way this official is interpreting his responsibility then I presume he can appeal the decision - most civilized countries make allowances for such appeals. If the appeal fails, then there's the well founded basis I referred to for keeping this chap from quite possibly hurting himself and that creates a moral obligation to do so, at least according to the standards most of humanity follows.

If all the consequences of setting out in a questionable boat in the middle of winter to cross the Tasman were potted plants washing up on a beach somewhere I might feel differently. But that isn't the case here because the Kiwis will feel like that have to try to rescue him if he runs into trouble, even if it means some of the rescuers being harmed.