Youthful enthusiasm or foolishness?

[hellosailor]

Ergh...
"our Coast Guard are not cops like USA CG." That's really quite wrong.
The USCG is an amalgamation of many services and purposes, among them, our earlier coastal rescue stations, a revenue service, navigational aids, SAR, and yes, some law enforcement as well. There are plenty of dedicated SAR guys who would just as soon have nothing to do with our DEA and drug interdiction, and plenty of gung-ho wannabees who love to fire machine guns but would be bored stiff working SAR.


But to simply call the USCG "cops"...that's an awfully wide and incorrect brush to paint with.


Now as to this dude in NZ...dude as in stoner or whatever...making plans that trigger repeated false SAR calls wouldn't seem to be any reason to keep him landlocked. Fined, jailed, institutionalized...Sure, any and all of that. But we've been told nothing that indicates he's an unsafe sailor. After all, they found him on his boat, duh, not in distress and apparently not out of beer.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by lateral

"But with every organization that is successful, the quest for power is inevitably the name of the game.

Too true. As you may have guessed by my handle, I spent some time working for the government. The government, like a cancer, is a growth industry.

I must say however, that as with any organization, there are many good people who do truly wish to help. Usually it is those in charge that seek the greater authority.

[CareKnot]

Anyone remember the Keystone Cops? I don't recall reading that this kid agreed to 'check-in' or to be 'rescued' for that matter. By all accounts, he certainly wasn't rescued. He was illegally detained and his property seized.

From what I can tell, the onshore party in South Africa is the source and cause of all the brouhaha. Can any of you see any legal cause in NZ for a foreign national to be detained over the suppositions another foreign national - where no jurisdiction exists and no laws have been broken? This is the kind of stuff you spread in your garden.

If anyone should be held accountable, it should be the NZCG for overstepping their charter and legal authority and this Nervous Nellie that kept making these unsubstantiated emergency reports. This kid should contact his consulate and demand the immediate release of his person and property.

[Nikki S]

Sounds like the reporter didn't really get all the facts straight.....

[tinkrman69]

got an EPIRB or something like that. I have a spot. If I'm late and there is no SOS signal from my spot..then don't get paranoid. Had someone call the CG once when I went to the Bahamas and could get phone reception for a couple days. I was sailing by a coasty cutter and responded to the vhf call they put out for me. They sent a boat over and wanted me to return to Miami. I laughed at them and sailed on to Bimini. I spent an hour on the vhf with the captain of that ship till they realized how stupid they were being. Not all people in authority have common sense or even the ability to think on their own.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by lateral

That said. I did put inform the CG once that I was solo and had minor engine problems and that I was towing myself back to the marina and would call back if I needed assistance. It was duly noted and said they would hold.
They came anyway, without letting me know, leaving me red faced.
This kind of response leads to not calling.

I do regular SAR duties here. When rostered on , we almost invariably go out for training runs. If someone reports a situation like that, we are very likely to head to the vessel concerned ready to offer assistance if required. Nothing to get red-faced about.

[lateral]

Originally Posted by StuM

I do regular SAR duties here. When rostered on , we almost invariably go out for training runs. If someone reports a situation like that, we are very likely to head to the vessel concerned ready to offer assistance if required. Nothing to get red-faced about.

Affirmative, but when CG crew have knocked off work to "rescue" me its a little difficult not to feel being a nuisance. Especially when I have a 3m rib with 15hp.
I was told politely its not safe (or legal?) to tow (alongside) without a crew member on towed/barged boat. Fair enough.
The rationale was that my short handedness could easily escalate the situation and take up the whole of their day day instead of a couple of hours.
They were very professional and have my respect and gratitude.
Fair enough.

Question: How long is it before they succumb to the cotton wool mentality, like OSh, where you need a license to fart onsite.
Hopefully never.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by StuM

I do regular SAR duties here. When rostered on , we almost invariably go out for training runs. If someone reports a situation like that, we are very likely to head to the vessel concerned ready to offer assistance if required. Nothing to get red-faced about.

Hi Stu, I agree that it is nice to have someone respond as a precaution especially if they are out already. A few months ago I was on my friend's Crosby 21 Tug (yes, occasionally I lower myself and go on a power boat ) when the wet exhaust split. We dropped anchor right under the Williamsburg Bridge (who doesn't love the tide on the East River?!) and put out a pan, pan, pan message. We were trying to plug the exhaust port and stop the ingress of water but it took at least ten minutes for the exhaust smoke to clear and for us to really figure out what happened. We let them know that at least for the time being the bilge pump was keeping up with the ingress, albeit it had to pump continuously. Within ten minutes NY Fire, NY Police, and the Coast Guard were all there ready to assist if need be. The fire boat tied up to us, brought seriously heavy duty pumps on board, and towed us out of the current to their facility, which was conveniently right across from where we split the exhaust. They readied their lift in case it was needed, and even put a temporary repair on the exhaust! The Coast Guard and Police were equally ready to assist. The fire department also ran shore power to us and eventually let us leave it at their location for a day or two until we arranged for towing!

The assistance was gratefully accepted, especially for two reasons. The first was we weren't sure for a few minutes if we could actually stop the water and two, they didn't do anything or demand any actions we didn't want. When we said that we were good, they wished us good luck and went on their way.

I think the issue being discussed is the powers that be in the article went way beyond their original mandate of providing emergency assistance, and protecting life and property, or at least it seems that way based upon the scant information in the article.

[El Pinguino]

Assorted reports out there on this.... from what I can work out he had a cell phone and a vhf. Phoning a friend each day on his cell phone up around East Cape? Well that just wasn't going to work and the 'authorities' should have told his shore side friend as much....

No Epirb? Is it an NZ coastal requirement ?... and he wasn't in distress so that is neither here nor there anyway.

Sailing from Napier to Whakatane without fuss would demonstrate a certain level of competance to me.

And 'A novice sailor who sparked a national rescue effort'.... ????

Nanny state indeed....

[Hearts Content]

Originally Posted by canyonbat

I have to laugh about the part where his so called "rescues" cost the NZ taxpayers all that money. I am pretty sure that pilots and crew of those planes are required to log so many hours per month to stay current on their training. Opportunities like these, in good weather are perfect training exercises. Now, in bad weather, maybe not so much.

That is dead on the money. I should know, i was one.

These facts will not deter our progressive-liberal nanny-staters that "feel" differently.

[iancoombe]

This story is so incomplete I'm not sure what's going on, but I will say this, long live the adventurous spirit and those who chase dreams.

[NZGrant]

A bit more info copied from crew.org.nz

Ok, I have read all the links and here is my current take.
The guy was inexperienced.
The boat was not well equipped for this type of voyage
The skipper told a non sailor ashore that he would check in every day
He did not. Turns out it was just flat battery causing coms failure. There was no backup.
Mate ashore reports he's missing.
He is located by SAR and GIVEN a handheld vhf. He is left alone but another vessel in the area keeps an eye on him.
He fails to use that to report for several more days.
Another search.
This time CG is accompanied by police, and via MNZ he is required to proceed into port. As the nearest port is over a working bar ( NOT closed) he is assisted over the bar.
MNZ, using well established laws, restricts him from leaving until he has what they consider appropriate safety equipment etc before he can leave.

IMO, now I have a better understanding of what happened, this is pretty much what I'd expect. His nominated shore contact reported he was missing, and SAR initiated a search as they are required to do. He was found, and the issue was explained to him. He was given a free vhf handheld. He still did not report over several more days. He was then obliged by the police acting on MNZ's behalf to come in to port and they have used their authority to try to ensure the wasted public funds are not added to.

If you want to do a coastal trip, and don't want anyone looking for you, don't do a TR, and dont tell anyone (especially a novice) ashore that you will check in on set periods. If you get into trouble, you'll have to rely on your self, and your on board gear to call for help. Fine with me.

Here is the section of the Maritime act that MNZ used;

55 Detention, etc, of ships and maritime products
(1)
The Director may from time to time do all or any of the following:
-(a)
detain any ship or any ship of a particular class:
-b
seize any maritime product or any maritime product of a particular class:
-©
prohibit or impose conditions on the use or operation of any ship or any ship of a particular class, or the use of any maritime product or any maritime product of a particular class:
-(d)
impose conditions on the release from detention or seizure of the ship or maritime product.
(2)
The powers under subsection (1) may be exercised where the Director believes on clear grounds that—
(a)
the operation or use of any ship or maritime product or class of ship or maritime product, as the case may be, endangers or is likely to endanger any person or property, or is hazardous to the health or safety of any person; or
-b
the appropriate prescribed maritime document is not for the time being in force in respect of the ship, or the master or any member of the crew of that ship, or the maritime product, as the case may be; or
©
any maritime document required by maritime rules in respect of the ship or maritime product, as the case may be, has expired; or
(d)
the conditions under which a maritime document in respect of a ship or maritime product was issued or recognised, or the requirements of that document, are not being met; or
(e)
the watchkeeping requirements specified for a ship by the State in which the ship is registered are not being met; or
(f)
the conditions imposed under paragraph © or paragraph (d) of that subsection are not being met.
(3)
The powers under subsection (1) may also be exercised where the Director is satisfied, on clear grounds, that the master is not, or crew are not, familiar with essential shipboard procedures for the safe operation of the ship.
(4)
Nothing in this section shall permit the Director to detain a ship where that detention would constitute a breach of any convention.
(5)
Any detention or seizure under subsection (1) shall be maintained for only such time as is necessary in the interests of maritime safety or the health or safety of any person; but, if ships, maritime products, or parts thereof are required for the purpose of evidence in any prosecution under this Act, those ships, products, or parts thereof may be retained by the Director for such period as the Director considers necessary for that purpose.
(6)
The Director shall, if requested by the owner or the person for the time being in charge of a ship detained or a maritime product seized under subsection (1), provide in writing to the owner or that person the reasons for the detention or seizure.
(7)
Any person in respect of whom any decision is taken under this section may appeal against that decision to a District Court under section 424.
-8
For the purpose of subsection (1), the Director shall notify any prohibitions or conditions to such persons as he or she considers necessary by such means of communication, whether or not of a permanent nature, as the Director considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(9)
Every person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any prohibition or condition notified under this section.
(10)
Every person who commits an offence against subsection (9) is liable on conviction,—
(a)
in the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $10,000:
-b
in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
Compare: 1990 No 98 s 21
Section 55(10): amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).

I really don't have a problem with this, he could have stopped the issue himself after the first "search" by complying with the reporting arrangements.

I think this is a storm in a teacup, mostly by those on here who don't have the whole story. It's simple. He had a shore based contact, and a report schedule. He did not meet it. He was searched for, found, given new coms, left. He still did not meet the report schedule, he was searched for again and detained - for training and gear, so he does not waste any more of the public funds.

Fair enough in my book.

Nothing here restricts your ability to make a NZ coastal passage in a crap boat with no training or gear, UNLESS you are bought to the attention of the authorities. Then, MNZ can stop you if required. It certainly does not happen often 2x in the last 4 years that I can recall.


Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[CareKnot]

I stand corrected. Good post, NZGrant.

[Basil]

Why is it that members of this site are always so knowlagable an make judgements on subjects of this type without knowing all the true facts. Having been involved in a number of marine SAR incidents of this type, it is normally a phone call from a friend or relative altering the police that a vessel is overdue. They then being the offical SAR controllers in NZ undertake an operation.As to why the boat was taken to a port is not known.
Yes the coast guard in NZ is a voluntary organisation an like all organisations of this type some members overstep the mark.
Is the actions of some countries paid coast guard carrying out safety check on vessels an searching pockets of clothing ( in the interest of safety of course), not seen as overstepping their role.


Let's stick to facts please in the interest of a good discussion.

[CareKnot]

Hi Basil,

My school years found me in constant trouble, especially when given the opportunity to frankly answer what were intended to be rhetorical questions. It seems that I cannot pass up the temptation here either. I hope you will forgive me in advance.

People react to situations for a reason. Often it is because there is something about the situation with which they have experience, either positive or negative, that affected them profoundly. This however should not be cause for concern. Instead, it should be regarded as a teachable moment. I hope we can rely on common concerns to find common ground.

Lord forbid I should leave the impression that I have anything against those good and dedicated SAR folk. As a former rescue diver, let me assure you that I harbor no such resentments. Nor do I hold any ill will towards your country or its citizenry.

You asked, "Is the actions of some countries paid coast guard carrying out safety check on vessels an searching pockets of clothing (in the interest of safety of course), not seen as overstepping their role[?]" The answer is plainly - yes. That is the problem.

Lately, there have been populations all across the globe where civil liberties and human rights have taken a back set to governments taking a 'nanny' mentality, as some of your countrymen have so eloquently characterized the problem.

Without going into specifics about my country and our politics, let me just say that I reacted - rather than evenly considered the situation. But there is ample evidence to believe that there is good cause for concern, in my country and yours. This thread has evoked strong responses from a broad cross section of the participants. I can't help but believe that there is an underlying reason.

You are correct. We should consider all the facts before jumping to any conclusions. But to tell you the truth, I can't recall many news stories lately where 'all the facts' were presented in a cohesive manner. All the facts seems to be the last thing that we hear, if at all.

It seems the news is about generating controversy and therefore generating sales. Agencies are about expanding authority for the sake of expanding their budgets. Nothing is what it seems and that has the feel of something contrived.

Personally, I think the kid should have said the first time, "Hey I'm fine. Tell my friend I'll check in with him when I can and to quit calling you guys." And rather than look to each other to place blame or judgement, let's set up a fund for the poor kid to help him through this trial and provision him to meet NZ requirements. Let's get him back on his boat. It's clear that's what he wants.

Originally Posted by Basil

Why is it that members of this site are always so knowlagable an make judgements on subjects of this type without knowing all the true facts. Having been involved in a number of marine SAR incidents of this type, it is normally a phone call from a friend or relative altering the police that a vessel is overdue. They then being the offical SAR controllers in NZ undertake an operation.As to why the boat was taken to a port is not known.
Yes the coast guard in NZ is a voluntary organisation an like all organisations of this type some members overstep the mark.
Is the actions of some countries paid coast guard carrying out safety check on vessels an searching pockets of clothing ( in the interest of safety of course), not seen as overstepping their role.


Let's stick to facts please in the interest of a good discussion.