Originally Posted by CassidyNZ
Section 21? Of which rule set? It appears that I may have missed something important about Cat 1. Section 21 of the Cat 1 rules is about crew/qualifications. Just wondering how that leads to expensive boat mods.
Also, if the Section 21 that you reference is part of Cat 1, why would foreign visiting boats be concerned? They’re not subjected to Cat 1.
The irony of Cat 1 is that it’s original intention AFAIK was to reduce the NZ govt exposure to the huge SAR costs associated with ill-found vessels having to be supported to when things go wrong. But a significant proportion of vessels in NZ’s SAR area (all foreign registered boats) are not required to comply with Cat 1 but receive identical support as those that do comply. An example: I have a close friend who immigrated to NZ 15 years ago, brought his boat with him, has lived here permanently since then and is an NZ citizen and, because his boat remains registered in his country of origin, he does not need to comply with Cat 1. Go figure.
Section 21 was part of the legal
nomenclature back in 1994/95 when Jenny Shiply, then minister of Transport, said that all vessels, regardless of flag state would need to pass a Cat 1 examination before being granted clearance to depart. After a long legal
battle which ended in your Supreme Court, that rule was thrown out. The foreign cruising community stayed away in droves for those years, us included, and many never returned, us included. We quite enjoyed the three seasons we spent cruising in NZ, loved the people and were welcomed warmly w here ever we went. But we were unwilling to be forced to do some things required at that time (we choose not to carry a dedicated life raft, for instance). And apparently now the requirements include a slew of certifications for skipper
and for crew... things I don't have and don't wish to go through the process of acquiring (expensive and time consuming). Apparently I'm not alone in this thinking. But by the time the rule was rescinded, we had moved on to basing our cruising in Australia
, and that proved to be fairly permanent... we still do!
As to the the "huge SAR costs associated with ill-found vessels having to be supported to when things go wrong", conversations with professional members of the SAR community at the time revealed that the costs of actual rescue
are not "huge" and would be replaced by costs of ongoing training
flights and missions. And ironically (at least to me) many of the boats that required rescue
in the infamous "Queen's Birthday" storm of June 1994, and including the only one lost
with its crew, were indeed Kiwi boats that HAD passed the Cat 1 exam. The cost of SAR was a political red herring, at least back in the mid 90s. I don't know about now.
As an aside, the Kiwi's punch well above their weight in many things, and SAR policies are one such. The willingness of those folks to not just rescue people from foundering boats, but to actually help them keep their boats afloat and getting them back to shore is pretty outstanding, and a kinda different mind set to the otherwise outstanding USCG who mostly don't feel that their role is to save or succor boats... just people. We salute the Kiwi navy
folks who do such a great job and who have helped many of our acquaintances over the years.