Right to safe harbour

[IslandInfedel]

Originally Posted by fxykty

Any organisation (note, NOT a person) will have authorisation to record radio communications, as shown in FCC Title 47. Individuals cannot have such authorisation.

What don’t you understand about the (legal) differences that have been cited for you between hearing a conversation, recording that conversation, and publishing that conversation?

It’s not about privacy; it’s about recording and publishing.

All these illegal products

https://www.lightspeedaviation.com/p...3-anr-headset/

“FlightLink – Capture incoming and outgoing communications with Lightspeed’s free FlightLink recording app for Apple iPad and iPhone via the supplied patch cable. This app is exclusively available on Lightspeed headsets.”

Even Apple iTunes is in on this crime?



Again listing to a broadcast on VHF marine or air is not a private communication.

Folks record their comms in planes all the time, their comms as well as anyone else on frequency, there are TONS of these videos out there find me a case where someone was prosecuted for recording one

Your VHF ain’t a private telephone call

Here ya go
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides...communications


But this is all quite silly and odd, you hear a radio transmission of a armed Tonga vessel in international waters trying to bully a wooden sailboat into weather her captain doesn’t believe is safe, and your comment is about if the radio chatter should have been recorded?!

[HeinSdL]

The rules governing recording and publishing VHF messages I would suggest make complete sense.

On the one hand I would absolutely expect an institution such as the coast guard to record everything. "Mayday, crackle, mayday, crackle, crackle, sinking, crackle, 56 crackle north, etc, etc" would definitely need to be recorded so they have the best chance to listen again and again and hopefully extract more data.

On the other hand, for every john dick and his dog to do the same and then to publish on Youtube "Top 10 Most Harrowing Mayday Calls!!" I would find highly disturbing. And may even cause some people to hesitate prior to broadcasting.

So yes, as with most rules & regulations in the mariner's world, it is yet again hard to argue with this one.

[deltaten]

I saw this event posted by another Toober that was there. They had already anchored when approached and contacted by Tongan patrol. Asked to leave, they presented a reasonable and calm arguement and the authorities " kicked it upstairs". The PTBs allowed them to stay the few days until wind came up and paid them a genial inspection visit.
The NZ boat, OTOH, was quite was quite brusk upon initial contact, and that attitude went downhill from there.

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by deltaten

I saw this event posted by another Toober that was there. They had already anchored when approached and contacted by Tongan patrol. Asked to leave, they presented a reasonable and calm arguement and the authorities " kicked it upstairs". The PTBs allowed them to stay the few days until wind came up and paid them a genial inspection visit.
The NZ boat, OTOH, was quite was quite brusk upon initial contact, and that attitude went downhill from there.

Any chance of a link?

[Audeamus]

Has it not occurred to anybody that one of the yachts at Minerva at the time requested permission and were denied it to visit to visit Tongan waters but they went anyway. They arrived and apparently the patrol boat let them in. This may have been well and dandy with the patrol boat however there is a pretty good chance that someone in Tonga would not have been happy with the visitors or the crew of the patrol boat.

Perhaps the next poor unfortunate boat to arrive cops flak that comes from on high.

(Yeah I've read the complete other thread and skimmed this one. It has nothing to do with whether this is in fact Tongan waters or not - Tonga thinks it is and they are exercising their sovereignty - and currently Tonga is closed).

[boatman61]

Ahhh.!!!
That old fantasy again.. I have Rights.!!!
Bollox.. All you have are Provisional Permissions from the day your born till the day you die.
😍😍😍

[NevilleCat]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

I went to the yacht Windora's website and there is more to the story. In short, they were allowed to say for another day thanks to some efforts from NZ.

Per their website:


The next day the Tongan Navy turned up and ordered us to sea. It was blowing very strong from the south and Phil said he wasn't going to leave. They came over in an inflatable and, keeping a safe distance, had a long chat, eventually allowing us another day. We were ordered to stay on our boats which was okay considering the lousy weather. The next day was flat calm and the other yachts motored on their way while we set about doing more sail repairs. We realized we wouldn't be finished by the deadline of noon, so Phil contacted our son and his brother in NZ who got on our case as the Navy was threatening to tow us out to sea. They flew a drone over us at one stage which felt pretty invasive. Phil grabbed a flare to blow it out of the sky so I called them up on the VHF and suggested they move it away quickly!!! Noon arrived and the captain ordered us to sea, Phil asked for 3 more hours which they refused and they said they were coming over to remove us. The High Commissioner in Tonga had been in touch that morning and NZ Rescue Centre who had told us to let off the EPIRB if we needed to, so Phil did that. Immediately the High Commissioner phoned and told us we could stay for 2 more days and to call up the Navy captain to tell him to contact the Commander back in Tonga. After that, they left us alone, but stayed close by. It was all pretty awful. Next morning we woke to SE winds so left at daybreak, followed by the Navy until we were past South Minerva. NZ were great, making it possible to stay and do our repairs before tackling the final 900 miles to Opua."

So many questions...letting off an epirb to alert the Tongan High Commissioner?
Threatening to shoot down a navy drone with a flare?

I find the Zatara family painful, but Keith at least acted with diplomacy and respectfulness and had no problems.
But I'm hoping that was not typical of the wake Windora has left all around the world?

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by Intrepid59

Some sources will say you have a 72 hour grace period, while others claim it is as long as you need to fix, wait out bad weather, etc.

The relevant articles are Articles 17, 18, and 19, beginning with The Right of Innocent Passage, in Section 3. Pages 30-31.

https://www.un.org/depts/los/convent...s/unclos_e.pdf

+1!


This basically responds the matter.


No?


b.

[alctel]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

I went to the yacht Windora's website and there is more to the story. In short, they were allowed to say for another day thanks to some efforts from NZ.

Per their website:
"
The next day the Tongan Navy turned up and ordered us to sea. It was blowing very strong from the south and Phil said he wasn't going to leave. They came over in an inflatable and, keeping a safe distance, had a long chat, eventually allowing us another day. We were ordered to stay on our boats which was okay considering the lousy weather. The next day was flat calm and the other yachts motored on their way while we set about doing more sail repairs. We realized we wouldn't be finished by the deadline of noon, so Phil contacted our son and his brother in NZ who got on our case as the Navy was threatening to tow us out to sea. They flew a drone over us at one stage which felt pretty invasive. Phil grabbed a flare to blow it out of the sky so I called them up on the VHF and suggested they move it away quickly!!! Noon arrived and the captain ordered us to sea, Phil asked for 3 more hours which they refused and they said they were coming over to remove us. The High Commissioner in Tonga had been in touch that morning and NZ Rescue Centre who had told us to let off the EPIRB if we needed to, so Phil did that. Immediately the High Commissioner phoned and told us we could stay for 2 more days and to call up the Navy captain to tell him to contact the Commander back in Tonga. After that, they left us alone, but stayed close by. It was all pretty awful. Next morning we woke to SE winds so left at daybreak, followed by the Navy until we were past South Minerva. NZ were great, making it possible to stay and do our repairs before tackling the final 900 miles to Opua."

So they were allowed to stay another day while it calmed down, and then the next day was really calm but they still refused to leave?

And then threatened to shoot down the patrol ships drone with a flare?

And then set off their EPIRB? And they are somehow the victims here?

So much for a clean wake.

Originally Posted by Audeamus

Has it not occurred to anybody that one of the yachts at Minerva at the time requested permission and were denied it to visit to visit Tongan waters but they went anyway. They arrived and apparently the patrol boat let them in. This may have been well and dandy with the patrol boat however there is a pretty good chance that someone in Tonga would not have been happy with the visitors or the crew of the patrol boat.

Perhaps the next poor unfortunate boat to arrive cops flak that comes from on high.

(Yeah I've read the complete other thread and skimmed this one. It has nothing to do with whether this is in fact Tongan waters or not - Tonga thinks it is and they are exercising their sovereignty - and currently Tonga is closed).

I was thinking this as well. I could def see Tonga authorities not being happy and there being extra pressure applied to the patrol boat crew - hence this interaction.

[Discovery 15797]

Originally Posted by IslandInfedel

Tonga has zero right to limit boats in international waters, if it’s outside of their EEZ it is international waters, no matter how much their little king stomps his feet.

“ An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a sea zone prescribed by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over which a sovereign state has special rights regarding the exploration and use of marine resources, including energy production from water and wind. It stretches from the baseline out to 200 nautical miles (nmi) from its coast. In colloquial usage, the term may include the continental shelf. The term does not include either the territorial sea or the continental shelf beyond the 200 nmi limit. The difference between the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone is that the first confers full sovereignty over the waters, whereas the second is merely a "sovereign right" which refers to the coastal state's rights below the surface of the sea. The surface waters, as can be seen in the map, are international waters.”

This has been discussed in other threads...

Here is the current United Nations Convention

THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF OF THE KINGDOM OF TONGA IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE LAU-COLVILLE RIDGE PURSUANT TO PART VI OF AND ANNEX II TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

In summary it states

WHEREAS the Reefs known as North Minerva Reef and South Minerva Reef have long served as fishing grounds for the Tongan people and have long been regarded as belonging to the Kingdom of Tonga has now created on these Reefs islands known as Teleki Tokelau and Teleki Tonga; AND WHEREAS it is expedient that we should now confirm the rights of the Kingdom of Tonga to these islands; THEREFORE we do hereby AFFIRM and PROCLAIM that the islands, rocks, reefs, foreshores and waters lying within a radius of twelve miles [19.31 km] thereof are part of our Kingdom of Tonga.

Here is Fiji's petition to claim the area which has not yet been resolved by the UN.

Hopefully that puts to rest any further speculative, uninformed, and senseless debates regarding sovereignty of these reefs?

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

I went to the yacht Windora's website and there is more to the story. In short, they were allowed to say for another day thanks to some efforts from NZ.

Per their website:
"Great sailing saw us arriving at North Minerva reef on the 5th July. We don't usually fish now but were hanging out for something fresh and as we approached the reef Phil caught this delicious Yellowfin tuna. There were 2 other boats in the reef which had arrived from NZ and were on their way to Fiji which had opened to cruisers.

The next day the Tongan Navy turned up and ordered us to sea. It was blowing very strong from the south and Phil said he wasn't going to leave. They came over in an inflatable and, keeping a safe distance, had a long chat, eventually allowing us another day. We were ordered to stay on our boats which was okay considering the lousy weather. The next day was flat calm and the other yachts motored on their way while we set about doing more sail repairs. We realized we wouldn't be finished by the deadline of noon, so Phil contacted our son and his brother in NZ who got on our case as the Navy was threatening to tow us out to sea. They flew a drone over us at one stage which felt pretty invasive. Phil grabbed a flare to blow it out of the sky so I called them up on the VHF and suggested they move it away quickly!!! Noon arrived and the captain ordered us to sea, Phil asked for 3 more hours which they refused and they said they were coming over to remove us. The High Commissioner in Tonga had been in touch that morning and NZ Rescue Centre who had told us to let off the EPIRB if we needed to, so Phil did that. Immediately the High Commissioner phoned and told us we could stay for 2 more days and to call up the Navy captain to tell him to contact the Commander back in Tonga. After that, they left us alone, but stayed close by. It was all pretty awful. Next morning we woke to SE winds so left at daybreak, followed by the Navy until we were past South Minerva. NZ were great, making it possible to stay and do our repairs before tackling the final 900 miles to Opua."

Trying to shoot the Tongan Navy's drone "out of the sky"? I've got to say that this is certain to get any and all authorities totally peed.

Seriously - what kind of treatment do you expect if you start shooting at the authorities?

[Discovery 15797]

I also think the statement "NZ Rescue Centre who had told us to let off the EPIRB if we needed to" is complete bull$hit.

In the US the the non-distress activation of an EPIRB (e.g., as a hoax, through gross negligence, carelessness or improper storage and handling) to the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC will prosecute cases based upon evidence provided by the Coast Guard, and will issue warning letters or notices of apparent liability for fines up to $10,000.

I'm sure NZ has similar regulations/laws. Here is one example from Australia of a false activation.

Activating the EPIRB may have resulted in the Tongan navy rescuing (removing) them from the disabled vessel, or towing the vessel into safe port (and repatriating the crew), or a hefty fine.

I'm not a youboob fan-boy...but I suspect much of the "altered reality" shown on youtube is very similar to what one might see on "Jersey Shore" or "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

[fugue137]

I'm amused and horrified that I'm allowed to project photons right through your living space and even your body without your consent, and then tell you what you can and can't do with them. No body sovereignty here...

I'd like to propose that the discussion of right/wrong isn't necessarily the same as the discussion of legal/illegal. Sometimes revealing illegal or unethical behaviours is illegal---it's in the interest of any powerful entity to preserve its power, and one way to do that is to make collecting evidence of its actions illegal (see US Government vs. whistleblowers). Simply saying "it's illegal and therefore it's wrong" seems simplistic. Secrecy is a two-edged sword, and while most laws are generally helpful, and usually used to help those of us rich enough to be on a forum like this, that's not an absolute guarantee. Especially for African Americans or anyone living near a polluter or anyone who knows what Trump and Putin talked about behind closed doors...

But that's all generalities. In this case, yeah, the guy seemed a bit like he wanted to pick a fight for debatable reasons. Perhaps the Tongan captain did as well. It's horrible how covid19 is making us all fear each other even when there's no sense in it. It seems that much good seamanship and lifemanship is just learning the correct level of balancing various risks and benefits, and I hope that one day I am better at it than either of these guys.

[barnakiel]

Perhaps NZ SAR centre meant " if you go outside and the storm breaks you, make sure to deploy the EPIRB ..." Or some similar message. Unlikely asking anybody to deploy EPIRB for otherwise purposes.


Shooting down a drone of a govt administration ??? How would such an act be treated if you were say an Indonesian boat in AUS waters ???


I would keep the flares for the moment when they are appropriate. Hoping such a moment never arrives.


Surprising the kind of info flowing into this thread. I would like to symphatise with the cruisers in question, BUT ....



b.

[IslandInfedel]

Originally Posted by HeinSdL

The rules governing recording and publishing VHF messages I would suggest make complete sense.

On the one hand I would absolutely expect an institution such as the coast guard to record everything. "Mayday, crackle, mayday, crackle, crackle, sinking, crackle, 56 crackle north, etc, etc" would definitely need to be recorded so they have the best chance to listen again and again and hopefully extract more data.

On the other hand, for every john dick and his dog to do the same and then to publish on Youtube "Top 10 Most Harrowing Mayday Calls!!" I would find highly disturbing. And may even cause some people to hesitate prior to broadcasting.

So yes, as with most rules & regulations in the mariner's world, it is yet again hard to argue with this one.

If you hesitate to make a mayday call because it might be recorded and end up on YouTube, I wonder if you are really in a position of real distress.

The other sectors I promise you no professional who finds their situation needing to declare even cares about YouTube.

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

I also think the statement "NZ Rescue Centre who had told us to let off the EPIRB if we needed to" is complete bull$hit.

In the US the the non-distress activation of an EPIRB (e.g., as a hoax, through gross negligence, carelessness or improper storage and handling) to the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC will prosecute cases based upon evidence provided by the Coast Guard, and will issue warning letters or notices of apparent liability for fines up to $10,000.

I'm sure NZ has similar regulations/laws. Here is one example from Australia of a false activation.

Activating the EPIRB may have resulted in the Tongan navy rescuing (removing) them from the disabled vessel, or towing the vessel into safe port (and repatriating the crew), or a hefty fine.

I'm not a youboob fan-boy...but I suspect much of the "altered reality" shown on youtube is very similar to what one might see on "Jersey Shore" or "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

If you’re in international waters, which they were, and a armed vessel is threatening to pull you out into conditions you don’t feel are safe, that’s a emergency everyday of the week, furthermore I would consider any person I didn’t authorize attempting to gain control of my boat (towing it to dangerous conditions would qualify) an attempted hijack.

Originally Posted by Discovery 15797

This has been discussed in other threads...

Here is the current United Nations Convention

THE OUTER LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF OF THE KINGDOM OF TONGA IN THE WESTERN PART OF THE LAU-COLVILLE RIDGE PURSUANT TO PART VI OF AND ANNEX II TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

In summary it states



Here is Fiji's petition to claim the area which has not yet been resolved by the UN.

Hopefully that puts to rest any further speculative, uninformed, and senseless debates regarding sovereignty of these reefs?

That puts nothing to rest, it’s not been resolved.

That’s like saying just filing a lawsuit makes your position the legal one, it doesn’t mean jack until it’s ruled upon.

I’d also hope any ruling would FIRST consider the hazard to navigation Tonga has ALREADY created by bullying multiple small cruisers taking shelter out of the reef