woko said..
If the vessel that was being rescued was impounded instead of being moved on none of those lives would have been lost.

I believe in the idea of meeting a minimum standard for venturing offshore.
But, it is not uncommon, even on this forum, for loud protests to emerge against even the slightest hint of more regulatory oversight. (Example: the opposition to having to attend and pay for a 1 day course to get an SROCP license, despite it being informative, concise and an extremely valuable skill to everyone going offshore )
Yet we all agree that for modern society to function, there are laws and rules we need to abide by to accommodate the 1%'ers that will are incapable of 'doing the right thing'.

So, if we want to object to additional oversight, we have no right to bitch when peeps that are clearly unqualified get themselves into trouble, and increase the risk to rescue services, and others, in the process. The lesser the regulatory oversight, then greater the potent for these incidents to occur.
So which is it that we prefer ? The wild west where accident or death is a more common occurence but we're free to do what we want (until the 1%ers force an overreaction from authorities) , or we accept that additional oversight may be required to prevent acts of stupidity resulting in outcomes such as this?

Summary? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

lydia said..
So with Ballina, lets look past the media spin by MRNSW and the local authorities.
Let’s look at the legal framework and the primary safety obligation. (Rescue craft are not exempt)
So for the master, look at the first limb:
Non self righting boat that can’t recover from knockdown
Low AVS of vessel (RIBS have a long righting arm to about 40 degrees that then diminishes very quickly by 60 degrees)
Low down flooding angle (only about 40 degrees)
Opening side windows not designed to survive knockdown
Then second limb:
Elderly crew
Voyage in the dark on a coastal bar where wave buoy down coast is recording over 5m wave height.
But the master proceeds.
The best evidence suggests that the rescue vessel got caught side on, lost windows and down flooded then capsized.
So all predictable given the design and construction of the vessel.

Flame away!

Hits the mark.


The NSCV compliant rescue boat was not suitable for the task at hand.

Compare a typical RNLI lifeboat to the VMR boat.

I am not in favour of extra compliance or rules and regulations for recreational boating. . I have come professionally from that environment , managed ships in class, been the chief engineer maintaining a LLoyds Register Passenger Safety Certification. I greatly enjoyed the methodology of the surveyors, Everything was defective unless we operated it in front of the surveyors, in every mode, in every configuration including degraded states. It stops all bull****.

But that certification took the ship out its program for two weeks a year and was a significant cost. There was the occasional pickup and that was of benefit. But a large percentage of the defects had negligible difference to safety but came at great expense to rectify.


I raced competitively for over a decade but left Australian Sailing due to the rising costs of compliance with greater regulation. My crew and I decided it wasn’t worth it and now we cruise.

The majority of the deaths in this incident came from a regulated environment (VMR).

I think the coroner may find the rescue boat not up the the required standard ( ie needs a higher standard than NSCV).

Likely no amount of additional regulation would have stopped the death of the sailor living on the fringe of society..

Root cause of both incidents appears to be a lack of affordable housing.

Greater investment in more public housing would be a good start.

Greater investment in more public housing would be a good start.

woko said..
A very good point, though extremely expensive and highly unlikely. A requirement to boat ownership like having a license would be a deterrent to some, would also ensure boat operators knew the basic rules like what side to pass on, who has right of way etc. how can that be a bad thing ?

But don’t we have that now and it’s not a bad thing. We have license requirements in each state and the vast majority of people do the right thing.


I perceive there are increasing costs and regulations to being a good citizen sailor. In NSW in many areas you can’t change boats on moorings or obtain a new mooring, most yards will not allow owner maintenance, increasing costs with anti fouling, an ageing fleet that in parts is uninsurable and full marinas as in some places there is no other choice to store your boat.

So we are coming towards a tipping point when part of society can’t afford to sail/be on the water meeting all the rules and regulations so doesn’t get licenced and lives on the water trying to evade authorities. In my region mooring minders are being given away for free (as the owners want to avoid disposal costs) and some of them make a reasonable housing choice if you are broke. Maritime has a busy job chasing down this mob around here.

We have enough regulations in place, just enforce current regulations.

shaggybaxter said..
I don't understand the debate, when did wearing a PFD and swimming become mutually exclusive? That's what inflatable PFD's are for. If you can swim, you can swim with a manual pfd on (I'm referring to not inflated).
When you've run out of gas then inflate the bloody thing.

I can’t swim as well even in a deflated PFD as without one, but there’s no doubt they have their place. My concern is that the importance of a PDF may be being over-stated as a result of studies that use poor data, and the downsides (while limited) are completely ignored on one side of the discussion.


In some ways I’m more in favour of a dinghy-style PFD. They give you some chest protection, they are fairly comfortable, you can move and swim in them, and they don’t need to be inflated. But they don’t fulfil the rules!

Chris
Years ago I chaired an Inquiry into a surf lifesaving fatality in competiton and in reviewing the equipment, the panel looked closely to flotation devices that pack in a bum bag. These are quite common in the USA with fisherman.
So no impediment to swimming in surf but also no help if you have a head injury.
We did not make recommemdations about them at the end of the day.
But we looked.

A quick google search just then and I see they have become much more developed as SUP paddle boards and foiling embrace them.

supboardermag.com/2016/05/02/reviewed-palm-glide-inflatable-waist-pfd/

I got seperated from my windsurfer once, I couldn't catch it swimming with a jacket and harness on. I never considered getting rid of the flotation though but was I getting blown back to shore. Sharks became my main concern tbh.

Makes think of that kid who went for help when he, his mum and sibling were blown out to see on a SUP and kayak. He ditched the kayak I think and swam in because the kayak kept filling up with water. That was a big call, saved his family.

I do remember once a friend at the time, who was a gun super lightweight, fell off his windsurfer doing a trick and the wishbone gently fell on the back of the board and the windsurfer just sailed away with the sail full, resting on the stern. Lots of friends around to pick him up and laugh.

I like the idea of having something inflatable on but will keep on ensuring I don't get automatic inflation. Even though I have my doubts, wearing a lifejacket is a bit of a moot point because I always wear my harness with its inflatable lifejacket whenever I am alone offshore and whenever it is more than dead calm - easy to wear and no hassle. Its getting odl so before I get a new one I should inflate it and try swimming full and half full. I guess I can let some air out if needed.

Time for this thread to disappear....

julesmoto said..

shaggybaxter said..

woko said..
If the vessel that was being rescued was impounded instead of being moved on none of those lives would have been lost.

I believe in the idea of meeting a minimum standard for venturing offshore.
But, it is not uncommon, even on this forum, for loud protests to emerge against even the slightest hint of more regulatory oversight. (Example: the opposition to having to attend and pay for a 1 day course to get an SROCP license, despite it being informative, concise and an extremely valuable skill to everyone going offshore )
Yet we all agree that for modern society to function, there are laws and rules we need to abide by to accommodate the 1%'ers that will are incapable of 'doing the right thing'.

So, if we want to object to additional oversight, we have no right to bitch when peeps that are clearly unqualified get themselves into trouble, and increase the risk to rescue services, and others, in the process. The lesser the regulatory oversight, then greater the potent for these incidents to occur.
So which is it that we prefer ? The wild west where accident or death is a more common occurence but we're free to do what we want (until the 1%ers force an overreaction from authorities) , or we accept that additional oversight may be required to prevent acts of stupidity resulting in outcomes such as this?

Summary? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Pretty sad when we call freedom the Wild West in a derogatory way. Plenty of people die from bush walking in the Blue mountains. Do you want them to have to get a license to go on a bushwalk as well?

Bushwalking? Really? That's maybe reasonable if he was swimming, not piloting a vessel.
I'd posit soemone who can't drive behind the wheel of a 4wd if you want to attempt that analogy.

Kankama said..
I like reading different people's views on a topic that looks like it will keep on happening. I find it enlightening rather than frustrating. But I love talking boats.

Yep, agree. I see nothing wrong at all with dissenting opinions and nor do I understand why peeps get bothered over it.
Have a look at the stats from Seabreeze's own forums....



This tells me Seabreeze's sailing forum, compared to the other watersports here, could do with a bit more tolerance before gnashing one's teeth over opinions not aligned with our own.