Covidiot Cruisers in the Solomon Islands

[goboatingnow]

A couple of things in relation to points Pelagic

When you issue a mayday , pan pan , or in fact make any contact with a rescue agency , it’s the rescue agency that is tasked with deciding what’s a distress or not. Hence the RNLI ( I was a chairman of a lifeboat station ) will evaluate the situation and respond as IT believes as appropriate. This could be a far greater response then you might expect.

Hence it’s entirely incorrect to say mayday is a distress call and pan pan isn’t. These are merely monikers , the rescue agency decides.

It’s clear , that the boat in question suffered failures, given it sailed into an anchorage , it would be stretching things to say they were in distress.

Note that SOLAS ( which does not mainly apply to leisure boats ) is not that relevant here , it’s worth noting the Solomon’s are signatories to only parts of that convention ( mainly up to the mid seventies agreements )

Irrespective national law overrides “ conventions “ , should sovereign governments decide. Covid has shown how such “ conventions “ are dismissed in a pandemic as most countries have overriding public health legislation

Not withstanding the merits or otherwise , the Solomon’s prohibited entry , and these rules were broken , ( and the entry procedures weren’t followed anyway ) , we can argue all we like about the morality of the situation , but they broke national rules and will no doubt be punished in accordance with those rules

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by StuM

There's the rub, is holing up with a buddy boat 25-30 miles from the port of entry without notifying anyone "a request for help"?

Stu you are working on very limited info, and incorrect info, maybe it's just best you say " I really know little or nothing about this situation therefore best not to have an opinion ".

[El Pinguino]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

....

Again , as I said , I can’t comment on the exact specifics , but I remain puzzled as to how a decision to leave was justified ....

So.... are you also puzzled as to why Dale left Fiji to sail to Australia??

I must admit I am still more than a little puzzled as to why Zatara left NZ for Fiji..........

[goboatingnow]

By the way , I also find it perplexing , ( and Ive no hard info they didn’t ) , that if I was aware of the entry prohibitions , but I felt I was in sufficient distress , I’d make sure I issued a mayday to at least back up my claim that my entry was involuntary.

Otherwise the impression one might give is “ I’ll sneak in here anyways even though I know I’m not supposed to be here .... opps” )

[Tetepare]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

By the way , I also find it perplexing , ( and Ive no hard info they didn’t ) , that if I was aware of the entry prohibitions , but I felt I was in sufficient distress , I’d make sure I issued a mayday to at least back up my claim that my entry was involuntary.

Otherwise the impression one might give is “ I’ll sneak in here anyways even though I know I’m not supposed to be here .... opps” )

As already noted: (1) they did try to contact SIG via VHF (2) no other entity might pick up the VHF signal, so there is no "proof" and (3) SIG didn't respond, and typically doesn't because nobody cares to man the radio, and finally (4) Mayday has a limited set of circumstances for use, and this apparently was not one of them.


So broadcasting a Mayday would be useless, inappropriate, and likely illegal.


I wonder if people on this forum bother to read previous posts before throwing their two cents in.

[Pelagic]

QUOTE Goboatingnow
I’m sorry , but to me , this simply looks like bad decision making , ie taking a known risk that you could end up violating a covid restriction. He sailed anyway.

The consequences are there to see

It’s one thing to set off in innocence or where the rules change as you are underway. It’s entirely another , to knowingly undertake a journey which could result in infringing covid restrictions
UNQUOTE
We agree on one thing...he took a risk sailing to the Philippines

But it is also a risk staying in Fiji during Cyclone season.

He did not break any rules by departing Fiji,
He did not break any rules by alerting SI via remote email, that they were in transit to Philippines and needed to water.
He did not break any rules by anchoring at night and asking what would be the proper protocols to take on water, with no intention of seeking entry.

FYI.....yachts are still out there making foreign passages to approved destination.

In November we had two of them anchored in Subic Bay for weeks seeking shelter from a series of 5 typhoons in 33 days as they were heading to Taiwan and Japan.

A number of commercial ships also, but no one was arrested or jailed .

I agree, my nomad analogy was dumb, but you cannot compare yachts sitting comfortably in a marina in the UK to one cruising and trying to get home in the Western Pacific.

Some of you guys need a bit of compassion for a budget sailor

[double u]

"...He did not break any rules by anchoring at night..."
???

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

...There are legitimate reasons to be out on a boat/ship largely based around livelihood or engaged in trade.

A leisure cruiser is by a very definition a “ tourist “ . No journey is necessary per se ( and that includes situations where the boat might be imperilled , as you can always just leave it )...

The distinction you make is incorrect.

No journey by either cruiser or working seaman is necessary when issues of safety or law are to be considered, not for the cruiser or the navigator engaged in livelihood or trade, one can just as easily as the other "just leave it".

We might even imagine that the working seaman's choice to "just leave it" would be easier; at least he presumably has a home to return to. The liveaboard cruiser is aboard his home. He would leave his home and his belongings. And to think that the working seaman has any more right to be out there is just arrogant, to me.

That does not mean I think that the cruiser in this situation didn't make a serious mistake and will undoubtedly pay a price for it, already has actually.

Low water, and engine trouble does not constitute sufficient emergency to stop in a country and anchor without permission when you know it is forbidden by that country's law. Doing so anyhow was a error; a little error, an understandable decision made for sure, but there were consequences he obviously didn't anticipate. Unfortunately many cruisers take those laws too casually. That is arrogant to me.

I hope it turns out OK for them.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

By the way , I also find it perplexing , ( and Ive no hard info they didn’t ) , that if I was aware of the entry prohibitions , but I felt I was in sufficient distress , I’d make sure I issued a mayday to at least back up my claim that my entry was involuntary.

Otherwise the impression one might give is “ I’ll sneak in here anyways even though I know I’m not supposed to be here .... opps” )

Look mate, you have no idea what happened but seem intent on smearing their characters rather than just saying "I dont know" what happened.

Theres two of us here that actually do have the facts and I assure you the reality is very different from the reality you are trying to paint. How do you know they have done nothing to back up their claims?

[Pelagic]

As a general rule of thumb, a person can survive without water for*about 3 days. However, some factors, such as how much water an individual body needs, and how it uses water, can affect this.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

So.... are you also puzzled as to why Dale left Fiji to sail to Australia??

I must admit I am still more than a little puzzled as to why Zatara left NZ for Fiji..........

Exactly. I didn't want to stay or leave my boat in a Cyclone alley. There is limited options , a pit at Vuda is one, I paid and lost a deposit to secure one BUT without knowing I could get back to the boat due to Australia stopping residents flying out I decided against it AND although the boat couldn't fall over, those pits are very exposed at best if a cyclone hit the boat would cop a very good sand blasting.

Also as a deep draft vessel (2.4m) if I stayed I'm limited to places to hide although there is a good mangrove system and local Mariners do an excellent job organizing boats when a cyclone is approaching . Keep in mind I spoke to a number of experienced people regarding staying or leaving Sukha in Fiji (some on this forum) during the decision process, I decided it best to leave due to cyclone risk and unknown future. Most boats if actively managed fair well in Fiji during cyclones, this does not mean its riskier stress free, a direct hit changes everything. Also a larger number of boats in Fiji than normal due to it being one of only two pacific countries being open and New Zealand and Australia being closed (at the time).

Now if I had boat issues on passage officially New Caledonia was shut to me, this was a risk I took.

What I'm saying is sailors like Mike and I had to choose which risk they preferred, theres no risk free option. We take calculated risks.

Zatara IMO just chose to break rules and be arrogant, different situation completely, they were in safe first world country with no reason to leave other than they wanted to cruise.

My point , it's easy to judge when you arent in the situation your judging.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

......
When you issue a mayday , pan pan , or in fact make any contact with a rescue agency , it’s the rescue agency that is tasked with deciding what’s a distress or not. Hence the RNLI ( I was a chairman of a lifeboat station ) will evaluate the situation and respond as IT believes as appropriate. This could be a far greater response then you might expect.

Hence it’s entirely incorrect to say mayday is a distress call and pan pan isn’t. These are merely monikers , the rescue agency decides. ..........

Interesting take on who decides what is and what isn't a Mayday/Distress situation and perhaps worthy of a seperate thread however...

This may be true in the UK but AFAIK, it isn't a universal concept. The captain of the ship makes the call as he/she is the only person who knows the conditions and facts. He/she may well be too busy saving the vessel to pass on the full details to an external body. Maybe the RNLI is within their rights to decide not to assist but they can't downgrade the captain's call. Other assets may respond if they see fit (i.e. nearby vessels etc).

Certainly in the aviation business, if the pilot declares a Mayday, all pertinent ground resources become immediately available to him. ATC will not contradict the decision.

E.G. In Australia, every EPIRB activation is evaluated by the RCC and if it can't be definitively shown to be false, it is considered active and appropriate SAR is commenced.

[Uricanejack]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

At least they didn't just drop in to buy a few mangoes

https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/...-to-leave-niue

Ha ha.

The article describes the boats as a “Rogue French Yacht”
Which arrived asked for mangoes.
Was refused entry and left.

Presumably the rogue French yacht, did at least turn up at a port of entry.
And did comply with existing regulations.

Perhaps if the boats in question had chosen to arrive at a port of entry this whole situation would have been avoided.
They might still have been refused entry. Or restricted but they would probably have been provided water.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Look mate, you have no idea what happened but seem intent on smearing their characters rather than just saying "I dont know" what happened.

Theres two of us here that actually do have the facts and I assure you the reality is very different from the reality you are trying to paint. How do you know they have done nothing to back up their claims?

If you know the facts them make them available otherwise my speculation is as good as the next persons

I have tried to keep my comments about the general motivation rather then the specifics of their alleged illegal entry

I’ve repeatedly made the point that I accept they may have taken a risk and broke the rules. I’m not judging their response on finding the engine and water issue , but as I said they make have to accept the consequences

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Wotname

Interesting take on who decides what is and what isn't a Mayday/Distress situation and perhaps worthy of a seperate thread however...

This may be true in the UK but AFAIK, it isn't a universal concept. The captain of the ship makes the call as he/she is the only person who knows the conditions and facts. He/she may well be too busy saving the vessel to pass on the full details to an external body. Maybe the RNLI is within their rights to decide not to assist but they can't downgrade the captain's call. Other assets may respond if they see fit (i.e. nearby vessels etc).

Certainly in the aviation business, if the pilot declares a Mayday, all pertinent ground resources become immediately available to him. ATC will not contradict the decision.

E.G. In Australia, every EPIRB activation is evaluated by the RCC and if it can't be definitively shown to be false, it is considered active and appropriate SAR is commenced.

I meant that the rescue agencies can upgrade anything they like to a distress status.

It’s not a question of mayday over pan pan , a rescue agency could simply decide its a distress call irrespective of mayday pan pan or a mobile phone call from an onlooker or whatever.

A “ distress “ is not determined solely by the use of a PROWORD