Originally Posted by s/v Moondancer
Cat I rules require a competent skipper
and a seaworthy
boat! Hardly onerous requirements but if you don't agree with them leave your radio
at home so that you don't bother anyone else when you are trouble and don't take any 'innocents' with you when you go.
Wonder if you have looked at the Cat One requirements ?
Here is a link:http://www.sailing.org/tools/documen...2012Mo1240112-
Now, go through them carefully and see if YOUR boat will actually pass muster.
Many of the requirements are valid and represent normal seamanship and boat husbandry. But others are difficult to apply to our form of sailing... things like requiring various certificates of construction and design that rule
out home built boats, boats not designed by a recognized authority and so on. And then there is the requirement for specific formal training for skipper and crews... all good stuff, but not in every cruiser's CV. OH yes... the rules require an inboard engine
to be fitted... and a trysail and storm jib
of high visibility material. And so on...
Note that I am not saying that any of these requirements are bad, just that a great many successful cruising vessels will not pass the test.
Back during the period where NZ did require Cat One for departing foreign boats we were told that the inspectors would not be too rigid in their interpretation of the rules. In practice, this was usually true, but IIRC there were a few folks who got crosswise with the inspectors and were denied approval. The recent incident with boat Alexander shows that individual interpretation of the rules can lead to difficulties even without the Cat One stipulations. To add these specific and technically complicated requirements would (even if legal
, which they are not) surely cause unneeded problems for both officials and cruisers.
Finally, we have no way of knowing whether the Nina would have passed the inspection, so to use this incident to support the imposition of stricter rules for departure is unwarranted.